Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Lane configurations of Interstates

The article about Ontario's 400-Series Highways has information about lane configurations on some articles about those highways. 2 articles about Interstate highways have just received information about lane configurations; I-75 and I-96 just received info on Wikipedia about it. Will any other contributors fix some flaws in those and describe lane configurations in other articles about Interstate highways? --SuperDude 06:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be a great thing to add in my opinion. CrazyC83 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Differences?

I can't seem to find the answer to this, and I figure that maybe someone here at Wikipedia can answer (maybe even include it in the main article), but... is there any specific difference between an Interstate Highway and a U.S. Highway, other than the different signs used, numbering system, and other subtle details? Why do both coexist? If building new freeways, why choose one over the other? Those kinds of questions - 66.92.0.112 (July 10th, 2005)

Interstates are mainly status symbols, and originally an indication of federal funding. They have certain standards. --SPUI (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not my understanding at all. US highways existed prior to the Interstate Highway System, which was a more cohesive government generated plan than the earlier roads that emerged from typically more localized travel patterns (with the lofty exceptions of roads such as the Lincoln Highway and route 66). The Interstate Highway System (resulting from the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act of 1956) incorporated some of those routes, but the main difference conceptually is the planning that occured on the national scale as a way to provide high speed routes as a cross-country network between all the major cities of the US. In essence, it systematized the fragments and called for some level of consistency in their design standards.

Edit

I removed the pharse "For longer journeys, travel is done more often by airplane." This may be true but it just doesn't seem to belong in an article about the interstate. Telescopium1 14:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Interchange Listings

I have been seeing on many pages, a listing of interchanges in a fairly standard format. I think we should do that too on all the Interstate (and other freeway) pages.

Here is an example (modeled after the Canadian pages, which have the most thorough format):

County Municipality Exit Number Intersecting Roads
County A Central City 1 Highway 20A
County B 15 Unknown Road

If the area is unincorporated (below the county level), the community/municipality name can be left blank. Otherwise that line should be used based on the municipality (city, town, village, township) that the freeway is physically in at the time, not the community served by the exits.

It should be sorted by state, and if the list is too long, it can go on a separate page Interchanges on Interstate XX. CrazyC83 20:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I dunno...on the one hand, it shouldn't be too hard to do for some of the shorter Interstates, like Interstate 280, but on the other, it would be insanely long for the big Interstates like Interstate 10. Also, many of the exits themselves are not notable. Not every exit is as notable as Zzyzx Road! What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 18:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If the road linked is not notable, it wouldn't have a link to it (although if it is a state highway, a highly-notable road like Zzyzx Road or Hurricane Road (the RIRO exit off I-40), or a major road in an important city, it should be linked). Some routes already have such lists, but not in a common format. It would be a long, gradual project. Exits not numbered (and those proposed/under construction) should be included, with the approximate milepost being listed as the exit number, with an asterisk. CrazyC83 20:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I've created the first examples - a redrawing of the Interstate 66 and 83 lists. CrazyC83 04:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

Shouldn't it be appropriate to mention the Interstate 60 film in this article? Elenthel 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Illinois I-88 exists solely for the 65 MPH speed limit?

I have moved this statement from the Interstate_Highway#Speed_limits section of the article because it may be dubious:

During this interim period, some roads (such as I-88 in Illinois) were specifically designated as interstates to take advantage of this higher speed limit.

I really think it is a misconception. Designating a road as an interstate is a complicated, lenghty process, and it is unlikely that this entire process was undertaken just to get a 65 MPH limit. Furthermore, not long after '87, Congress extended 65 MPH limits to rural roads built to interstate standards even if they are not numbered as interstates.

Let's reserach this statement more before posting it back.

Novasource 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that many times - maybe I'll be able to find something official. --SPUI (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's something - [1]. An article from the Wichita Eagle-Beacon October 24, 1987 titled "65 MPH Approved for Route".

A partial list of the roads:

--SPUI (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I got a copy of that article recently (for a project), and it is correct that I-335 was signed as such to take advantage of the raised speed limit. It is now mentioned in the Speed limits in United States article. Nova SS 04:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we move the speed limit stuff?

Can we move the speed limit stuff off of Interstate Highways and to speed limit? If you compare the two, you'll see that speed limit is far more thorough, covers more road types, and is more accurate. Given that speed limits are by far the most pervasive and probably the most contraversial road regulation, I think we are best served by keeping the speed limit info on its own page.

I suggest linking to the United States anchor on speed limit.

Novasource 13:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, the speed limit stuff was moved a few weeks ago. Nova SS 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Contra-Flow

Many people during the evacutations preceding hurricanes Katrina and Rita noticed the cities used both sides of a divided highway to help speed along the evacuation. This is called "Contra-Flow". I started a small article on it, but felt I should mention it here as perhaps it would better be incorperated into this article, or at least that maybe someone here would know more about the topic than me and want to add to that article :) I'm a newb, don't mind my lack of wiki know-how -Leo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.130.131 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mass transit in Interstate highway medians are not oddities

Why are we mentioning these in the oddities section? I've seen trains run in medians in cities all over the United States, including: Oakland, California; San Jose, California; Los Angeles, California; Arlington, Virginia; and Chicago, Illinois. I don't know why Chicago deserves special mention. --Coolcaesar 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; note also that a railroad runs down the median of the Mopac Expressway in Austin, Texas (though this freeway isn't an interstate). It may not be common but I wouldn't call it an oddity. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Feel free to take it out. I thought it was very odd that there was mention of only one train station being located over an interstate. I didn't realize other trains ran in the medians. So is it true there's only one station over an interstate? Tedernst | talk 17:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. DC's Metro in Arlington, Virginia has 4 stations that are in the median of Interstate 66 and therefore some of the station may be over I-66 to allow people to walk to and from the parking lots and neighboring area. A) I'm not sure if that would qualify as having a station over the interestate and B) I don't remember if this actually occurs (as they could go under I-66 instead). It's been a while since I've taken the Orange out that far. Treznor 22:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Vienna/Fairfax-GMU (the western end of the Orange line) spans I-66: [2] East Falls Church is under I-66: [3] Cottingham 06:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Vienna/Fairfax-GMU (Aerial photo) is in the median of I-66 and only what looks like a pedestrian overpass connecting the parking lots to the station spans I-66. Also it looks like East Falls Church (Aerial photo) is in the median of I-66. There is only an underpass connecting the station to either parking lots or other roads, which is either for pedestrians or for road vehicles. The metro stations aren't over or under the interstate, as is the case with Atlanta's Civic Center MARTA station. -- Paddu 20:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case the D.C. Metro arrangement would probably not be notable, then. That is a rather common arrangement in California, where we have several light rail and rapid transit lines running in freeway medians (whose stations are linked to adjacent parking lots through underpasses or overpasses). --Coolcaesar 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pink Links

Why are some of the numbers in the box highlighted pink? Kalmia 10:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The interstates referred to by numbers divisible by 5 -- 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. are intended to be "major" "long-distance" interstate highways, as the article itself says. That is why they are highlighted in the template at Template:Interstates. -- Paddu 13:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Breezewood Policeman sign

Searching on google [4] gives these non-Wikipedia-mirror results that talk about the sign: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13062&threshold=1&mode=flat, (WARNING! the following URL contains nudity) http://bondage.com/topic_id/52127/p/2/forums/topic.html (the latter also says that the sign got removed). -- Paddu 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Total length of interstates

The history section says:

As of 2004, the system contains over 42,700 miles (68,500 km) of roads, all at least four lanes wide

While this may technically be true, it actually contains quite a lot more than 42,700 miles, according to the first external link [5]. The original mileage authorized by 23 USC 103(e)(1) was 42,843, but the total length as of Oct 31, 2002 is listed as 46,726 miles. Anyone find a more up-to-date number than this? Have any new miles been added since 10/31/2002?

NB also: 42,700 miles is 68,700 km, to the nearest 100 km. Mtford 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I-80 relocation

When I saw the phrase: (though a few routes, like Interstate 80 in central Ohio, have been majorly relocated) I wondered where Interstate 80 was supposed to run in the 1947 plan. If someone knows this could they put this information here or on the I-80 page? I can only guess that it should've ran with I-71 to mansfield and then crossed over to Lima and make its way to Ft. Wayne, IN with an indeterminate route from there.

This seems to be the relocation mentioned in Image:Interstate Highway plan September 1955.jpg. Image:Interstate Highway plan August 2, 1947 big text.jpg shows I-80 following a more northerly route in Pennsylvania, splitting from I-90 in PA instead of Ohio. -- Paddu 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Qualification of "high speed driving" in opening paragraph

I removed an apparently growing list of statements that qualified "high speed driving" in the opening paragraph. By almsot any rational measurement, Interstate highways, or highways built to Interstate standards, allow for reasonably safe travel at much higher speeds than any other U.S. road type.

This artlce is only a summary of the Interstate highway system. It is not driver's ed, it is not a speed debate, it is not a public service announcement. Speed debates, paternalistic editorials, driver advice, or pedantic statements on speed choice do not belong in this article. They especially do not belong in an intro/summary section which, by design, needs to be as short as reasonably possible.

Nova SS 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Undo revert from 3/27/06

I undid the revert from 3/27/06 for these reasons:

  • It is correct to remove "false" from the statement about the urban legend. Technically, "urban legend" by itself implies falsehood. A "false urban legend" would be like saying that someone called something an urban legend, but that it's not really an urban legend. In fact, the 1-in-5 thing is definitely a true urban legend, not a false urban legend.
  • I felt like the added link is useful, but I am open to other opinions.

Nova SS 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From the urban legend article: "Urban legends are not necessarily untrue, but they are often false, distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized." I agree with that statement. Therefore, the phrase "false urban legend" is not redundant. In fact without it the article text seems to take no position on the validity of the 1-in-5 myth. Toiyabe 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think my point still stands. Per the quote you found, "urban legend" by itself describes a concept that is "false, distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized." Boundary cases may exist where those qualifiers don't apply, but they are sufficiently rare that it is these boundary cases--and not the regular urban legends--that may need an adjective.
Saying "false urban legend" sounds like you are saying that "one of these would normally apply but doesn't in this case: false, distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized".
Do these make sense:
-distorted urban legend
-exaggerated urban legend
-sensationalized urban legend
They don't in the context of a valid urban legend (i.e., an urban legend that describes something that is truly false, distorted, etc.). In the same sense, "false urban legend" is just as problematic.
I am amenible to a stronger statement on the falsity (is that a word?) of the 1 in 5 concept, but I don't like the ambiguity of applying the adjective "false" directly to "urban legend."
Nova SS 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
How bout saying "false but widespread urban legend"? Toiyabe 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm being picky, and I apologize for that, but in that case "false" would still be an adjective that applies directly to "urban legend," so that doesn't resolve the ambiguity. Could we leave it as is for now and see if that causes confusion? Nova SS 16:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Understood and agreed - Urban legends are, by definition false (although there have been "true" urban legends). There is no real need to specify as false.

--Mkamensek 16:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Distance to Control City

No on the 450 mile distance? What's the cutoff then? (not to be snippy) Mhking 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

451 miles! ;^) But seriously, I just wanted to be sure the "Oddities" section (since renamed to "Trivia") doesn't grow too big as to include "non-oddities". ([6] (Q. 3.4.1) has a lot of examples of "long-distance control cities".)
The 2nd and 3rd bullets cover the only such places in the system. The 4th bullet is a "longest". The 1st was added by someone else (at least the Richmond part) and it looked like that was very famous so I didn't remove it but instead updated it with the info. about the signs being removed but there being similar signs in Petersburg. At least the 920 miles part looks "large enough to be included". But if you are sure there are no other instances above 450 miles, or that the Georgia sign is very famous, I guess you could add your "trivia" again.
BTW how about a 500 miles cutoff? :) -- Paddu 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain the genius who made NYC put signs to "Trenton" all over its Interstates. Most MY'ers haven;t been there in their life. Evidently the generic "New Jersey" was kiboshed by some clueless fed

1 in 5 mile thing

Is there proof other than that sketchy site that it is just a myth? Up until now, I was pretty sure that it was true. And the section here on wikipedia doesn't even come out and say that it isn't true. Someone please say it right if you want to tell the truth (if that is even the truth). → J@red  01:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I promise, it's false. Here, I'll give you a challenge: Find something that proves it's true. By the way, "urban legend" = false. Nova SS 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I e-mailed Richard Weingroff at the Office of Infrastructure, and I am awaiting a response. No matter his response, I'll post his reply here. → J@red  11:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. In the meantime, check out this article I found on the first page of a Google search: [7]. Nova SS 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so he replied saying that there's no truth about it and he linked me to an article that he wrote (the one on the WP page) talking about the myth. My appologies. I still think it should be rewritten better incorportaing things such as how the myth originated, and quotes from Weingroff himself. → J@red  13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Go for it! Nova SS 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Interstate link

I saw an ip-based editor added an external link to http://www.geocities.com/ultimateinterstatesystem; however, I can't find any references that show this to be in any way related to actual valid information about the ISHWS. In fact, the site itself seems to consist mainly of ... well, pictures of interstate signs. --Grinning Fool 00:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The site was really pointless, so I removed it. Maybe when they have actual work on the site (besides poorly rendered interstate shields), we'll relink it. But as it is, it seems to just be some goofy road route fetish site, so it is of questionable value even if completed. Nova SS 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mile Markers / Exit Numbers

Does anyone have any information on the congruence of mile markers and exit numbers - and which states adhere to that schema / which do not? --SatyrTN 17:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)