Talk:Interstate Highway System and Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Soap opera articles by quality log: Difference between pages

Revision as of 03:36, 30 September 2005

Revision as of 03:23, 3 June 2007

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Soap Operas | class=NA}}

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:Interstate Highway/Archive01|Archive 1 (2003 to Dec. 31, 2004)]]:

----

== Route Nomenclature ==

=== Interstates ===

Should articles on individual highways be as [[I-5]] or as [[Interstate 5]]? (Note [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)]].) The only existing one I've turned up is [[I-25]], and I personally find using the full word to be very unnatural. (But then, my native usage would be [[The 5]], which is probably not at all acceptable!) For US highways, there's [[United States Highway 101]], and I've renamed [[United States Highway 1]] to match; so I'm inclined intellectually to use the "Interstate #" format, but (currnetly non-linked) mentions are overwhelmingly in "I-#" format. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]

I support the [[Interstate #]] format, it is less ambiguous (is I-20 the highway or the Visa, etc.)

~~ (dml)

As do I. However, before we do this we should make sure no other nations use [Interstate #] for their highways. Redirects in the form of [[I-5]] can be used for convenience (this shouldn't be much of an ambiguity problem -- [[iodine]]'s isotope range starts at I-108 and ends at I-142 and I don't know of any interstates in that range yet -- besides, I don't forsee us ''ever'' having articles about each isotope). [[US-1]] would also be a nice redirect. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::per [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] & hist, the above edit was 10:56, 2002 Aug 23 by Maveric149 on "my vote"

Well, there are an "I-110" in greater Los Angeles and another in Pensacola, Florida, an "I-126" into Columbia SC, "I-129" connecting northern Nebraska to I-29 in Iowa, and "I-135" in central Kansas; "I-124" used to exist in Chattanooga TN ; "I-115", "I-117" (probably connecting to Prescott, Arizona), "I-120", "I-125", "I-130", "I-140" are all possible. It's conceivable that the range of isotopes of iodine could be extended lower into the nineties or to 165 or so... Nobody is likely to be confused.

As for the regional use of "The (number)" as in California, it applies to Interstates "The 10", US Highways "The 101", or state routes "The 91", particularly if freeways, probably to avoid confusion with the frequency numbers of radio stations that broadcast traffic reports. In California, little distinction exists between Interstate, US, or state routes so long as they are freeways. In some other states that is impossible in part because some Interstate and State routes meet (Interstate 64 and Indiana State Highwa 64) or US and State routes meet (US 70 and Texas State Highway 70) --[[User:66.231.38.97|66.231.38.97]] 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

: '''Seeking further discussion of Interstates, including Route Nomenclature '''

: The topics of nomenclature for both Interstates & state routes have been idle 14 months on this[[Talk:Interstate highway]] page. Before editing here on the subject, if it has been continued or made a standard elsewhere, can anyone direct me where?

: I'm thinking substantial data has been generated on the "Interstate #" format, so i (clueless re Wiki bots) am not abt to massively edit, but i'm prototyping on [[Interstate 91|I-91]] and would like to at least know directions others are going before going too much further. (I haven't looked much further to see how widely Mav has done what he did in June on I-91.) --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 20:14, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

-- response on naming. I believe it was in reference to article names that we used [[Interstate 1]] rather than [[I-1]], within the articles, the use of I-1 format is probably acceptable, and I think is widely used already. [[User:DavidLevinson|dml]]

----

=== State Routes ===

:While we're on the topic... Hey Mav, you work for Caltrans -- should it be [[California State Highway 1]] or [[California Highway 1]]? --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]

::It's actually called State Route 1, but I'm not sure that is a good name for us to use (because of ambiguity and the fact that few people acutally use it). On second thought, [[California State Route 1]] isn't so bad. BTW I work in CA DOT Mass Transportation so I had to actually look the name up. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

:::Okay, I do actually see some uses of "California State Route" out on the net (though not many...) if it's the most correct way, I'll use that to name the articles (Isis, if you're listening -- that doesn't mean I have to change every reference to said highway to "California State Route 1"!). --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]

:::::per [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] & hist, the above edit was 11:26, 2002 Aug 23 by Brion VIBBER &sum'd "Ahh, names that no one uses..."

----

== Toll "Freeways" ==

Regarding this sentence in the article: "The roads are called freeways, but this is first because they are free-flowing, not because they are free". The word "freeway" is actually frequently used to refer to toll-free highways, although I think it also probably is used to mean any limited access high speed highway. I think this sentence should probably be reworded or this point should be elaborated on. [[User:soulpatch|soulpatch]]

:: per hist & [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]], above edit was 13:18, 2002 Dec 4 by Soulpatch on "The definition of a freeway?"

: I read this talk bcz IMO rewording along these lines is needed. IMO the use of "freeway" to include a toll road is a casual carelessness that is tolerable, bcz usually harmless, in oral usage, but not to be encouraged even in oral usage. One evidence of this is that freeway (in my experience of CA, 3 Midwest states, and 2 northeastern ones) is a popular term only on the west coast, where IIRC correctly toll road are extremely rare. They are certainly rarer than in the northeast.

: Thus IMO it should be mentioned here only as being an invitation to confusion. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 18:32,

States that have toll highways ordinarily call those highways by some name distinct from "freeway". Some are called "turnpikes" (although some highways carry the name after the toll collection is ended); some are called "parkways" (although they can retain the name after toll collection ends, and the word has been applied to highways that have never been tolled), "corridors", or even "expressways" -- but nowhere are they called "freeways" in the United States. That a toll is collected at a mandatory stop or slowdown itself compromises the concept of free flow of traffic, even iof the toll booths are hundreds of miles apart. The word "toll" implies that a toll is collected for use of the highway from the vehicle's driver. Any state that removes toll collection from a highway now called a "tollway" would likely redesignate it with some other name -- such as "freeway". If (as was proposed in Illinois), the tollway system were to be de-tolled, then such a highway as the "Northwest Tollway" would need some other name once the tolls are removed, were it to be known as something other than "Interstate 90".

In American practice, tolls are rarely collected upon highways other than the expensively-built limited-access divided highways and on toll bridges, one of the more noteworthy exceptions being the Seventeen-Mile Drive near Monterrey, California. Control of access is necessary for collection at toll booths, and the usual street or road with its numerous turnoffs and driveways would not suffice -- but those are not Interstate routes.

So here's how to avoid the confusion: because tolls are never collected on ordinary roads, we can avoid the confusion from the oxymoron "toll freeway" by using "tollway" as a generic term for not only the Illinois and Texas tollways, but also the Chicago Skyway, the Indiana Toll Road, the New York Thruway system, turnpikes that still have tolls, Parkways on which tolls are still collected, tolled Expressways in Florida, and the Toll Corridors of southern California. Toll bridges, causeways, and tunnels might be excluded unless they are parts of toll highways that continue beyond the bridge approaches.--[[User:66.231.38.97|66.231.38.97]] 22:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

----

== 300-mile journeys ==

The article currently states:

''Most long-distance land journeys of less than 300 miles (for vacation or business) use the interstate highway system at some point.''

Shouldn't that be ''greater'' than 300 miles? It seems the longer journeys would be ''more'' likely to use an interstate. However, I don't know the source of this statistic; maybe it's correct. [[User:Gwimpey|Gwimpey]] 04:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

:Oh, this is from the Nov. 15 edit by [[User:Seth Ilys]]. I think it is most journeys of any type, not just land journeys. [[User:Gwimpey|Gwimpey]] 04:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

*When they get longer than that, people are more likely to fly. --[[User:Xcali|Xcali]] 04:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Vocabulary question==

What does "at-grade" mean in this context? [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] [[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|<font color="purple">Luke</font>]] 02:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*The equivalent of [[grade crossing]] when a highway crosses another road. Basically not built to any sort of [[freeway]] standards. Maybe replace it with 'non-[[freeway]]'. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] 04:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

**I linked "at-grade" to the Wikipedia article "Level crossing". [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]] 05:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

***Eh, that article currently deals only with railroads; either that should be expanded or "at-grade" should point elsewhere. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

****Oops, mea culpa. In hindsight prob. confused with an article about a specific Interstate (I-35) that actually had an at-grade RR Xing. [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]] 06:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV problems ==

Hello everyone:

Can someone figure out what to do about that "institutional racism" passage that recently appeared in the article? As currently phrased, it's far too POV and inaccurate.

--[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 00:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, we should just get rid of it. Most of the criticisms presented are already addressed in the Effect of the automobile and Freeway articles.

Of course, if anyone is in the mood to rewrite it in NPOV, feel free to put it back in.

--[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 07:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== km/h equivalents ==

SPUI, I disagree with your statements "If I'm not mistaken, whenever a country converts to metric from mph, they always round to the nearest 5, so revert.)" and "er, i mean nearest 10, which is what http://www.dot.state.al.us/Boards_Committees/Metrication/primer/primer.htm has". You are correct that if the USA once would come to its senses and convert to km/h the figures would certainly be rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 km/h. But we aren't talking about metrification here! The point is to show those of us who are not familiar with mph what the speeds mean. For that purpose rounding to nearest 5 or 10 is certainly way too inaccurate! Speeding by 10 km/h could give you a large fine in some countries! [[User:213.112.81.4|213.112.81.4]] 20:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supporting my case: Look at [[Autobahn]]. km/h speeds are rounded to the nearest mile per hour. [[User:213.112.81.4|213.112.81.4]] 20:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's really no reason to give speeds to that accuracy. Can you really tell the difference between 55 and 60 without looking at the speedometer? --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 01:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure you can't, that's what you have a speedometer for! :-) Between 55 and 60 you get a 19% larger kinetic energy with all the consequences that has for safety. Honestly, as a European brought up with km/h, figures rounded that much are a lot less useful to me. I have only seen 65 mph quoted as 104 or 105 km/h before. Rounding to 100 km/h is really confusing. It had me reaching for my calculator, thinking: "Hmm, that can't be right! I thought it was more than that!". [[User:213.112.81.4|213.112.81.4]] 11:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:During the 1970s when Indiana doublesigned its highway speed limits in both MPH and km/h, the signs read "Speed limit 55 MPH; 88 km/h". I argue for rounding to the nearest unit. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 12:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

::That's a slightly different issue, as it relates to enforcement. If they marked it as 90 km/h, then it would be legal to go faster that 55 mph at a time when the [[National Minimum Speed Limit]] of 55 was in effect. But if a country were to change over, they'd likely be rounded. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::But we're not talking about a country changing over. That point has been made several times already, I believe. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 12:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

::::We're also not talking about a country dual-signing without changing over. The main point is that the mph numbers are always given to the nearest 5 (unless the property owner wants to be cute), despite the possibility of a more accurate speed limit being determined during engineering. The same seems true for km/h (except in rare cases of dual signage), and, barring any other concerns, the km/h should be rounded equivalently. I agree that it's useful to go to the nearest 5 rather than 10, but anything more precise is useless. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 12:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::I've seen "Speed Limit 8" signs before. Most speedometers and every radar gun I've ever seen are accurate to 1 mph, and the police issue citations based on the speed accurate to 1 mph. I believe it's quite clear that the standard degree of accuracy for highway speeds is 1 mph or 1 km/h and that rounding should be to that level of significance. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 13:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

::::::As I said, some developers do that to be "cute", or to make people notice the speed limit because they're used to multiples of 5. The standard degree of accuracy is 5, except for a few nonstandard cases. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 13:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::::The fact that rulemakers tend to favor numbers that are multiples of five does not mean that the accuracy of measurement or of expression is to multiples of five. In most states, speeding offenses are graded based on how far over the speed limit the offender was going. These gradations are generally expressed as "1 to 5", "6 to 15", "16 to 25" and so forth. Note the use of "1": clearly, the law entertains an accuracy of measurement to unit miles per hour. In any case, as is pointed out below speed limits are precise specifications, not measurements, and so arguments from accuracy of specification don't really matter anyway. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 18:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures]] - "If equivalents are given, these should be to the same level of precision as the original measurement, for example, "the moon is 250,000 miles (400,000 km) from Earth", not "402,336 km"."

If you want to change them to the nearest 5, go ahead. But anything more precise just seems useless. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: As 55mph is an *exact* figure (hence the ''manual of style'' would allow infinite precision), why not round to the nearest tenth of a [[kph]]? Then there would not be a need to dispute whether the number would realistically appear on a road sign, since it would never appear on a road sign as such. [[User:132.205.45.148|132.205.45.148]] 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::55mph is not an "exact" figure. Speed limits are indicated in gradations of 5mph, so "55mph" means "55mph +/- 2.5mph". The km/h conversion would be "88 km/h +/- 4km/h", so "85km/h" and "90km/h" are both acceptable equivalents to "55mph". And in the real world, the only jurisdictions that enforce to within 2.5mph of the speed limit are those that operate a [[speed trap]] for profit. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 19:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::: I think you are wrong. Just because speed limits are given in steps of five doesn't mean that the intended accuracy is +/- 2.5 mph. Let me give a counter-example: In Sweden speed limits are given in steps of 20 km/h as 30, 50, 70, 90 and 110 km/h. Let's say I'm driving along at 120 km/h on a 110 km/h freeway. Stopped by a police officer giving me a $150 fine I say: "Well, I was driving within the accuracy intended by the legislator". Not a very efficient defense. Clearly the intended accuracy of speed limits is less than the grading of limits. As you wrote above, quoting from the style manual, unit conversions should match the original accuracy. I belive the case is strong that the intended accuracy is +/- 0.5 units, meaning rounding to the nearest unit. I don't think the question of enforcement is relevant here. [[User:213.112.81.4|213.112.81.4]] 21:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::I agree with SPUI on this. As an aside, in my experience, it is relatively uncommon to get ticketed for speeding on an Interstate if you are going within 10 mph of the speed limit. Even though the police might write a specific speed on a ticket, enforcement is still largely a judgement call, and unless the car is going significantly over the speed limit or significantly faster than other vehicles (or unless there are other factors involved, like "driving while black", or weaving between lanes), your chances of getting stopped are fairly small. {{User:Bkonrad/sig}} 01:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule when rounding, here is what they should be shown as:

* 20 mph = 30 km/h

* 25 mph = 40 km/h

* 30 mph = 50 km/h

* 35 mph = 55 or 60 km/h

* 40 mph = 60 or 65 km/h

* 45 mph = 70 km/h

* 50 mph = 80 km/h

* 55 mph = 90 km/h

* 60 mph = 95 or 100 km/h

* 65 mph = 100 or 105 km/h

* 70 mph = 110 km/h

* 75 mph = 120 km/h

==Woodrow Wilson Bridge==

Anybody know for sure that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is Federally owned? I did some related work for MD SHA a while back, and I seem to recall it was jointly owned by Maryland and Virginia, although DC may also own part of it. [[User:Toiyabe|Toiyabe]] 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

:If it's false, [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=woodrow+wilson+bridge+%22federally+owned&btnG=Google+Search a lot of people are wrong]. I think there's something strange with the feds owning it but the states maintaining it. I can't find anything on the reconstruction site though. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 20:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

::Ah, here's what had me confused: "Under a new ownership agreement, Maryland and Virginia will co-own the new bridge and split ongoing maintenance and operation costs." From [http://www.nvta.org/wilsonbridge.html here], seventh bullet. So that statement is currently true, but will be false in another year or so. [[User:Toiyabe|Toiyabe]] 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

== 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? --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 06:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:It would be a great thing to add in my opinion. [[User:CrazyC83|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. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 06:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Telescopium1|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):

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align: center; border-collapse: collapse" bordercolor="#111111" width="75%"

|-

!width="18%"|County

!width="30%"|Municipality

!width="12%"|Exit Number

!width="40%"|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]]. [[User:CrazyC83|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? --[[User:Coolcaesar|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. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 20:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I've created the first examples - a redrawing of the [[Interstate 66]] and [[Interstate 83|83]] lists. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 04:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

== Cultural Reference ==

Shouldn't it be appropriate to mention the ''[[Interstate 60]]'' film in this article? [[User:Elenthel|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 (west)|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.

[[User:Novasource|Novasource]] 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)