Talk:Interstate Highway System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate Highway System article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
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)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.
Peer review Interstate Highway System 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
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
About archives

Contents

[edit] Shared two-digit numbers

From the article:

Several two-digit numbers are shared between two roads at opposite ends of the country. Some of these were the result of a change in the numbering system as a result of the new policy adopted in 1973. Previously, letter-suffixed numbers were used for long spurs off primary routes; for example, western I-84 was I-80N, as it went north from I-80. The new policy stated that "No new divided numbers (such as I-35W and I-35E, etc.) shall be adopted."

Questions:

  • are the shared sections considered discontiguous sections of a single road, or as separate roads that happen to have the same number? Currently, Interstate 84 (west) starts "The western section of Interstate 84 (I-84) [...] is one of two discontinuous sections of I-84; an eastern section runs between Pennsylvania and Massachusetts." while Interstate 84 (east) makes no mention of the west road till the "See also" section.
  • If they are considered are separate roads:
    • how are they distinguished? I accept that in practice, most people will have little danger of confusion since they are far apart; but the federal authorities, say, must have some way of disambiguating their names: is the Wikipedia "Interstate n (compasspoint)" standard?
    • was there any objection to the 1973 policy on the grounds that it would necessitate sharing of numbers?
  • If they are considered the same road:
    • are some or all of these planned ultimately to be joined with their namesake into a single road?

In either case, I suggest the Wikipedia articles for each shared-number road should mention its namesake, whether to assert they are related or to assert that they are not. jnestorius(talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The two sections of road are separate roads that happen to have the same number; they are not related in any way (no "I-88, follow I-90 next 800 miles" signs). In Wikipedia, they are distinguished with the standard disambiguation, where "Interstate 84" is the actual name of both roads, differentiated by "(West)" and "(East)". Should an I-84 open in the middle of the country, it would likely be called "Interstate 84 (Central)".
  • I haven't found any objections to the sharing of numbers in my sources, but I don't have access to the meeting minutes either. Because there aren't sensible corridors connecting any of these duplicated roads, it is highly doubtful that they will be joined by a single road. Unlike Interstate 74.
  • As for how to address one road's mention of the other... because there is a disambiguation page Interstate 84, I don't find it necessary to fully mention I-84 (West) in the article I-84 (East). —Rob (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that readers will not end up at the wrong article. However, when they get there, the nature of the relationship between the two roads (i.e. no relationship at all) is not clear.

    • Case 2:
      1. Start at Southington, Connecticut: "The town is located along exits 28 through 32 of Interstate 84, exit 4 of Interstate 691, and bisected by Route 10."
      2. Click "Interstate 84", arrive at Interstate 84 (east): "Interstate 84 (abbreviated I-84) is an interstate highway extending from Dunmore, Pennsylvania (near Scranton, Pennsylvania) at an intersection with Interstate 81 to Sturbridge, Massachusetts, at an intersection with the Massachusetts Turnpike (Interstate 90)." hmmm...does this only cover the eastern section of I-84? how do I get to an overview of the whole road?
  • Questions similar to mine have been asked on the Talk: pages of several of the relevant road's articles

Therefore prima facie I do find it necessary to have a statement along the lines of what I've just added to Interstate 84 (west):

Interstate 84 (I-84) is an interstate highway in the Western United States that runs from Portland, Oregon (intersecting I-5) to Echo, Utah (intersecting I-80[1]) It follows roughly the same route as the Oregon Trail. (There is also a separate I-84 in the Northeastern United States.)

I think the parenthetic statement, while perhaps insulting to the intelligence of many, is amply justified by WP:OBVIOUS. jnestorius(talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is absolutely necessary, I would prefer using {{this}} at the top of the page. However, this goes against the concept and practice of disambiguation pages and their articles. I'll see what other people think about it at WP:USRD. —Rob (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary either; in the case of the two I-84s, I-86s, etc., they're two completely distinct roads with no relation to the other except for number. Going to lengths to mentioning both would be akin, IMO, to giving mention to Kenny Rogers the singer in an article about Kenny Rogers the pitcher just because they happen to have the same name. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure that a singer and a pitcher having the same name is akin to two interstate highways having the same name. I think a closer analogy would be Adrian L. Peterson and Adrian N. Peterson -- and both of those articles have hatnotes to disambiguate from each other. I don't find it the most necessary thing in the world, but I would be totally in favor of adding hatnotes (or clarification in the lead) if other people want to. -- Kéiryn 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but I wouldn't even put hatnotes on either of those articles, since the average reader is going to type in "Adrian Peterson" into the search box, which will bring them to a dab page with both players. And these hatnotes, from my understanding, exist for the benefit of readers. But back to this specific item - do we put hatnotes on every Interstate 190 because multiple exist? No. Should we? Absolutely not - like I-88, I-86, etc., the only way that they're related is by their number. And what does the reader get by typing I-190 and "Interstate 190" into the search - a dab page. And if we throw hatnotes on every one of these routes, then what's the point of the dab page? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP:NAMB. I might agree that it applied if the names of the articles were, say, Interstate 84 (road in the West) and Interstate 84 (road in the Northeast). I don't think the current parenthetic disambiguators (west) and (east) suggest the unrelatedness sufficiently strongly. When I originally asked whether the roads are separate, that was not a rhetorical question: it wasn't clear to me. Even if it is clear to most people, would having a sentence or hatnote you find redundant offend your sense of parsimony so much you couldn't tolerate it to help those of us not so well-informed? To your question "And if we throw hatnotes on every one of these routes, then what's the point of the dab page?" the answer is twofold:
  1. for the reader who types I-190 and "Interstate 190" into the search and
  2. for the target of the hatnote.
I don't care whether the fix is a hatnote, a comment at the end of the intro paragraph, or a more explicit parenthesized disambiguator; but I truly believe the current format is not quite as clear as it ought to be; it does not adequately distinguish "sections of a single road" articles from "same-name different-location road" articles. jnestorius(talk) 03:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Given TMF and Jnestorius's comments, I think the logical compromise is to make it clear in the article text in the lead rather than in a hatnote. I think there is a large difference between a road like I-84, and the numerous 190s. People with a "normal" level of familiarity with the interstate system expect there to be one I-84, but several 3di's. Making the situation explicitly clear, that the road in Massachusetts isn't the same as the one in Idaho, is probably a pretty good idea. -- Kéiryn 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "this is one of two Interstates numbered I-84; the other is..." in the intro. --NE2 11:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that there are two 3 digit interstates with the same number. I270 in Ohio is the Columbus Beltway, and I270 in Maryland is the connector from I70 in Frederick to I495 DC Beltway. The one in Maryland used to be numbered I70N. Unlike east and west I84, these two roads are only 6 hours apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.201.195 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is very common; see list of auxiliary Interstate Highways. --NE2 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State-neutral shields vs. 3

Yes, the map is totally wrong. That's why it was delete. Virginia state shields is still many-the black colr is incorrect. West Virginia is all state shields and they still use normal state shield in state document. Kansas should definitely be blue because it uses normal state shields in state document. Anyways most of the shields still have state name tag anyways. Oklahoma I believe they contractor shields is like made in the later 1990s to early 2000. I believe is post of detour signs post on streets. I believe two weeks ago, all the detour sign is taken out which eliminates alot of neutral shields from Oklahoma, I believe about two neutral shields is taken away two years ago and putten a new shields with state name on it. You might still only now find only few neutral shields in Okalhoma left. Missouri specifices the state shield in state document, however recent years Missouri seems like they use contractor makers to display neutral shields. I think The two-digit interstate makers actually did a poor job making shields actually sign by contractor makers, they don't comply with the sign drawing anyways. Missouri recently let those guys get away more than anywhere else. In Califonia the El Toro and Orange County S18 junction post only one neutral shields on the north I-5 entry 4 month ago. I believe is due to careless making of Caltrans members. Alot of I-5s in Central Valley is also missing state nae shields, maybe is the Caltrans district in Modesto, California causing so many careless jobs in that district office. Over summer I saw a Caltrans office in Modesto, Califonria.--Freewayguy (Meet) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For Virginia, at least three of those on that page aren't normal Interstate Highway shields (i.e. white background). At least 3/4 of the others are very old, and that particular page shows what, 20 shields out of how many thousand in the state? I can find an I-85 North Carolina shield, but that doesn't mean they post them now. West Virginia is also not "all" state shields. However, if you are going to go on a shield-making spree, why not update all the old shields that feature the 1972 standards with new shields that feature the 1979 standards, seen here (1972 on left, 1979 on right). They're easier to read. --MPD T / C 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the map is wrong, and no, North Dakota is mix-shield type. Its sign drawing uses neutral shields but current display desktop to my wallpaper also quite displays state name shields. --Freewayguy (Meet) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this map is totally wrong. They color Kansas and Oklahoma magenta, thats incorrect. I thought the neutral shields on Oklahoma is mostly detour signs post in the 1990s, and those detour is force to be taken away to avoid confusion. Recently, I thought Oklahoma lost alot of neutral shields due to the elimination of detour signs, as of the malform purple US shields. Kansas should definitely be blue because the DOT includes state name print on it. Minnesota is mix shields not suppose to be black on map. I found out some nuetral shields in Minnesota is actually older than the normal state name shields, and the newer shields still place state name on it I think is either I-90 or I-94. Anyways in state at least 80 percent of shields is at least 8 years old so anyways there is no way to tell which state is using what shields. --Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many states is going back and forth after times. I found out the I-264 neutral shields in VA is actually older than the I-64 state shields ones. The time post doesnt mean that day is made. For ex. the Orange County S18 and I-5 interchange I saw an neutral shield post in November 2007, that doesnt mean the sheild is made at that day. It counld be made 3 years ago. Alot of state is still going back and forth, state shields newer than neutral shields. What is going on?--Freewayguy (Webmail) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I speak for everybody here when I say "who cares?" This talk page is for discussing the article Interstate Highway System, not whether the state name appears on shields. --NE2 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Do we need to add {{talkheader}} at the top of the page?
Now, I mean, if you are still talking about this because you want to include this in the article, then you're going to need a reliable source, not you driving around and telling us what signs you see. -- Kéiryn talk 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate Map Image

--72.191.186.183 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC) I am not much of a contributer, but I am mildly colorblind, and when I see the Interstate map on this page, I have a very difficult time discerning between the blue lines and the purple lines. Is there anyone who can recolor this map to have more contrasting colors?

Would red be any easier to see? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for color-blind people, but I would imagine that a RGB scheme would at least solve the contrast problem between the blue and purple.
I think the larger issue though is that for such a small image, it's just trying to do too much. I must have seen this image 100 times in my wiki-work, and up until I read this comment, I had no idea there were different colored lines there -- and I have perfect eyesight, colors or not. (Now that I know to look for them, I have no problem distinguishing the colors.) Yes, I know it's in the caption and I glossed over it, but to me, that's not the job of a caption. The reader should be able to see the color first, then wonder what the color means and read the caption for a legend, not the other way around. -- Kéiryn talk 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate shields

Euh? Are you sure the interstate shields is 38 inches average. The interstate shields don't look that big as I thought. Anyways, the blue shades of interstates hadn't change much ever since 1956. Back of the interstate shields don't usually say how old the shields is, I thouhgt alot of old shields don't have black ID stamps on back, and I thouhgt the black codes is only ID numbers on interstates shields. I thought some shields post in 2000 for instance can be as old as 1988, and just because the shields is post that day doesn't mean it is made that year. And I thought even if interstate-Guide say what day the shield is post that doesn't say when the shield is made, and sometimes they just get the shields from the leftovers of where the DOT buy the shields. In Massachusetts about 99% of shields is at least 8 years old and mst of them is like 1960s to me. Alot of x95s the shields looks terrible, the blue is fading to like light green, and top is fading to like toe color peach orange or vanilla yellow, some shields there looks like a crack eggshell, probably they took out from one place then move to another location.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 03:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Interstate Highways are signed by a number placed on a trademarked[7] red, white and blue sign as shown to the right. In the original design, the state was listed above the highway number, but in many states, this area is now left blank. The sign usually measures 36-in (91 cm) high, and is 36-in wide for two-digit Interstates or 45-in (114 cm) for three-digit Interstates.[37]Z"

This section I think has some errors, I colorblind in navy, I thought the shields made is not that big, 36 inch is about the size of average textbook. Sometimes Interstate-Guide is a little bit wrong and also; the blue background on interstate shields hasn't change much since 1956, sometimes the interstate shields rust over snow and rain.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The current MUTCD has sign diagrams for 24-inch, 36-inch, and 48-inch shields. 36 inches is equal to 3 feet (0.91 m), quite a deal larger than any textbook I've seen. -- Kéiryn talk 07:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And New York isn't all neutral shields, there is still state-specific shields left. The time post doesn't give the shields the right age. Some sheidls post in 2000 can be as old as 1970s.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Kansas does not have the state document, so the KDOT isn't clear about the sign drawings. For the state prov shields is sunflower sign in gold background. The interstate shields normal freeway access use normal-state name shields;turnpikes uses neutral shileds, even California isn't all state shileds. Georgia uses both types of shields, South Carolina still habe lots of state-name specific shields, just the sign drawing no longer display normal state shields anyways most of shields is at least 1996 though some maybe post in 2002.--Freewayguy (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Holderca1, you delete all the pink tag from interstate fromImage:I-295 (MD).svg, Image:I-595 (MD).svg, Image:I-895 (MD).svg. May I ask why you do this?MD no longer uses state-specifc interstate shields, the black shade on interstate-guide is nearly right. I don't understand what's the strong distrust on interstate for? Hawaii I dont know since the older inventory is neutral shields, newer is state-name specific, and the interstate-guide dont show it and no state document.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Because "MD no longer use specific state shields in state document or PDR drawing" isn't a Commons speedy deletion criteria. You cannot have anything speedy deleted unless it falls under one of the listed criteria. It's against policy; if you want something deleted for a reason other than the speedy criteria, you have to take it through the full Commons deletion process, just like you have to do at Wikipedia.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interstates Along Routes

I have noticed in several places where an interstate was built near or over an existing route that the interstate retains the same last digit. For example, I-70 is along Route 40, I-79 is along Route 19, I-81 is along route 1, I-68 was originally Route 48. Is there an actual rule for this or just hapchance that the ones I noticed were the ones that did it? PerlKnitter (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than both U.S. Routes and Interstates ending in 0 are designated as "major", it's just chance. (Besides, there are plenty of counterexamples; I-35 is along Route 77 in Oklahoma, I-44 is along Route 66, when I-49 is built it'll be along Route 71.) So, no, those are just coincidence, there's no intended rule to that effect. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Speed limit and Congressional boldness

I wonder about the neutrality of statements such as, "The initial acceptance of the national speed limit emboldened various presidents and congresses to enact additional pieces of legislation, some of which have little to do with highways or transportation." If this is an observation about the effect of the national Speed limit on the culture or politics of past or present administrations, i'm not sure it belongs here... Just a thought and (maybe) a seed for discussion. (please excuse any formatting issues, i'm still kinda new at this) Nothingofwater (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


You're absolutely correct. These have no direct relationship to Interstate highways. They apply to ALL roads. These notes do not belong in this article.
Here's the removed content:
Federal role in financing
The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to achieve legislative goals that fall outside its power to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in the federal [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. By threatening to withhold a percentage of highway funds, the federal government has been able to stimulate state [[legislature]]s to pass a variety of laws related to the pursuit of "general welfare". In 1987, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] upheld the practice as a permissible use of the Constitution's [[Commerce Clause]].<ref name="sd-vs-dole">{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203 |author=U.S. Supreme Court |date=1987-06-23 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |title=SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) |publisher=FindLaw}}</ref>
The first major example was the introduction of the [[National Maximum Speed Law|55 mph (90 km/h) national speed limit]] in 1974. While its purpose was to save fuel in the wake of the [[1973 energy crisis]], federal speed controls stayed in effect for 21 years. The Commerce Clause was also used to mandate a [[legal drinking age]] to 21<ref name="sd-vs-dole" /> and lower the legal [[intoxication]] level to 0.08%<ref name="23 U.S.C. sec 163">{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC163 |title=Sec. 163. Safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons |date=2005-01-03 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |author=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref><ref name="23 U.S.C. sec 158">{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC163 |title=Sec. 158. National minimum drinking age |date=2005-01-03 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |author=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>
The former of these two is becoming a heated topic of debate, with [[MADD]] being steadfast supporters of [[Legal Age 21]], and [[Choose Responsibility]] rallying for its repeal, on the grounds that the law causes more problems than it solves.<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Choose Responsibility | work = | publisher = | date = | url = http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/home/ | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2008-03-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) | work = | publisher = | date = | url = http://www.madd.org/ | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2008-03-29}}</ref>
Novasource (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)