Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 5

Terminology Example Anomaly

In the sub-section Terminology and in the paragraph beginning "Three-digit highways...", are two bulleted items.

• An odd first digit signifies a spur route, which may begin at a large highway and terminate at a city center.
  
  Example given ==> I-110 travels into downtown Los Angeles Angeles. [Emphasis is mine.]

• The last two digits signify the highway's origin.

Based on the bulleted statements, the I-110 origin is I-10 and it terminates in a city center. The I-10/I-110 intersect in downtown Los Angeles and I-110 terminates in San Pedro, an important harbor city. In fact the I-110 is named the "Harbor Freeway." Therefore, I-110 travels from Los Angeles and into San Pedro.

Consequently, I recommend the example to be, "I-110 travels into downtown San Pedro, CA."

You may also want to consider some variation of the following statement to be an example of the second cited bullet.
"The I-10/I-110 intersect near downtown Los Angeles, CA and the I-110 terminates in San Pedro, CA."

--Keith 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerations for Additional Info

In Georgia, there are at least two highways that were designed and built as limited-access additions to the interstate system, but are now state routes with general access along various stretches. One is Ga. 400 north of Atlanta, and the other is a three-digit state route in Gwinnett County east of Atlanta.

Also, you might want to address how mile markers are numbered on stretches where two interstates are concurrent. On the Georgia Connector in Atlanta, that convergent stretch continues the mile markers from I-75 (I believe), and the markers on I-85 resume -- as though they were not interrupted -- after the routes diverge. --NameThatWorks (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I know a bit of SR 10 downtown was built as I-485, but I don't think SR 400 outside the Perimeter or SR 316 were ever planned as Interstates. In fact SR 400 is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (Corridor A), which doesn't include any Interstates (because it's a system for funding). --NE2 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2, have you tried asking the question at MTR? They would be more than willing to help. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know MTR, but I'm pretty sure NameThatWorks is mistaken. --NE2 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I'm reasonably sure I read about it in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a few years ago. The two highways involved were GA-400 and GA-316 (University Pkwy), both of which were built to limited-access interstate highway specs, including ramps. However, alternate routes for the official Interstate Highway System were subsequently chosen. If that's not the case, my apologies. I did enjoy the article. --NameThatWorks (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the article you read? [1] [2] [3] --NE2 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could be, judging from the first sentence, but the link is taking me to a question about no-fly zones in Iraq. Also, I think the mile markers on the congruent sections of I-75 & I-85 in Atlanta are those for I-75 because it was built or dedicated first. --NameThatWorks (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a Q&A column; to read the full text without hacking away at it with the search you have to pay. I think the standard is to use either the lower or more major (I-71/75 in KY) number, but if the lower number wasn't planned when the higher number was built the higher number is used (I-40/85 in NC). The MUTCD only says "Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-14). If one of the routes is an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering." and shows [4] as an example. I don't think we really can say anything that's not original research, and it would probably belong in exit number rather than here. --NE2 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this entire discussion, as I have nothing more to add and I don't think anyone else is interested. --NameThatWorks (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Map of State Interstate shields.svg

Should the US map of state shield vs. neutral sheidl be deleted? Since this is exact copy of Interstate-Guide.com they use blue for all state shield; and purple for mix shield type, and black fot all nuetral shields, insterad we color white for all nuetral, turquoise for mix shield and blue for all state shield. Florida, I-guide color them black because they long eliminate state shield from state document ever since 1979. However this makes us think Florida is mix sheild type because once now and then they place state shield. 1995, 200, and 2005 they put at least two state shield ever five years. Interstate 275 has been post a state shield in 2005. In 2006 they put at least two more state shields. It seems like the shield is colaberating and they are making huge errors. On interstate shields.

Idaho though long eliminate state shield from state document in 1993 I guess, however two digit interstate such as Interstate 15 and Interstate 86 seems like the shields they post still contains state names. Those shields are fake and made in error even US shields in brown colour and state highway in brown colours is made in error. Idaho should be recognize as mix-shield type color on map in purple instead of black on interstate-guide. Same as Georgia, they eliminate state shields from state document in 1998 however alot of new made shields still contains state names.

In Maryland they eliminate state shields from state documents in 2002, however by 2006 they post at least 3 more state shields. This is why they color the state blue. In Arkansas almost all the shields remain diamonds. They barely have any state shields. I guess many state is not following the state document this is basically why they wind up with mix shield types. --LAFreeways (Conf) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the image on WP:IFD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And tagged. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (GMT)

Interstates ending in 0 or 5

I can't find anything indicating that there was intent in assigning "major" status to interstates ending in 0 or 5. I do find it in the U.S. Routes system, here ([5]):

“ All of the "continuous routes" laid out by the committee during the Joint Board's meeting had been numbered. For the principal east-west routes, James assigned two-digit numbers ending in zero. For the principal north-south routes, he assigned numbers ending in 1 or 5. With these base routes numbered, the remaining routes could be numbered accordingly. He thought three-digit numbers, which he considered inevitable, should be assigned to short sections, cutoffs, and crossovers. Logical alternate routes should be given the number of the principal line of traffic, plus 100. Thus, under his original scheme, an alternate for U.S. 55 would be U.S. 155. ”

As for Interstates, the FHWA has this to say about it ([6]):

“ The major route numbers are routed through urban areas on the path of the major traffic stream. Generally, this major traffic stream will be the shortest and most direct line of travel. Connecting routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around and within urban areas carry a three-digit number. These routes are designated with the number of the main route and an even-numbered prefix. Supplemental radial and spur routes, connecting with the main route at one end, also carry a three-digit number, using the number of the main route with an odd-numbered prefix. ”

It's likely that the "divisible by 5" rule was inherited from the U.S. Routes system, but that should be made more clear. I also don't think we would have any way of citing this inheritance with some sort of substantial documentation. Anyone have any ideas? —Rob (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check McNichol when I get back to Missouri on Saturday. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, page 121 of McNichol says:

“ Just as with the original U.S. routes, the numbers assigned to the new Interstate System's highways running east and west were given even numbers, with the principal highways ending in zeros. The highways running north and south were assigned odd numbers, with the principal routes ending in ones and fives. ”

I think we can disregard the N-S ending in ones being primary as a mistake caused by confusion with the U.S. route system; I-71 and I-91 couldn't be considered primary by any stretch of the imagination. Hope tyhis helps. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] confirms 0/5 as major. --NE2 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I referenced the book too. I don't suppose there's anything in the book about suffixed Interstates? I'm also thinking about removing the section about I-495, not just because it's tagged with {{fact}} (even though I've been focusing on those), but because I'm not really sure how it makes the "Auxiliary Routes" section important. —Rob (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I've given a lot of thought to this, but I think I've decided - the auxiliary section needs to be rewritten into a concise paragraph, without a single mention (okay, maybe one, as a single example... I-280, because it's probably the most common) of an Interstate highway.

In the grand scheme of things, 3dis mostly exist as extensions of the Interstate system in urban areas. That's about it. Point to the list for more examples.

Probably means "terminology" and "primary routes" would have to be renamed, and I'm eyeing the lengthiness of the "primary routes" section too... —Rob (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Do not quote, cite or reproduce..."

On [8]:

“ Note: do not quote, cite, or reproduce without permission of the author.

Contact Essays in History to arrange permission.

”

So, umm... I don't suppose anyone has done this? Are we even ethically bound to that statement? —Rob (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No; if you don't want to be quoted or cited the solution is simple. Do not publish your work! (reproduction is something else as that is copyrighted regardless of publication; but then again, reproduction would be equally illegal without the note). Also see the dicussion here)Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting is permissible under U.S. fair use laws, and citing doesn't even use portions of the work, so I suppose it's really up to you if you want to follow their restriction. They most likely wouldn't have any legal basis to request removal of the quote or reference (IANAL).

Oh, and by the way, you already quoted them by quoting their note. :P—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Balancing act on forthcoming edits / image replacement

Some forthcoming edits will be wiping out the vast majority of references to specific Interstate highways. I feel the article should be primarily about the system, and less about individual highways except one or two to illustrate the system. Any exceptions will probably be moved to the proper article/list (especially because once you think of a given exception, you can probably think of 10-11 more if you try hard enough.)

Also, Image:FHWA Auxiliary Route Numbering.gif is a good image that demonstrates the auxiliary numbering system, but I'm sure someone can come up with a better-looking, higher-resolution, with-shields image. :-D —Rob (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Old interstate shields

I wonder if someone could make a graphic showing each revision of the Interstate shield since it was first added to the MUTCD? I know the numbers have gradually increased as time as gone on, and the state name was originally mandatory. Thanks to anyone who can fulfill this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I thouhgt there is no definite time of when the state shields aftually stop. Or formerly, the interstate shields was formerly control by FHWA, this is why before everybody has to have specific state name on interstates. Maryland has no control on state or neutral shields thats why the state document say neutral shields (However the neutral shields I thouhgt is not mandatory). Same situation as Minnesota. Georgia the Interstate-Guide paint them black thats wrong. When they say Georgia no longer use state shields after 1999 thats wrong too. Now the GADOT still makes specific state shields, just the GADOT no longer controls the shield making. Thats why GA gets option of making either state or neutral shields. In Nevada, the state shields is still many.

• • Hawaii uses neutral shields in sign drawing, but my current desktop to my wallpaper is state shields. There is actually more state shields newer made than neutral shields. Few states the sign drawing still takes control. In Kansas the DOT has no document but I think is the sunflower or element branch makes the state name shields mandatory. In Oklahoma the sign interstate is also cntrol. Many shields in Oklahoma is old this is why the state name is missing. However I think alot is recently tooken away and replace with normal state shields. I beleive newer ones have state names than the older ones. Arizona still uses normal state shields on sign drawing and their last revision is February 2005, meaning the state shields is still current. Missouri uses normal state shields in state document, however several state names on primary interstates is missing (per I-5, I-44, and I-64) potentially due to contraction makers. Oregon no longer have control, however the state shields last post on I-105/I-5 interchange over summer of 2007. They do his occasionally.--Freewayguy (Meet) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am not sure what you are trying to say. What do you mean by a state no longer has control? Also, keep in mind, a state may have the state specific shields posted, but no longer use that them. They changed over, but only replace the old shields when they need replaced. For example, Texas changed over to the neutral shields a while back, but I still see the state specific shields here and there. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is two specific-state name shields post at summer of 2007 of I-105/5 interchange. When state no longer have control means they can use both nuetral or state shields. In sign drawing is just neutral shields (They can still use state shileds if they want). Vermont post a specific state-name shields at I-89 over summer 2007, Flor post namy state-name shields over summer 2006, Idaho post about 5 more I think.--Freewayguy (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In Virginia they did the same thing. The older interstates is missing state names. However the I-66 one is still putting the specific state name back in 2005.--Freewayguy (Meet) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

No, no, no, no, you're all misunderstanding this. This would just be a single graphic with one example shield made from each of the official MUTCD specs through the years, along with a label next to it showing the year. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the state shield makes never terminates. Now Oregon made two state shields as summer 2007. Posting state shields under nuetral shields in state docment I thouhgt is not an erro. New York post numerous state shields 4 years ago. South Carolina still makes new specific state shields.--Freewayguy (Meet) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about, if the state doesn't have control, who does? --Holderca1 ^talk 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the specs for each version of the MUTCD? --Holderca1 ^talk 11:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. There may be a few in the university library. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if we can get the actual specs to make this, this would be a good image to place in the signage section of the Interstate Highway System article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the state document uses neutral shields is only suggestion. They can still use specific state shields if they want to. Maryland post like 5 to 10 specific state shields over 2006, same as South Carolina and Alabama. Idaho post tons of specific state shields as July 2007.--Freewayguy (Meet) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That has no relevance to this request. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)