Talk:Interstate 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of the U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Interstate Highway System in the US. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
This article was the selected article of the the U.S. Roads Portal in June through October 2006.

The writeup on this looks suspiciously like that at http://www.interstate-guide.com/interstate/i-095.html . I know the owners of this site (and a couple of pictures I took are there too), and I don't think they'd be too pleased to see this... Kirjtc2 20:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

(Information possibly stolen without permission from AARoads.com) -- 68.224.91.212

Also removed, text that seems to have been copied directly from the above page:

The East Coast's Main Street, Interstate 95 serves the entire Northeast Megalopolis, while also serving southeastern cities of Jacksonville and Miami along Florida's Space Coast. The highway is an important factor in commerce and tourism, linking scenic New England with the tropical environs of southern Florida. Overall, I-95 follows United States Highway 1, but it deviates from U.S. 1 in Georgia, the Carolinas, and southern Virginia.

The rest of the article seems to be OK, although it needs more eyes checking to be sure. Information in itself is not copyrightable (is that a word?). The source may have been the above page, but if the road is 381 miles in Florida then that is a fact that can be repeated anywhere (IANAL of course). Some of the figures are different in any case, it looks as though a different source was used for most of the article?

sannse 10:19 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why is this article only in kilometers? Given that miles are still used in the U.S., where did they disappear to? –radiojon 05:14, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] only continuation with same number

OK, I got a little confused in looking at recent reverts. SPUI had disambiguated a link to I-76 east and also removed this statement: (This is the only instance where an Interstate and its Canadian successor have the same route number.) For some reason I thought that he had been adding it. I don't actually know if this is a true statement or not, but if someone wants to restore it, that is fine by me -- I actually thought I was restoring it when I reversed the reversion of SPUI's edits. older≠wiser 14:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I sort of restored, and clarified, it. MB 29 is rather short and easy to miss, but it's there.[1]` --SPUI (talk) 14:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's a curious bit of trivia. I also notice that U.S. 75 continues as Manitoba highway 75. Any other such U.S. highway-Canada highway continuations? older≠wiser 14:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
There are actually a whole lot of them on the U.S. Highways. There are so few with Interstates because the provinces didn't care to renumber (for example British Columbia 99 becomes I-5, which used to be US 99). The cases of 29 and 95 were new highways built to serve the Interstates. I believe the only match with Mexico (U.S. Highway 57) was first numbered 57 in Mexico; US 57 is a rather short east-west route with an odd (north-south) number. --SPUI (talk) 14:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though interestingly, a road exists a bit east of MB 29 that once connected to US 81 (US 81 is now on I-29 there). I wonder if that was originally MB 81. It's unfortunately too short to appear on most old maps. --SPUI (talk) 14:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some routes numbered after continuing US highways that I can think of in Canada: MB-59, ON-61, ON-71, MB-75, MB-83, BC/AB-93, BC-95, BC-97, BC-99 and BC-395. BC-101 is also derived from US-101, but it never reaches the Canadian border (if it truly was a connecting route, the only one that would make sense would be BC-19 on Vancouver Island via ferry, and the doubling-back of US-101 would create a "spur" 101...) CrazyC83 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9 July 2005 changes etc.

I made some changes, most notably to the introduction. Most prominently, I moved the discussion about the New Brunswick connector route 95 to the notes section, and added a more general overview of the highway.

(While the fact that the eight mile long Canadian connecter route is also numbered 95 and the fact that it is rare for a Canadian connector to have the same number as the interstate might be interesting to a road buff, it is not the essential piece of information to give as an introduction to the general reader about the I-95.)

I also worked with the paragraph about the gap in New Jersey. Hopefully it is an improvement.

Finally, I think the notes section is too long and need to be either shortened or at least organized. Most of the notes section is about various spur routes. Perhaps we should consider moving the discussion of spur routes to a separate article, or to the articles pertaining to the specific spur routes. -- Ithacagorges talk 00:46 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?!?!?!

This is way too long to be a stub. worthawholebean talkcontribs 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a stub because it does not meet the WikiProject standards. If you want you could change it to {{cleanupint}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) My RFA 04:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State-by-state

I really like the idea of the state-by-state subpages. They should contain the road descriptions within the states, the exit lists, etc. that would be far too long on the main pages. They should be made for the other long Interstates as well. CrazyC83 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this, but I'm willing for a compromise on I-95 since it is long. But here as is noted at TFD, we're opening a can of worms here. That means that short interstates might get split (like I-5) or I-495. Then we get splits between maintenances... we've got to be careful here. Therefore, we should only do Interstate 95 like this, and be judicious about splitting things off. Like... do we want to split the District of Columbia portion off, describing te 0.11 miles in the District? It's an extreme example but we need to think about stuff like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nah, if anything Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia should redirect to Interstate 395 (District of Columbia-Virginia), with maybe a disambiguation up top linking to Woodrow Wilson Bridge. As for further splits, like I-95 in New York being the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Cross-Bronx Expressway, Bruckner Expressway and New England Thruway, those can have even more detailed articles, like we would do for a typical state highway. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's best to only do this sort of thing in cases where the main article would exceed Wikipedia's recommended article length (I'm not really sure what it is, but I know there is one, because I get warned about it when editing large articles.) In this particular article, there is a ton of info from New Jersey, but not so much from others. I think it should be based on the amount of info on that state, not the length of highway in that state. For articles that are under the recommended max length, with all info included, there is no need to split it up. If someone wants to add info about a state, they can just add it to its section in the main article. If and only if that makes the main article too big, then it should be split. --Chris 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
For example, look at Interstate 95#State by state, and then look at Jersey. Although Flordia's I-95 is longer than Jersey's, the NJ guys have written a ton more info about their Interstates. (As a matter of fact, there is no Florida state by state section at all.) As for the other states that have stuff, the New York section I wrote certianly doesn't deserve to have its own article. Now if me or someone else were to greatly expand that section, then we could think about creating Interstate 95 in New York. So I suggest improving your state's section, until it becomes too big. Then and only then should it be split. --Chris 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry - I'll get to Florida. I live here and can certainly write enough for a full article. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on length issues. The only Interstates that such would apply IMO should be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 40, 55, 65, 70, 75, 80, 81, 85, 90, 94 and 95. Definitely not for the intrastate Interstates or the shorter ones (such as 26, 57 or 89). BTW, the District of Columbia section of I-95 does not warrant a separate page; there is little to say other than it sits there, it was built in one shot by Maryland and Virginia and there are no interchanges or unique features there. CrazyC83 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I-95 doesn't even touch land in DC. I'm not even sure that I-5 should be split; the only state that has worthwhile information there is California. But it should probably be on an individual basis, and should be extremely limited so things don't get out of hand. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. No need to split up those where only one state is significant, even if there's alot of info about it. --Chris 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I think something like Interstate 76 (east) or Interstate 78 is a good length, even with expanded description and history sections. It just gets stupidly insane for stuff like I-95 when we cover the routes in detail. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Single-state next/previous boxes

I don't think it's appropriate to list at the bottom a box for "brows[ing] numbered routes" for a single state through which I-95 travels as if this article is one of a collection of stories about that state.

If you insist on having that sort of box, it should be listed under a Massachusetts section elsewhere in the article

Jkatzen 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the box is for all of the states I-95 goes through, not just Massachusetts. See WP:IH for details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Junctions

Since when were other primary interstate junctions not "major"?Gateman1997 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on longer 2di's such as I-95, has been that only the major routes in the cross direction are "major". IMHO, I-85 should be listed as a major junction since it's the northern terminus of 85. Otherwise, I agree with keeping the list manageably short. C.Fred 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I-75 was put on there by someone, and now it's been taken off. What about I-75 via I-595 or something to that effect? Just curious.MPD01605 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added I-75 back (via I-595 as it showed before), as it's just as significant as ther northern terminus I-85 (this is I-75's southern terminus), ending in 0/5. Jkatzen 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'd say it doesn't really intersect, because of the I-595 connection. On the other, that would disqualify I-70, which while designed to hit I-95, doesn't make it all the way there. I'm torn on this one. C.Fred 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my theory: after consulting Interstate-Guide.com [2], I have discovered that up closer to Baltimore, the signs on I-95 do say "695 to 70". Therefore, Interstate 70 should be included since it is referenced on the sign. However, I could not find signs in Miami on 95 that say "595 to 75", or even any signs referencing 595 from 95. So, that said, I say that 75 STAY UNLESS someone can prove that it is NOT on a sign on I-95 that indicated 75 is via 595, if anybody understands what I'm saying. Benefit of the doubt, and I-75 isnt hurting anybody, since it is a major interstate, and the list is still manageably short. MPD01605 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, as this is a north-south Interstate, the junctions should be east-west. Other possibilities include seeing which junctions are in decent-sized cities, or which ones are along natural travel patterns. I-40 would be removed in favor of I-85 under the first criterion. As Miami is already mentioned, I-75 adds nothing new, and much traffic going to I-75 from Miami does not use I-595. I don't see how adding I-75 makes the infobox any more useful. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No big deal that I-75 was lost, but if your theory of "only east-west highways can be mentioned on a north-south interstate" and vice versa is followed, I-10, I-5, I-65, I-75, etc would all need to be changed. It should be that any long interstate with a 5 or 0 (almost national length, of course) that is intersected by an interstate of 5 or 0 (of any length) be put in the box, especially if a 5-or-0 interstate ends at that route. That doesn't put I-75 on the list, and that's fine. But 85 stays. I'm not gonna go start changing all these things to make them reflect that, as you shouldn't go on a spree and tear every I-x0 from an I-x0 routebox. As of now, I-95 is good, and all the others look good, too. Thank you. MPD01605 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'll go change the others in a bit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to advise against that. From WP:IH, "For I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95 , and for that matter any interstate that is long enough to have 15 or more 2di junctions, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0." Therefore, 85 stays, and all the other ones stay, too. MPD01605 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"only list", not "list all". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If the interstate system were a true grid, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that, especially in the southeast, there are some major diagonal interstates (85) and some minor ones (26—and at some point in the future, the 73/74 multiplex). Because of this, I-85 warrants a mention on the junction box of I-65, 75, and 95. And, conversely, all of those are listed on I-85's junction box. Now, looking at that flipside part of the equation, I-95 is not listed in I-75's junction box—it's not even mentioned in the article! By extension, I-95 shouldn't mention I-75 in the junction box, though it may mention it in the text of the article. (By contrast, the I-70 junction box does list I-95.) I say, Keep 70, Keep 85, Delete 75. C.Fred 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Now that still leaves issues like I-10 and I-20. I-20 on I-10's? Also with that, on I-5's, which is relatively short, should we keep I-8? I could put that in I-5's discussion, but seeing as how we're on here anyway, what should we do? MPD01605 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I can live with I-30 beling excluded from I-20 and I-40, because it's such a minor major. I-20 is long enough, though, that I think it should stay on I-10's page. I-8 on I-5's page? If it's that short of a list, why not? To me, the routebox should tell me, in a nutshell, where the interstate goes. It should list every major interstate that it crosses, since they're useful mileposts. If the list is manageably short, it should also list all interstates. For 3di's, the list can be expanded further to US and state routes. More than 10 items on the list becomes unmanageable. C.Fred 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The rule about only those ending in 0 and 5 on those ending on 0 and 5 was to keep the list down. I seem to remember having something to do with it and just pretty much focused on shortening the huge routebox. So an easy way to cut down the size was to apply a simple rule. if it ended in anything other than 0 or 5, i removed it. There is merit to the 0 on 5 and 5 on 0 only thing, but it's not a perfect grid. The long 80 and 90 concurrency is a pretty major thing (they are 2 of the 3 only interstates to touch both 5 and 95). Anyway, as far as access via 3di's goes, they were originally elimnated, but I suppose as long as they are accessible via 3dis of either one. (so hypothetically I-5 to I-10 via I-210 or I-205, but not I-15 or I-115), so long as the list is still short enough. So each junction list should be dealt with individually. Another hypothetical example: say I-60's junction box is 15 long when you include it's intersection with I-50 and it's I-95 connection via I-160, then the indirect connections and similar-direction interstates should be removed. In summary: Since the rule was all about keeping the size down, it need only be strictly enforced in cases where size is an issue. Each exception should be dealt with seperately.--Chris 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-95 exit list

Andyjay729 has started an article for the I-95 exit list. Because of the length of I-95, the full exit list is correctly not in the main I-95 article. Is the exit list, in one place, a valid encyclopedic resource? The alternative would be exit lists by state, but again, what will happen to the states that don't have their own subarticle? Will we just tack "For an exit list, see Interstate 95 in Georgia" onto the end of the article? Myself, I like the concept of the exit list in one place, but I want other input. --C.Fred 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a seperate article is fine personally only because.... well it's I-95, a super long interstate. But there might be a problem with Wikipedia:Article for Deletion/Precedents... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article". Should is not shall, though, but we need a compelling reason. Is there more value to having all the exits in one place instead of across 15 state-specific articles? Do we really want to create separate articles for I-95 in Georgia, Delaware, etc. to basically have some place to park the exit list? Does that headache then justify the in-one-place exit list? --C.Fred 05:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say yes... (srry about the red link) but others might disagree. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say have one page with all the exits organised by states. Will it be a lot? yes. But will it be easier to follow exits through states like New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, which have very few and would just take up space? I say that an "I-95 Exit List by State" would be good, starting in Florida at US 1 and ending at Canada. It'll save from clicking through each state, back and click and back and click. To follow it would be easy. Then in the State subarticles, a link to the I-95 Exit List page would be appropriate. I apologise for the confusion in this explanation, but I'm sure I got the jist across. MPD01605 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my idea -- Start with a new page for an exit list that can be expanded into a whole article on I-95 through the state itself. SPUI's Interstate 75 in Georgia page is pretty short except for the exit list. DanTD 8:49, 28 June 2006 (EST)
Which actually is how the exit list is evolving. As articles are written for states, the exit list portions are pulled off to that article. Which works fine by me. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so why hasn't the one for Interstate 95 in Virginia been pulled off yet? And is anybody else working on an article for Interstate 95 in Georgia? Because if not, I'll start one off. DanTD 11:22, 30 June 2006 (EST)

Heads up: The exit list has gone to AfD. C.Fred 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the exit list for South Carolina. US 15 was mislabled as South Carolina State Route 15. DanTD 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good pick-up. I've verified and changed it to US 15. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I made some changes for South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. DanTD 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland length

  • Prince Georges 34.10
  • Howard 11.59
  • Baltimore 26.47 (no details on the part in the city, but it matches [3])
  • Harford 18.39
  • Cecil 18.50

[edit] I-95 / PA Tpk

I have seen that map, and many designs for the interchange area. Although, from looking at specifically that map, it appears that there will be a turnpike main plaza west of the interchange where they will collect and dispense turnpike tickets, whereas it states that the toll plaza on I-95 east of US 13 will be a westbound-only Delaware River bridge toll plaza. It is also unlikely that I-95 will incur PA tpk tolls because the interchange between I-95/295/276 will be a high-speed interchange, lacking any toll plazas, therefore a mainline toll plaza east of the interchange for the turnpike would be unfeasable and pointless. Interstate 95 @ InterstateGuides.com, a source used throughout Wikipedia, states

"The connection will be a high-speed omnidirectional interchange, with the primary direction changes of northbound Interstate 95 to eastbound Pennsylvania Turnpike and westbound Pennsylvania Turnpike to southbound Interstate 95. The project includes a barrier toll plaza west of the interchange, at which point the ticket system will end. From there east, the toll system will be coin drop. This, of course, allows the interchange to be built without a toll plaza. (Len adds that federal law from 1986 [?] mandates a high-speed interchange.)"

You can go there to check all that out. The "coin drop" system will be the Delaware River Bridge toll. I also emailed the PA Turnpike project with the question of the PA tpk toll, so I won't edit that until I hear back from them.

The PA Turnpike toll was removed from that section on 26 February, too. I appreciate your steadfastness, though. --MPD01605 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. The way I'm reading the map though, it's calling for a westbound toll on the bridge, and a separate two-way toll barrier (coin drop) that would be part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike... I have no clue which one of us is right. Even if it turns out that there's no PA Tpk toll on the I-95 section, though, I feel we should still list it with "(defunct)" next to it, as has been done with the Connecticut Turnpike and the former toll bridges. -- Northenglish 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


From: Leslie Richards <lrichards@admarble.com> Mailed-By: admarble.com
To: MPD01605@<email>.com
Date: May 10, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Reply to question submitted via the PA Tpk/I-95 Interchange Website
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | ::Show original | Message text garbled?
Question: It is my understanding from reading the literature that the turnpike will technically end just west of the interchange with I-95, and the only toll on I-95 will be westbound for the Delaware River Bridge, thus travelers on I-95 will not pay a turnpike toll. I am verifying information that I am reporting on. Thanks for your time, Bobby Hidy
"Answer:
Mr. Hidy:
Thanks for your question and interest in the project. You are correct. The only I-95 toll in PA will be the westbound toll for the Delaware River Bridge, which will continue to be jointly owned by the PA Turnpike Commission and New Jersey Turnpike Authority. A new toll collection terminus for the PA Turnpike will indeed be established with the construction of a new mainline toll plaza (with Express EZ-Pass in the center) west of the new I-95 interchange.
If you have any other specific questions or need project information, please feel free to call the project office at 215-355-3577.
Thank You,
The Design Management Team
Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project"


--MPD01605 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've edited it to reflect that. Thanks! -- Northenglish 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I-95 Disasters

It's hard to tell -- does this article only mention incidents on 95 itself, or does it include spurs, loops, etc., too? If the latter, then a brief reference to Air Florida Flight 90 might be considered in the "Disasters" section. 68.221.113.144 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one might consider the "sniper" attack (John Allen Muhammad) that occurred in Fredericksburg, VA. This closed off the beltwayinterstate for many hours as they searched for the then-unknown killer.

At very least, this should be considered if we are going to consider human remains being found a "disaster" due to the time it was closed... and if highway closure is considered the main grounds for it being a "disaster", one ought not omit the time a truck carrying black powder tipped over 495 (?) Southbound, sometime around 1998-99. It resulted in the closure of all southbound traffic on that portion of the highway for at least an entire working day. 72.150.130.107 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (same author as above comments)

First, the beltway does not go anywhere near Fredericksburg, and the sniper attacks that shut down the beltway were not on I-95, just 495 near Tysons/Fairfax. Second, I do have to agree though that the human remains are hardly a disaster. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"Beltway" was a case of me typing faster than I was thinking. The article is about I-95, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Regardless, I'm quite certain that the shooting in Fredericksburg (near the steakhouse) shutdown I-95 for a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.187.233.202 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC).
If we include disasters on the various spurs, loops, etc. of I-95 in the I-95 disasters section, the section could become far too long and almost unmaintainable. It would be best if the section only contains disasters on I-95 itself. Additionally, I also agree that the section should be kept to major car crashes or the like -- i.e., not the finding of human remains. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to revisit the disasters section. Some of these can be weeded out. Hurricane evacuations aren't really disasters. A truck striking an overpass isn't really a disaster, it's not infrequent. Perhaps the commuter bus accident in Stafford could go, it's not the only commuter bus accident in the country. Many of these are just accidents that happen. Hail storm accidents? Yeah, and accidents due to icy roads happen all over the place. I just feel that some of these are overhyped accidents. There was an overturned tractor-trailer on I-81 last January that closed both the north- and southbound lanes in Harrisonburg for hours. I wouldn't call that a disaster. --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A lot of these are just regular accidents. Maybe include only those that cause complete closure in both directions that last for at least several days or at least those that made it onto national news. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The overpass in Quebec that collapsed? That's a disaster. Bay bridge in Oakland collapsed? Disaster. Chain-reaction accident? Bad accident, but unless it's historic, not a disaster. Also, an editor just went in and changed a lot of info on the disasters, so it would need re-vetted anyways. IMHO, if there's not a citation from Time, Newsweek, or something of that scale to back it up, it's not a disaster. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length in DC

Obviously, it's not finalized yet, but with I-95 having moved onto a new span of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, does this change the length of the interstate in DC, and do we know what the new distance is? The reroute wouldn't be significant for VA or MD but would for DC. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, the distance of the new (currently open) span is shorter than the old span by what I'd guess to be a hundred feet (I'm not good at estimating distances). But the second under-construction span will be in the same place as the old Wilson Bridge. I don't know how you'd compute it due to the angle of the DC line, but I'd take the average of the two spans from the centre of the bridge at the line. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direction of Information

I am curious why the Length and Intersections sections are done from south to north. It seems upside down to me.(Tenorcnj 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

This is done because highways are mile posted in that direction. For example, in Florida, Exits 1-9 are in the southern part of the state in Miami, whereas Exits 335-366 are to the north in Jacksonville. -- NORTH talk 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInterstate_95_d88e.html"