Talk:List of unused highways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Highways, a project which is dedicated to providing information about highways around the world. 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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep and move to list of unused highways.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS defaulting to keep.
ArchiveArchives
/Archive1

Contents

[edit] Cleaning up

This is probably the second or third section to have a title like this, but we need to weed out many of these entries, which is hard to do. We all won't agree on it. Unless I do what I did with I-95 and take it aside, rewrite it, weed out anything less than a 50ft stub or something I can't find useful information in, we need to clean this up and make this article presentable. I don't mind sitting here (when I get the chance) and going through every one of these entries and deciding what looks good enough to be here. But I won't do it without first bringing it up; that would be too unilateral, against what Wikipedia stands for, and although I love and preach being bold, that's beyond bold. Pretty much, I'd say it would have to be significantly seen, either from the air or from the road, be a source of intrigue as to what used to be there or should have been there (whether we actually know what should have been there, a quarter mile of graded, unpaved highway is intriguing, so is a partially-completed ramp that perhaps extends above the roadway, unsure what was going there, but I'd want to know), and a third criteria that I'm not sure of yet. --MPD T / C 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the requirements of prior discussions here and in the AFDs, committments to cite the stubs in each state were to be made. However, people keep adding statements such as, "As you can see in the image, the stub does exist" or "You can see where the old grading went and thats where the former road was". THOSE, along with the images, are NOT citations or reliable sources. As such, I will begin culling out entries by commenting them out, until such effort is made to properly find cites for each, in an effort to clean this page up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You have my support. Using an aerial/satellite image as a reference is flawed, as the image could represent a number of things: a roadway that just happens to carry little traffic but is open for use, an unpaved roadway open for use, a roadway under construction, the remains of a removed roadway, etc. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to help clean the page up. I may be guilty of using words and images as cites maybe because I am unclear as to what you're looking for as far as a reference. To me, a reference would cover language like "this road was intended to..." where as an image shows exactly what is being described. If someone could help me understand, it would help me properly edit the page. Thanks! Bodo920 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and help! I'll try to find some sources on the transportation web-sites I browse through sometime this week at work. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockford, Illinois I-39

At its intersection with US 20, don't they have it graded there for a future road to go north? I seem to remember it from back in my time in Illinois. DandyDan2007 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is graded as a odd-shaped cloverleaf, with one of the loops as a flyover (39 taking a turn to go south). However, I believe it has been like that for a long time and I don't know of any plans to take a road north from this interchange (I am around Rockford quite often, but don't know everything). There is a minor stub of pavement there along with two graded loops and one graded roadbed. There's also a lane drop and a wide shoulder should you want to go west on US 20. I'd add that it sucks to drive through, as the exit's only one lane and you're often stuck behind a truck. Bodo920 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobbs Creek/Crosstown Expy Stub

The maps I looked over don't show any ghost ramp, which might have been converted to some other ramp. Anybody (local) know what happened? Bodo920 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Diego

How should I add the ghost on ramp to I-5 at the I-5/CA-163 interchange [1] or the Richmond St. ghost bridge [2]in San Diego? Bodo920 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore

Found first by Seicer, [3] appears to be the old road bed of Bethlehem Blvd. and N. Point Blvd. Looks like they redid the intersection so that there are separate on/off ramps for Bethlehem and N. Point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodo920 (talk • contribs)

The old configuration can be seen here; the topo shows that there was a freeway there before I-695. By the way, please do not use neologisms like "ghost ramp". --NE2 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but can it be added?Bodo920 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC

I propose deleting the "I-695 terminates at Pennsylvania Ave." submission because it is not really a stub. It's been converted into an access road to the stadium on game days and is not blocked off. All lanes and ramps are in use, including the one from I-695 to I-295 southbound, which was previously closed, and from I-295 northbound to I-695 eastbound. The latter is closed by zipper lanes on non-game days.Bodo920 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance, Ohio submission

This is for Max. US 62F is not a hidden designation, so can you redo your change so that it does not suggest that? The 62T is a hidden designation, which is why I did not change that part. I'll wait for you to see this so you can change it before I change it back.Bodo920 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

--I undid the change.Bodo920 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
US-62F is not hidden? You mean that there are markers along the highway with "62F" in a U.S. shield? Last I saw, the highway was only marked with [TO][NORTH]{SR-225} eastbound and [TO][WEST]{US-62} westbound. Mapsax 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no apparent evidence that there are signs along or approaching the Alliance bypass indicating it as US-62F, I reverted the entry to what I had written before. Mapsax 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Google Maps has it signed as 62FBodo920 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"Hidden" refers to a lack of road signs along the actual highway, not to any route number which may appear on a map or listing, commercial, official, or otherwise - see Hidden route. Google Maps probably has it there due to old information it got from ODOT's Traffic Count logs and Straight Line Diagrams (both of these now refer to future routes as "T" or "Temporary"). Even if it were shown as 62T, it'd still be hidden, because there are no road signs for it. Mapsax 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan (Monroe County) stub, and question

OK, after going through the archive, I have to agree with this comment; I've driven that stretch of US-23 a number of times, and remember no ghost ramp in Monroe County, and viewing the satellite photo composite from I-80 (in Ohio) all the way north to I-94 (in Washtenaw county), which covers all of Monroe County, I see no signs of a ghost ramp, just the wide spot in the median indicated. Unless someone can provide a source indicating that the claimed road was ever proposed, AND that construction of the ramp went beyond building the road with an extra-wide median in that location (i.e., some grading, clearing of trees, SOMEthing tangible!), I'd have to recommend removing the information as a nonexistant ramp. Additionally, I was wondering if this list covers only current unused highways, or if it includes former ones that have since been resolved? If so, I can think of at least two and possibly three examples in Michigan that lasted many years before finally being connected and put into service. (The first was the extra mile of I-69 that MDOT built north of the I-94 interchange when the FHWA plan was for I-69 to terminate there, including its connecting ramps to I-94; the second would have been the sections of I-69 between I-94 and Lansing that sat as graded, unpaved, unused stubs in the 1980s while MDOT was trying to acquire the land between them; the third would be the stub mainline (less than one mile) of I-94 built in 1963 and not put into service until 1972 because of the delays on the part of the Indiana DOT in constructing its connecting section in Indiana.) Rdfox 76 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I put in a citation about the Monroe Cty stub in question. To answer your other question, former unused highways that have been resolved are relevant to this article, per the definition of "stub" in the description above as well as per the discussion, but you have to have references to add them to the article. I've been moving through, trying to add citations and mark where they are needed, so please don't add anything that doesn't have a reference.Bodo920 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer; I know about Wiki's citation rules. I'll put in the ones I can cite as soon as I find the reference URLs again. Rdfox 76 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I really wish there was some sort of picture for the I-69 one you put in. Do you know of any? I found something that visually supports the I-94 dead end.Bodo920 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll poke around and see if I can find at least an early I-system map showing I-69 ending at I-94. Dunno if there'd be any satellite or aerial photos of it, given that it was only in that situation between 1970 and 1972. Rdfox 76 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting WAY too big

...guys, I just noticed, this article is over 150k long; Wiki recommends articles should be around 15k long on average, and no more than roughly 50k at a maximum. As good as this article is, maybe we need to start breaking it up a bit--for example, separate articles for at least some US states, since several of them are getting pretty darned long on their own. Comments? Suggestions? Rdfox 76 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, even though I defended this article through two AfDs, I think we should migrate all this to the appropriate road articles, then delete. On sources: a built-but-unused portion of a highway/no-longer-used portion being stated as existing does not require more than a map as long as it can be proven that it exists. However, stating what it was (sans obviousness) or what it could have been definitely requires some sort of source. So consider moving all this, and if we do, we need sources. --MPD T / C 15:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still working on getting sources for all of the submissions, and I am pretty sure I'm just about the only one. I like the idea of dividing into states, as that's what is done for specific information for interstates within a state. It would be pretty consistent among road articles. I propose we set a date for all existing submissions to get sources attached to them as a deadline. Once a state has all of its submissions cited or with a map/picture if there's not any info needed further, they should get moved to their specific state page. What do you think? I can continue going after sources if someone wants to start creating state-specific articles for completed states. I think, as of this date, I'm through Michigan.Bodo920 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is way too long, approaching 250kb. --Holderca1 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Half the time I try to save it on AWB it gives me an error. I still don't think this list is necessary, and I'm considering adding it to Category:Articles with too many examples :) --NE2 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is up to #8 on the list of longest articles. --Holderca1 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this do not help because it adds a LOT of size to something that could be much shorter. I think there was a rough consensus in /Archive 1 that construction projects didn't count. By consensus, I mean that edits were made, people made comments, and nobody challenged, which to me seems to mean a consensus because it was accepted. I still feel we should move these to the appropriate articles and get rid of this one. This is very maintenance-heavy. --MPD T / C 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting

I'm proposing that this article be split into state/country speicfic articles with this page retained as an disambig. Mbisanz (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support -- As I said, this page is five times the maximum recommended size. I'd recommend a separate subarticle for each section that has more than three sourced items; leave the ones with fewer than that (e.g., Nebraska, Germany, New Zealand) in the main article. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll take on the UK part once it splits, to make sure it is referenced. We also have bits on List of motorways in the United Kingdom that I think can be merged to into this. It's all a bit all over the place at the moment. Regan123 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Support: A country specific split would probably work best. I don't want to be the one doing a stub page for each state for one or two stubs :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Country Split: Done So I'm wondering if we're allowed to do groups of states or if there would need to be state specific articles? Mbisanz (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My only problem with state specific articles is that most will only be populated with just a handful of bullet points. I think a "List of unused highways in the country" would work out just as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think any of this is necessary now; let's just put the examples in the route articles, and eliminate this page. --MPD T / C 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Way to not have consensus, and now have many problem articles. --MPD T / C 03:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw it had been through at least 3 AFDs, so it didn't seem like it could be eliminated. Splitting on the basis of country seemed a reasonable alternative. What problems articles are you referring to? did I format/transfer something incorrectly? Mbisanz (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)