Talk:Interstate 93/Archive 1

Archive 1

Franconia Notch

Didn't the FHWA officially recognize the Parkway as part of I-93 in 2004, due to the fact that there would never be a full freeway through the region?

Tollbooth

It is incorrect to state there are no tolls on the highway as a major toll booth is set up near Exit 11 in New Hampshire. This is refered to as the Hooksett tolls.

Fixed Stoneice02 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Junctions

I noticed that SPUI removed the following from the "Major Junctions" in the Route Box:

I-95 in Woburn, MA
I-495 in Lawrence, MA
NH-101 in Manchester, NH<

The explination given was "remove minor junctions." I am at a loss for how intersections with I-95 or I-495 are not considered major when they are the ring roads around Metro Boston. Also, Route 101 in New Hampshire is the major east-west road in Southern New Hampshire, connecting Porstmouth, Manchester, Keene and all the communities in between. Is there any agreed upon criteria for what constitutes a "major" as opposed to a "minor" junction, or is this just a subjective standard? Assawyer 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I-95 should go back. The rest is probably minor. We're going with 2dis only except for short interstates. Maybe I-93 fits in there... but definitely I-95 should go back. I-495 maybe, but NH-101- no. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What facts do you have supporting your position? Again I ask is there a standard for determining what constitues major as opposed to minor junctions? Assawyer 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think either off WP:IH or Template talk:Routeboxint. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that answered my questions. I suppose Route 101 would only be added if there was a compelling reason for adding it (as is allowed by the guidelines in WP:IH) since it is a state route. I would argue that it is the premire state route which is not dually signed as an Interstate or US Highway. Though I know others will disagree with including it. Assawyer 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed I-95 as we already have the south end at I-95. The junction box is supposed to give a general idea of where the route goes (hence my change of Canton to "near Boston"), not give details that can be given in the article and don't do much to that end. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Per the Interstate Wikiproject. Primary 2di meetings such as 95/93 in Woburn should be on there. It doesn't matter that they meet more then one time. Both meetings should be on there. JohnnyBGood t c 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exit list

Shields are shown at intersections with other Interstates.

Number		Mile	Destinations	Notes
	Old
Massachusetts
			Interstate 95 north/U.S. Route 1 south - Dedham/Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Route 128 north)	southbound exit and northbound entrance; US 1 joins northbound and leaves southbound
1	63		Interstate 95 south - Providence, Rhode Island	southbound exit and northbound entrance
2	64		Route 138 - Stoughton/Milton	split into 2A and 2B; very old exits 60 and 61
3	65		Ponkapoag Trail - Houghton's Pond
4	66		Route 24 south - Brockton/Fall River
5	67		Route 28 - Randolph/Milton	split into 5A and 5B
6	68		Route 37 - Braintree/Holbrook
7	69 25		Route 3 south - Braintree/Cape Cod	Route 3 joins northbound and leaves southbound
8	24		Furnace Brook Parkway - Quincy
9	23		Adams Street - Milton/North Quincy	northbound exit and southbound entrance
9	23		Bryant Avenue - West Quincy	southbound exit and northbound entrance
10	22		Squantum Street - Milton	southbound exit only
11A	21S		Granite Avenue - East Milton	southbound exit and northbound entrance
11B	21N		to Route 203 - Granite Avenue/Ashmont	exit 11 northbound; no northbound entrance
12	20		Route 3A south - Neponset/Quincy	no northbound exit
13	19		Freeport Street - Dorchester	northbound exit only
14	18		Morrissey Boulevard - J.F.K. Library	northbound exit and southbound entrance
15	17		Columbia Road - Edward Everett Square/J.F.K. Library
16	16		Southampton Street - Andrew Square
18	14		Frontage Road/Massachusetts Avenue - Roxbury/Andrew Square
20			Interstate 90 - Logan Airport/Worcester/South Station	northbound exit and southbound entrance
20			Interstate 90 west/MassPike - South Station	southbound exit and northbound entrance
22			Surface Road	southbound exit and northbound entrance
23			Purchase Street	southbound exit and northbound entrance
23			Government Center	northbound exit and southbound entrance
24			Route 1A - Logan Airport/Government Center	southbound exit and northbound entrance; split into 24A (Government Center) and 24B (Route 1A)
26			Route 3 north/Route 28 - Storrow Drive/North Station	Route 3 joins southbound and leaves northbound
27	1		U.S. Route 1 north - Tobin Bridge/Revere	northbound exit and southbound entrance; US 1 joins southbound and leaves northbound
28	2		to Route 99 - Sullivan Square/Somerville	northbound exit and southbound entrance
28	2		Sullivan Square/Charlestown	southbound exit and northbound entrance

Article Assessments

I assessed this article as a B for Boston and Massachusetts WikiProjects. It is well written, has adequate sources and confirms to the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Cite Guidelines.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Mass Pike shield.png

The image Image:Mass Pike shield.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bostonroads.com externals

I removed the name bostonroads.com from name, still leaving the spam site itself. It may have useful info. If another editor decides otherwise, fine. Then please notify spam-mer cause he is or will be doing this to all the articles. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it is truly intentional spam. http://www.nycroads.com/about/ and other related sites are edited and operated by Steve Anderson who lists his address as Forest Hills, NY in the Whois data while the IP editor who added these and other references to bostonroads.com is located in Durham, North Carolina[1]. I think the references were innocently added over a few days about four years ago by a relatively inexperienced editor who simply wrote the reference that way without meaning to spam the page. I see no reason anyone would object to the removal as you did here. Sswonk (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 16:30, 25 November 2009 Rich Farmbrough version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to enforce a stub there. Not translated is the list of exits.--Wing (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of legislators

I agree with the other editors who have attempted to remove a list of politicians' names opposed to a failed proposal to fund the widening of the highway with tolls. It constitutes unnecessary clutter of the article. For a dead proposal that is rapidly fading into obscurity, to list a few people who were opposed to it provides no useful information to general readers but merely serves to pat a couple of selected individuals on their backs. The previous sentence, "The proposal faced opposition from state legislators in both states who claimed the tolls would cause severe congestion in the area and lead to an economic burden to local residents.", says all that is needed.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a valid reason to keep it. By only stating that there were members of the Massachusetts Legislature who opposed the project is problematic. The inclusion of some of the specific individuals who opposed the project avoids the {{who}} tag and any accompanying claims of weasel words. The reasons for deletion of the information because there are readers don't care who opposed it is spurious because Wikipedia guidelines list things to avoid when writing an article, and formatting claims in the manner such as found in the proposed changes run afoul of this. In fact, there are WP editors and contributors who specifically look for that type of editorial error in articles. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase was "...Massachusetts state senator Robert Hedlund, (R-Weymouth) and NH representative Frank Sapareto, (R-Derry)..." (opposed the move). The problem is one of due weight at this point.

We had something similar in a state article recently. The US Supreme Court threw out a state law which the state had vigorously supported. An editor tried to say that "Joe Doaks didn't like that and thought the Supreme Court was stupid" or whatever. The problem at this level is that a US Supreme Court decision is big stuff. In that article,we can only say that "the legislature passed a law to circumvent the ruling" or something commensurate with the action. Joe Doaks not liking it, is of no value to the article at this point.

Here we have already said that the legislatures "didn't like it." We limit the naming of legislators to two, for some unknown and non-obvious reason, except it was probably "in the article" which was terribly significant to the media that published it. But it isn't at all significant to any reader outside the immediate area that those two, by name, "didn't like it." Maybe, the federal legislator was important enough to keep in the article. Maybe he will carry some weight. But the legislators are out of it, at this point. And no reader from as close as Pennsylvania, much less Thailand, is going to care. It is a distraction. Student7 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not the case, as this is not a case of WP:Undue as you claim. If there was significantly more content about the individuals who were opposed to the work then that would be the case. However this isn't a case where the whole legislature was against the project, only certain members. By listing an example of some of those who were opposing the proposal, we avoid the issue I listed earlier. Further, you should leave the text in place until such time that this discussion has come to consensus for in- or exclusion of the data. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The list is definitely cruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It needs to go. --Rschen7754 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In my road article writing, I have only mentioned politicians by name when they the leader of the movement for/against the highway. For example, though the articles Interstate 70 in Colorado and Interstate 70 in Utah discuss at length the political infighting between the 2 states and the feds over the route, only one politician in each article is listed by name. I don't see the need for more than that here. However, my bigger issue with this paragraph is the listing of the current price of the tolls. This guarantees the article will be "obsolete ready" in just a few months. IMO toll prices should NEVER be mentioned as they are guaranteed to date the article and require more maintenance. Dave (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter who is for or against it? To me, it sounds like adding the names is politically motivated. In that case, it's POV and should be gutted on sight. –Fredddie™ 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no POV as the list is of persons from both sides of the aisle. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I said POV, not partisan. Put yourself in the shoes of a legislator who voted against the proposal. If you found this article and saw some names who voted no, wouldn't you wonder why your name isn't liated. You voted no as well and your vote counts the same as theirs. I'm saying it's POV to give those legislators a pat on the back but not everybody who voted no. Actually, it's even more POV to give any side a pat on the back for any reason. Also, state and US legislators vote on hundreds of bills and amendments each year, what makes this one important enough to get a mention? That's another side of the undue weight argument. –Fredddie™ 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why we need to list the people who opposed the proposal. Its enough to just say that there was opposition. Dough4872 01:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was a clear leader in the opposition, then that person's name may be worthy of a mention. Listing some of the legislators who opposed it isn't really adding value, especially if each legislature opposed it based on their own agenda and were not part of an organized group. Dave (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the legislator's role in the aspect of the road's history was so important that the road was officially named after the lawmaker, I say keep the names out as a general rule, and most certainly leave out the party and district parenthetical label. The way I see it, any controversy regarding public policy around the road should be cited to a news source that readers with a particular interest in the controversy could follow off site for further information. If the reputable news source reports in detail the arguments and the most forceful advocates of positions of policy, then the citation avoids the need to worry about weasel words or individual names for our purposes. Fortguy (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Based upon the voices raised here, consensus dictates the exclusion of the information on the legislators who opposed the tolls. Its stays out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)