Talk:Interstate 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. 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.
Topics Interstate Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in June through October 2006.
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.
Peer review Interstate 95 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive

Archives
1 – October 19, 2006

Contents

[edit] The "Notes" section

I am concerned that the very large "Notes" section of this article goes against WP:TRIV. It's a haphazard mix of trivia, ranging from historically important construction information, to unimportant trivia ("the highway's spurs have set three records", etc.), to information about spur routes that probably belongs in that spur's article (I-395's length, etc.). Perhaps the historical information should be culled into a new "History" section, the spur information moved to the spur articles, and the rest either integrated into appropriate points in the article or discarded?

I have noticed that this article is not alone, most of the mainline Interstate articles here on Wikipedia seem to have these large "Notes" sections as well. Looking at their history, it seems that most of them were suspiciously copied verbatim from the website ihoz.com in late 2002 by the user "Gpietsch" (compare [1] and [2]) and inherited the "mileage followed by trivia" format of that website. Some of them have been refined greatly since then (compare that old version of the I-76 article with Interstate 76 (east) as it is now); perhaps the rest of the Interstate articles should be rewritten as well.

I agree. I think that these notes could be better incorporated into the article in paragraph form and whatnot instead of a bulleted list. I'll take a look at that site tomorrow and work with some then. --MPD (T / C) 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I went through the trivia section bullet-by-bullet and integrated all relevant info into the article and the state-specific I-95 pages. Much of the info was duplicated already on those pages, not all of it though, for example all the historical info about I-95 in Boston that was in there is now on Interstate 95 in Massachusetts where it belongs. There was some irrelevant trivia mixed in too though that I discarded; stuff like there being more canceled I-695's than any other Interstate, the type of lights used on I-95 in Baltimore, etc. aren't really notable at all, don't fit in well, and don't add to the article.Krimpet 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the notes here. I'll work some of these into the article later today. --MPD (T / C) 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just "blank" the notes section. Like I said, many of the "notes" in the list are already mentioned in some form or another in other articles, you can look over them yourself if you want. I will go into more detail. For example, a couple of bullets mention information that the Fort McHenry Tunnel and Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) articles go into great detail about the history of those crossings, they are not needed in the main I-95 article. The second bullet about I-95 and US 1 rambles off-topic and starts explaining the I-95 completion debacle that's already discussed well at Interstate 95 in New Jersey#The_I-95_gap, so I added a single sentence to the first paragraph of the article noting that I-95 mostly parallels US 1, conveying basically the same information. I also added a whole new section to Interstate_95_in_Massachusetts based on info directly taken from this Notes section. I also integrated info from the section into Interstate 95 in Maine and New Jersey Turnpike.
And yes, I did discard some of the "notes" altogether. The first bullet is a perfect example of discardable trivia that violates WP:TRIV and WP:NOT#IINFO, there are no "records" for highways and this is nothing but unencyclopedic trivia, better suited to a website like [3] which is a collection of the sort of information that WP:NOT#IINFO discourages. The naming of a rap group would be better off discussed at the 95 South article (which is nothing but a stub at the moment). The fourth bullet is completely unverified and unquoted trivia, search Google for "Cocaine Alley" and nothing about I-95 comes up on the first page, search for "Cocaine Alley I-95" and you get all Wikipedia content. The fifth bullet is a completely out-of-context description of an intersecting route in Florida that otherwise has nothing to do with I-95. Also about half of the bullets mention unsigned and unbuilt spur routes that are already covered in a much less haphazard, more consise fashion in their own articles.
If you do feel that any of these notes contain information not covered anywhere else at all in the I-95 family of articles that does not violate WP:TRIV, WP:NOT#IINFO, and WP:NOR, feel free to integrate it into the proper places, but I am confident that I covered everything. Krimpet 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment expressed here by Krimpet, though I have not looked specifically at each of the bullets and what he has done with them. --NE2 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with most of what Krimpet said, and did for that matter. Although I feel that some of these could be included into the article, which should also be fleshed out a little bit. That's why I added them here so they could be easily accessed, even though I could have just as easily gone into the edit history and retrieved them from there at a later date. I don't mind not including these- as they are- into the article. Tomorrow, I should have a lot of downtime. I'll single out what I feel we could include- even parts of these trivia- and let everyone decide and edit. That's how Wikipedia works. --MPD (T / C) 05:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think one key issue that should be considered while redeveloping this article is the way that it is divided into sub-articles for each state. While the page may appear that it needs to be fleshed out further, in reality the state-specific I-95 articles are developed pretty well... but as-is they are barely accessible from this article at all, only linked in an easily overlooked "See also" section, which is a major issue.
I propose that perhaps this page should be relatively short, with information that mostly just pertains to the route as a whole (maybe just the introductory paragraphs that there are now, the mileage table, the list of intersections with other interstates, and the auxiliary routes template (but not the more bloated list that currently sits above it)), and prominent links to the state articles, and the state articles should be the ones fleshed out further. That way, if someone wants to read about I-95 in NJ, they can go right to Interstate 95 in New Jersey; if they want to read about the whole route, they can go to the Maine or Florida article and navigate up and down using the template navigational thing at the bottom of those pages. I think that a separated arrangement like this suits the nature of long interstate routes like I-95, since it travels through over a dozen states, and I-95 near DC's history and quirks are largely independent of those of I-95 through Philly, for example. Also, by clearly dividing the article up in this way, it would encourage contributors to contribute to those individual pages instead of this main one when appropriate. Krimpet 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I originally removed many of the notes from the Auxiliary Routes section, but I received a message on my talk page from User:Jkatzen about said edit. So I reverted because he has a point. I just assumed people would link in the 3di template, but not all routes are listed there. So here's what I propose: We make I-95 a model Interstate Highway article, that all other Interstate articles can look to for a good article. To do that, we should do a few things. First, we should rewrite the intro; it's not bad by any means, but it could use a little touch up. The Cities go into the Major Cities template that is on the WP:IH page, which will then be just under the infobox. Under the main article, we go into a state-by-state short summary of the route, perhaps a region-by-region summary (we could lump New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island into one, Maryland and Delaware into one, etc.) which would include links to the state-specific article using the {{main}} heading under each subsection. The lengths list would stay where it is. Below that would be the Intersections with other Interstates in its current form, including only 2dis. Beneath that is the Auxiliary Routes, listing current and future routes, not including defunct or former routes, and maybe business routes. Perhaps a new way to display that information. We should create a page about all current and former auxiliary routes of I-95 because that would give us a place to go into detail about the former routes, and maybe to fill out that article, add some short info (more than the I-95 article, but less than the 3di articles themselves) to make that article more substantiative, should it be necessary to do so. Now someone will say "why not just use the 3di template?" Well, we could add a little more description to the Auxiliary routes, like where in the state they are, perhaps what their purpose is, and maybe something else I haven't thought of yet. Under that are Tolls on the highway, both former and current, as it is now, and then Disasters under that, which maybe should be cleaned up some, although a lot of thsoe could be mentioned in the state-by-state (region-by-region) sections. Follow that with a See Also section that includes a few more links (like gaps in the Interstate Highway system; it may be mentioned in say New Jersey or Maryland, but it's frustrating to dig through an article to find one link), followed by the rest of the article: external links and references. That, I feel, will make a great article, as long as we keep the information in the state/region subsections concise. Other thoughts? --MPD (T / C) 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See my response at #Proposed rewrite and continue this discussion down there. -- NORTH talk 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  • The highway's spurs have set three records. I-95 has the most "child" highways of any interstate. There are soon to be eight separate I-295s, making this designation used for the most highways. Also, six I-695s were planned, but were subsequently postponed or never built, setting another record.
  • I-95 generally parallels U.S. Route 1 for its entire route, although in some places they are over 100 miles apart. For example, US 1 passes through Raleigh, North Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina and Augusta, Georgia, three cities that are not served by I-95. Also, the southern portion of I-95 (Miami, FL to Trenton, NJ) terminates at US 1 at each end; however, the planned re-routing of I-95 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike to interchange 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike will eliminate the US 1 terminus in the Trenton area. Brief discussions were made to make I-95 complete by building the linking portion on the current site of, above, or next US 1 for this 20 mile stretch as to connect with the remainder of I-95 to make the road continuous.
  • The highway was known as a drug route and was nicknamed Cocaine Alley.
  • East-West spur on FL 528 travels between Orlando and Cape Canaveral, Florida; location of Kennedy Space Center.
  • There are two unsigned spur routes from the Washington area. I-695 is an unsigned route that connects I-395 and I-295; and I-595 to Annapolis is better known as US 50/301. (There is another I-695 not too far to the north, a full beltway around Baltimore.)
  • Originally, I-95 was supposed to go through Washington, D.C. instead of around it. The section through the city was re-designated as I-395; it does not connect with I-95 at its northern end, but does at its southern end. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway is not an interstate, but if it were, it would have been I-295; the section not controlled by the National Park Service is designated MD 295, while the portion of the Anacostia Freeway in Washington not designated I-295 is DC 295 – the District's only "state highway". The Capital Beltway article has more about this stretch of highway.
  • A substantial portion of the Capital Beltway in Virginia and Maryland is also Interstate 95; additionally, there is a very small portion at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge where the road actually crosses through an edge of the District of Columbia in the Potomac River. (This small area is within the boundaries surveyed in straight lines when the District was carved out of Virginia and Maryland upon its formation in 1790).
  • The light towers along I-95 between the I-495 Capital Beltway and the Baltimore city line contain either mercury vapor or metal halide streetlights, both of which cast a soft white light. Once I-95 enters Baltimore, the light towers contain high-pressure sodium lights, which are bright orange. North of Baltimore, there are mercury vapor/metal halide towers at four more interchanges. Light towers are very common on Interstate highways, especially in urban areas, and most of them contain sodium lighting. They usually carry three or four lights, but some light towers can carry as many as 16.
  • Near the Baltimore suburb of Rosedale, Maryland, there is an interchange at I-695 where both highways cross over themselves so that drivers are on the "wrong" side of the road. The interchange has four left-turn ramps directly connecting the two highways. The travel lanes on I-95 and I-695 return to their proper positions after passing through the interchange.
  • At eight lanes wide, the Fort McHenry Tunnel is among the widest underwater tunnels in the world. There are four tubes, each of them carrying two lanes.
  • In Baltimore, two interstate highways (I-70 and I-83) were planned to intersect with I-95, but they were both cancelled, along with I-170 (which is now part of US 40). I-70 ends unceremoniously at a Park & Ride lot just before the Baltimore city line, and I-83 ends in the downtown district. Ramp stubs remain from both interchanges. Aerial photos of ghost ramps: To I-70: [4], [5] To I-83: [6], [7]
  • Originally, a bridge, possibly a suspension bridge, was planned to carry I-95 over Baltimore Harbor, and a tunnel was planned for I-695. Opposition prevented the I-95 bridge from being built (because it would've blocked the view of the Baltimore skyline and Fort McHenry), and it switched positions with the I-695 tunnel, which had also been rejected. The two crossings became the Key Bridge for I-695, and the Fort McHenry Tunnel for I-95.
  • The I-895 Harbor Tunnel Thruway in Baltimore intersects with I-95 at three different points. At one of those crossings (where the two Baltimore tunnels are located), there are no ramps between the Thruway and the I-95 freeway.
  • I-395, a skyway into downtown Baltimore, was once considered the shortest three-digit Interstate route in the country.
  • Also, an I-895 was planned to connect I-95 and I-295 south of Trenton, with the bridge over the Delaware River being a replacement of the Burlington-Bristol Bridge, making a complete loop of Trenton. This was never built, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension would be the interstate in the area if a connection between it and I-295 were ever built.
  • I-895 around Providence was also planned, but it was never built.
  • The Pocahontas Parkway in Virginia was supposed to be designated I-895. However, due to circumstances surrounding its construction (namely, it opened as a toll road while having received federal funds), it was disqualified as an Interstate.
  • I-95 in Massachusetts loops around Boston along Route 128. I-95 was supposed to go through Boston instead of around it but, due to pressure from local residents, all proposed interstate highways within 128 were cancelled in 1972 by Governor Francis Sargent, the exception being the completion of Interstate 93 to Boston. The only section of I-95 completed within the 128 beltway by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation was part of the highway north of Boston to Saugus, called the Northeast Expressway which is now part of U.S. Route 1. Between 1972 and 1974, plans were to extend I-95 along a northly extension of the Northeast Expressway to Route 128 in Danvers. During this time, I-95 was officially routed along Route 128 from Canton to Braintree and along Route 3 from Braintree to intersection with the Northeast Expressway in Boston. When the extension was cancelled in 1974, I-95's route shifted to where it is today (along Route 128), and I-93 was extended to meet I-95 in Canton. Plans for the abandoned roadways can still be seen going from the end of the Northeast Expressway to the Saugus River in Saugus, Massachusetts. Furthermore, on the south end in Canton, there is an abandoned stretch north of the trumpet interchange at I-95 and I-93. From aerial photographs, the planned configuration of the junctions is apparent. [8]
Sign on NB 2 for NB 95
Sign on NB 2 for NB 95
  • Across the Canadian border near Houlton, Maine, I-95 continues in Canada as New Brunswick Highway 95. This is the one of two places where an Interstate and its Canadian extension have the same route number; the other is at the north end of Interstate 29. (However, each of these Canadian extensions runs for less than ten miles before connecting to another highway.)
  • I-95 was recently rerouted in Maine. Before 2004, the Maine Turnpike between the Falmouth Spur (near Portland, Maine) and Gardiner, Maine was signed as I-495, and I-95 followed a free expressway parallel to the east. Now, the entire Maine Turnpike is signed as I-95, the old I-95 free highway between the Falmouth Spur and Gardiner has been resigned as an extension of I-295 from Portland, and I-495 now only exists as the secret designation for the short Falmouth Spur. The official reason for this change was "to avoid confusion." However, some point out that the new signage might be a ploy to encourage through traffic to use the toll Maine Turnpike instead of the slightly shorter parallel free expressway, and that busy traffic heading for much of the Maine coast must now change from I-95 to I-295 before exiting on U.S. Route 1.
  • A small, disused cemetery lies on the road shoulder near Kennebunk, Maine. Although it is less than five feet from the roadside, crews have taken care to preserve it, even erecting a fence around the tombstones so that snowplows do not cause any damage.
  • Someone posted a parody of "Staying Alive" on YouTube called "Stuck on 95".

[edit] Proposed rewrite

In response to MPD's proposed rewrite above:

  • Full agreement that a "Route description" section needs to be restored. I looked through the page history from several months ago when the state articles were completed, assuming something from the old "State by state" section could be salvaged, but I'm not sure that's the case. Here's the last version before someone (myself, actually... oops) deleted it: [9]. There's just nothing there.
  • Totally against creating a new article on the auxiliary routes. I don't see what the other editor's issue was; as far as I can tell, all the defunct routes MPD had removed are listed in the 3di template. My plan would be to remove the bulleted list, since all it does is repeat what is already in the template. The auxiliary routes section should contain the template, followed by a paragraph (not a list) of all the notes about how I-95 has the most spurs, etc. There is some benefit to being able to list where in the state they are, etc., in a separate article, but IMHO not enough benefit to warrant a new article that would probably be called crufty by non-road editors.
  • The rest of the stuff MPD brought up is minor organizational stuff that certainly doesn't seem controversial to me.

If you have any thoughts, let me know. If you like, I can work on a rewrite in my sandbox, even shove it to the top of my priority list -- although my slate's a little full at the moment.

On an unrelated topic, this page is prompting the "This page is XX long" notice, so I'm going to archive everything except the new discussion on the notes section. Just to warn everyone. -- NORTH talk 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Notes needs to go. If we do that we stand a good chance at FA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The notes section has already gone. I'm a little curious about what to do with the Disasters section though.
I see MPD is already working on the rewrite in his sandbox. Good thing I don't have to, otherwise I'd never get anything done. *wink* -- NORTH talk 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah looks pretty good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Although apparently he's gone ahead and created Auxiliary routes of Interstate 95. Please rethink this... -- NORTH talk 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that is odd... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Something I was looking at to move some auxiliary routes (namely defunct ones) off the main article and clean it up, but in retrospect that's a terrible idea and I rushed to try and put something together because I needed to get off the computer I was on. That would only open a can of worms. I finally have a chance to work more on the I-95 proposal, feel free to comment on it (you may have, this was at the top of my watchlist, so I clicked it). --MPD (T / C) 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OH S**T! That was supposed to be under a userpage so I could see how it looked! Oh no! That needs to be deleted ASAP! And my apologies for such a grievous overlook on my part, i don't know where my head was. But you guys are right, that's a bad idea. --MPD (T / C) 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, things seem to be normal now. The Auxiliary routes article has been deleted, as you can see. My rewrite of Interstate 95 is for the most part complete. Here's what I've done. I added the route description, and moved the cities to the city box. I cleaned up the intro a little, just moved a few things to elsewhere in the article. I redesigned the Auxiliary routes section. I'm on the fence about it, but IMO, it's easier to see and gives more information than that there's a spur in a city. Before, some of the routes gave a brief description, while others were just listed. I did not include a description for the defunct routes, because they do not exist. If someone wants to read about former I-895, they can certainly follow the link. In Tolls, I italicized defunct tolls, and removed the Pennsylvania Turnpike toll, because there will not be a toll for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, per se. I-95 will be put on to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but the only toll will be southbound, and that will be a toll for the Delaware River bridge. Thus, no PA Turnpike toll will ever be imposed on I-95. In disasters, I moved significant, but not unusual disasters to their state-specific articles, and I kept, as I put it, "unique" disasters: mainly, as you can see, part of it was destroyed in Philly, and four tanker trucks have exploded on it, which I actually find interesting. I removed the See also I-95 links, and replaced them with the Interstate Highway System link (although at the top and probably a few other times, people may not click in the article, but click at the bottom, that's usually where I click a lot of links), and a List of Gaps link, because it pertains directly with I-95. I believe that's all I've done. It may need a little editing. So if you'd like to look it over for yourself and decide if it's something we should put in place of I-95, feel free to check it out at User:MPD01605/Interstate 95. Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made. Thoughts? --MPD (T / C) 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would place the disaster section in a new "History" section and make the disaster section a third-level heading. Also, I would then integrate the toll listing into either the Route description or the History, depending on the item in question. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Something like what it is now? I think there may need to be a little more in the History section; something that isn't already covered in the rest of the article. --MPD (T / C) 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks pretty good. For the tolls, if we could determine the date that the toll sections were assigned/removed by state, that'd be great. It may also be possible to flesh the toll listing into a paragraph or two, using a brief description of the toll roads in question (termini on I-95, length, date assigned, etc.). An additional idea for the history section: history on I-95 itself, such as dates when the roadway was constructed and such. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your rewrite of the article so far is great, and yes this would make a very good model for the rest of the Interstate pages. One thing I would like to suggest about the Disasters section, though, is that even these more important disasters should be moved to the state-specific articles. I agree that the these "unique" disasters are certainly notable enough to be mentioned, since for example the I-95 tire fire in Philly is a pretty significant event in the history of the road, but I think they are more of a local phenomenon (like the history of the route in each state), and would fit the state-specific articles better.
Conversely, I do think "Current and future projects" fits the main article well, since while it is mostly stuff of local importance too it also pertains to the continuity of the route as a whole, but I think we should make sure that each project is mentioned on its state-specific page as well, where it can also be expanded upon. Krimpet 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and port it now. The history section can definitely be expanded, but the bulk of the work is done at this point, and the rest can be done on the article itself. -- NORTH talk 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with North. The history section looks much more robust than it did last night, and the article as a whole is ready to be ported. Nice job, BTW. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I just finished the Tolls section, but I do have an issue with one. I don't think the J.F.K. Mem Parkway in Maryland is defunct... It's still listed on the MdTA toll facilites page[10] and there's no mention of the bridge as the toll. If there's no objections, I'm going to remove it and un-defunct (refunct?) the JFK M Pkwy with the $5 NB toll. Then I'll copy it all into I-95. --MPD (T / C) 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toll facilities

Just a note on why two aren't there. I don't think the J.F.K. Mem Parkway in Maryland is defunct... It's still listed on the MdTA toll facilites page[11] and there's no mention of the bridge as the toll. Also, once again, there will be no Pennsylvania Turnpike toll on I-95. To quote my correspondence with an official (on the Talk:Interstate 95/Archive page: "The only I-95 toll in PA will be the westbound toll for the Delaware River Bridge". So I removed that reference. While it will follow a brief section of the PA Turnpike, it won't have a toll for it. Also, does anyone have any information on the Trout River Bridge? --MPD (T / C) 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Trout River Bridge is no longer a toll bridge; tolls were probably removed at the same time as the Fuller Warren Bridge. --NE2 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I would think a section of toll locations and prices on the main page would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.243.102 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unique disasters

How are these "unique"? -Branddobbe 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to above under "Proposed Rewrite", near the end, where we discuss it. Maybe not "unique" per se, but I-95 seems to be a magnet for fuel explosions and fires of sorts. --MPD T / C 08:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] long distance mileage sign

  • Petersburg, Virginia — Heading southbound on Interstate 95 past Petersburg before the I-85 interchange, there are two signs that show Miami (which is 920 miles away) as the destination of I-95 and Atlanta (507 miles away) as the destination for the I-85 exit. Signs on southbound I-95 heading toward Richmond, Virginia at the I-295 interchange showing Miami (958 miles away) as a control city (via I-295) were removed in 2001. [12]

Photos: Exit 52 sign; Exit 51 sign pictured right.


  • This sign(Image:I-95 exit 52.jpg) has to be added to the Interstate 95 in Virginia article somehow! If nobody finds a way to do so, I swear I'll add it at some random point along the page! ---- DanTD 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If all else fails, find an article about how the road was quickly favored by long-distance travelers. I just added the picture into Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, although the picture is kind of small. ---- DanTD 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox junctions

I'm thinking of changing the junction list to focus more on major cities. My proposed list is below. If the junction is outside city limits (but within the metro area), use "near" instead of "in".

  • I-10/Jacksonville FL
  • I-20/Florence SC
  • US 64/Rocky Mount NC
  • I-64/Richmond VA
  • US 50/Washington DC
  • I-76/Philadelphia PA
  • I-80/New York City NY
  • I-90/Boston MA
  • US 302/Portland ME

Anyway, this is just a thought. If people are comfortable with the I-x0 junctions, then no big deal. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --NE2 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the "0" and "5" rule on WP:IH was designed to limit the number of junctions on routes such as I-90 or I-95, but now that we have a USRD-wide limit of 10, I think we can abandon that rule and favor major locations instead. That said, that list looks good to me. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Since that's 9, I'd like to see I-85 (Petersburg, VA) included. If so, I'm cool with it. I'd debate I-40 in favor of US 64, but unless someone has numbers on those two, that list is fine with me, too. --MPD T / C 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Petersburg is, however, a suburb of Richmond and my idea was to have each junction be from different metro areas. That said, since there's room for one more, I'm not adverse to it. Regarding I-40, can "in Benson NC" be replaced with "near Raleigh NC"? Benson is technically part of the Raleigh metro area but, not being familiar with local practice, I don't know if Benson is close enough to be "near" Raleigh. --Polaron | Talk 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You'd be pushing it with "near Raleigh". The I-40 junction is about 20 miles north of Fayetteville, and 20 miles southeast of Raleigh. That said, US 64 is fine. It IS a major interchange (they're trying to make US 64 an Interstate between 440 and 95). US 64 is just easier. --MPD T / C 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We have a major cities list to note what cities the route serves. The junction list in the infobox shows the most major highways it crosses. In the case of I-95, this would be the other major (?5 and ?0) interstates. I think a case could be made to add I-76--or I-195, on account of the NJ gap. However, I don't think the junction list should be repurposed--at least not without discussion the WP:IH talk page. (Note: {{Infobox Interstate}} used to list major cities, but by consensus, that list was removed from the infobox.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maine Highways (95, 195, 295, 395, 495)

Maine highways... 495 as stated in article is unsigned... 295 goes through portland, not around... 195 is a spur into old orchard beach.... 395 is a spur into bangor/brewer, and not around bangor. Opinion: 495 only exists for purpose of federal funding (red tape). It does not exist when concerning the motoring public (duct tape). Rkinci (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinuity in lead

The discontinuity has five separate mentions in the paragraph lead. Is there any way to sharpen these four paragraphs? Jd2718 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of users

The amount of annual traffic is some important info that should be included somewhere. --Pkenans (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer prevalence in Delaware - include here?

I am providing here a news citation related to I95 in Delaware and cancer prevalence; the headline is, I think, misleading in that "leading" has not been established (as pointed out in the reader responses to the story).

Summer Harlow. "I-95 leading risk factor for cancer" (HTML), DelawareOnline, Delaware News Journal, 2008-04-26. Retrieved on 2008-04-27. 

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)