# Talk:Interstate 70 in Maryland

TwinsMetsFan: Thanks for the assessment. I'll try to improve the article as best as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneKEA (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

B-class is pretty good for a new article, most articles in the project are either stub or start, I'll try to get a list of B-class articles on the project page so we know what articles are closest to achieving good article status.-Jeff (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the signature. After examining the U.S. Route 50 article I've added some additional content to the I-70 article that should help raise its rating when the article is reassessed. However, I doubt that will happen until we can get some maps for the article. -TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a map from the Maps task force; I have placed this discussion page in the appropriate category to bring the article to the task force's attention. (I apologize for not adding the signature).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheOneKEA (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

If a description of shunpiking a specific route really is 'original research', then it ought to be removed from Interstate 68 as well - that was where I found it. -TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Interstate 70 in Baltimore, Maryland for the discussion. - TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What else does the exit list need? -TheOneKEA (20:30, 20080623) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article could use additional sources. It also needs some cleanup to meet WP:USRD Standards--I did a bit with it, but it could use more review.  I don't believe the article would be close to passing a GAN in its current state, so I have reassessed it to C class for now. --LJ (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 70 in Maryland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't done an Interstate highway review in a while! 

"A subsequent plan based on a review of the 1960 plan" - this caught my eye (in the lede). Could you find a way to rephrase to avoid "plan" twice so quickly? You also say "planning" later that sentence.
I used more variety in wording in that sentence.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't a fan of "scheme", so I changed it. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on "scheme," but your revision changed the meaning of the sentence.  The review of the 1960 plan was done in 1962.  The new planning process began around 1966.  I reverted and replaced scheme with proposal.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hah, easiest solution yet! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
A little minor quibble, but it'd be nice if 83 and 95 were labeled in the map in the Infobox, since they were planned to connect to the highway at one point.
I understand your point, but I do not think that change is necessary because those connections were cancelled 30+ years ago.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I also just think it'd be nice for showing the route's broader connections, particularly 95. But not that necessary either way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"Large stone markers featuring reliefs of the Korean Peninsula were completed in the median of I-70 in Myersville and Mount Airy in 2004" - I'm a little confused at the "completed". I think "erected" or "placed" would work better, unless I have the context wrong.
I changed the verb to "erected."  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"The third lane eastbound disappears at the top of the ridge" - so it just vanishes? Or does the 3rd lane merge with the 2nd?
I changed "disappears" to "ends".  Does that solve the problem?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"which has collector-distributor lanes in both directions of both Interstates" - what are they? I'm not that familiar with road terminology.
I added a link to collector-distributor road.  That redirects to local-express lanes, which is a similar but different concept.  Collector-distributor lanes are separate lanes used to separate exits and entrances from interchange ramps from the main road to reduce congestion due to entrances and exits on the main road.  C-D lanes tend to only exist through an interchange, while local-express lanes tend to exist for long distances.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would still prefer if the term was described in the article somewhat. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I elaborated as follows: "I-70 heads southeast through the interchange, which has collector-distributor lanes in both directions that separate the individual ramps from the main roadways of both Interstates."  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"I-70 has a folded diamond interchange South Street" - I think there's a missing word. Also, what's a folded diamond interchange? You mention it a few times without explaining it (I think).
I added the missing word in the South Street sentence.  A folded diamond interchange is a four-ramp interchange with two straight ramps and two loop ramps.  It is more properly classified as a partial cloverleaf interchange, even though many people have the default picture of a partial cloverleaf as a six-ramp interchange.  To reduce the confusion, I replaced folded diamond with partial cloverleaf in all instances and added "four-ramp" and "six-ramp" to a few of the phrases to clarify.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
While crossing through Frederick, when does it increase from four to six lanes?
The highway expands to six lanes at the I-270 interchange.  I state "I-70 heads east as a six-lane freeway and meets MD 85 ..."  The highway is only six lanes for about a mile.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think it could be clearer that it gained a lane from 270. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Eastbound actually gains a lane from US 40 while westbound keeps the third lane through the I-270 interchange, although it disappears shortly after.  Since the six-lane segment is only a mile, I am thinking of not mentioning it at all, since to make sense I would need to mention all of the lane changes in that area, which would be too much detail.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
"Around 1975, the suffixed designations were eliminated" - any better estimate? That seems like a pretty major event to have a time estimate.
The official approval for change in designation at the federal level occurred in 1975.  However, the 1974 official state map shows I-70 and I-270 instead of I-70N and I-70S.  I have no idea when the signage in the field was updated.  Do you have a suggestion on which year to use?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, you have proof it happened by 1974. That would work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I replaced "around 1975" with 1974 and added a reference to the 1974 map.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"An overpass and connecting ramp was also constructed at MD 97" - shouldn't that be "were"?
You are correct.  Changed.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"with a macadam surface in 1955." - say wha?
The highway was paved in two steps, a macadam first layer and an asphalt second (final) layer.  The highway was opened after the macadam layer was completed.  It may be too much detail, but I do want to state the highway was open before it was fully completed.  Do you have a suggestion on how to improve it?  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, a wikilink would be very useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I added a wikilink for macadam.  VC  23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The 270 and 370 sections are unsourced.
I sourced the 270 and 370 sections.  VC  03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Other than that it's a good read. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Hurricanehink.  I addressed all points except the last one, which I will review over the weekend.  VC  14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright! All that I need is proper sourcing for the 270/370 and I'll be happy to pass. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

US 40 was redesignated onto US 48 at some point early on-- not sure exactly when. However I-68 was constructed as US 48; US 40 already ran more or less parallel to it at the time.  Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the construction of segments of a freeway or expressway (the bypass of Hancock) with the designation of a number to an entire freeway or expressway (US 48 as the National Freeway). According to official Maryland state highway maps, which I reference in the article and links to which you may find at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maryland/Map database, US 48 was first marked on maps in 1974 and then only west of Cumberland. The portion of the bypass of Hancock west of I-70 is marked as US 40 tangentially in 1966 and a little more explicitly in 1967. Would it help if I put in a reference to the 1967 map? Regardless, whether the freeway west from I-70 in Hancock was US 40, US 48, I-68, or some other number is a side note in this article. I only mention that segment of freeway because it was built concurrently with the portion of I-70 through Hancock. It is not important in this article to mention that the freeway was part of US 48 after it was built as US 40 and before it was designated I-68. Whether it was planned in 1966 for that segment of freeway to become US 48 is mostly irrelevant, but if you want to find sources that state that particular segment was originally planned as US 48, it is up to you.  VC  15:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it is confusing to say that US 40 was "constructed" there, because that is not true. US 40 already existed as a parallel route to what was constructed. Perhaps it would be simpler to leave out reference to what it was before it was designated I-68. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not really happy with your most recent change, because the new highway was built as a relocation of US 40, but since I myself said it is only tangential to the subject of the article, I will let it stand.  VC  16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is all of I-70 east of I-695 not highlighted? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

never mind, it was Redesignated Maryland Route 570 in 2014. But is there anyway that it can be highlighted on the map in a different color (like blue)? And perhaps say something like "I-70 highlighted in red; Maryland Route 570 in blue"? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way that Maryland Route 570 (Which used to be Interstate 70 and is still signed as such on the highway when driving) can be highlighted on the map? Like in a different color such as gray. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that federal highway administration still considers the route east of I-695 (MD 570) to be part of I-70? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

To the reviewing Admin, I have had to revert acts of vandalism by User:67.87.196.174 and the shared IP address user has had a multitude of warnings about making unconstructive edits. Shall we make this page temporarily semi-protected? Thanks and cheers, A Proud Alabamian (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that there are two "citation needed" tags on the lede of the article. Anybody have any sources to look at, since I can't find any? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)