Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Archive 3

message: A modest proposal:
Aerobird 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A userbox for this project already exists. This one looks nice, but I favor the existing design, personally. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - I hadn't seen that the page went further down past "Other Templates", sorry... - Aerobird 03:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - even I had to figure out where it was on the page when I looked for it earlier. In any case, welcome to the project! --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox for the project? 

message: The template  was messed up for a bit by an IP and Rschen7754 tried to fix it, but couldn't successfully do so with dial-up.  I fixed it - but also someone may want to verify that the other 3di templates work as they are supposed to as well •  master_sonLets talk 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3DI Templates 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I think that to help the articles be more presentable, we should move the Intersections with other Interstates and the Spur Routes to below the (Route) Notes and Trivia sections, as the case may be.  That would get more information closer to the top.  --MPD (T / C) 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned about the format about those Notes and Trivia sections, as they are very prevalent among the Interstate articles and strongly violate WP:TRIV. Most of them are haphazard mixes of data that contain important information that should have its own separate sections or be integrated into other parts of the article, along with interesting but unimportant trivia (the most common being "records" set by the interstate). A good majority of the Interstate articles have these sections, some of which, like I-80 and I-95, are huge. I think it is important that these sections be integrated into the rest of the article, discarding information that doesn't hold up to the standards of Wikipedia:Trivia. Krimpet 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they could be better integrated.  Trivia should be small and quick, many facts and information would do well as a physical part of the article.  --MPD (T / C) 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Two users and two anons added legal definitions for every U.S. route and Interstate over the past couple of days. With the exception of California and Washington, I personally feel that these additions are trivial and irrelevant. The question, though, is what to do with them. Do we keep them and give them their own section? Do we remove them? I'm wide open to suggestions. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not consistent.  The only thing on Interstate 70 is a little sentence in the Utah section.  I did see an addition on Interstate 81 about New York Interstate Route 505 which is confusing for someone who isn't familiar with it.  I think one of two things should happen: there's a better explenation of the laws and they stay, or we get rid of them because for example Utah Code Section 72-4-112 doesn't tell me anything more about I-70.  --MPD (T / C) 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the New York code addition go up on Interstate 95; I moved it to Interstate 95 in New York and fleshed it out to a full reference. I tried to go with what I remember from the California statute citations, so there's at least some level of consistency. Also, the New York codes don't ever mention, say, I-95; it just defines the internal route number along the route with I-95 follows. I see that as on par with the unsigned 400-series route numbers that Georgia assigns all the interstates (except that MapQuest will label maps with, say, GA 405 instead of/in addition to I-95. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a field called "section" in infobox road that you put the statute number into.  I don't know if  can do that too yet. •  master_sonLets talk 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a stretch, but perhaps could be part of the "Notes" section (and at that, a part - not the entire section itself, perhaps a sub-section), since they do differ from state to state. Because of the inconsistency, there isn't a place in the article format as it currently stands. Not saying it's unwelcome, just wondering if they should stay. As such though, I would argue that any such inclusion should be referenced. Fwgoebel 05:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're fine in the state-specific articles.  In the main Interstate article though...perhaps the Notes section for now, or in the state section of the Interstate should there be one.  --MPD (T / C) 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MPD's approach to this. Here's an idea: the Notes section should be broken up by state headings. Some Interstate articles, but not all, do this already (and, obviously, this is a moot point for intrastate/state-specific articles). The law definitions should then be placed there. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notes should be removed, in fact, and dispersed to other places in the article. GA and FA don't like that kind of thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I'd trash the law sections as I don't believe (at least in the case of New York) that their legal definition is worth mentioning. I believe someone brought up the case of Georgia earlier, where the legal definition of the Interstate is used by the transportation department for indexing purposes. Now, I can't speak for other states, but in New York, their legal definition is never used, at least not by NYSDOT - instead, the DOT sticks an "I" onto the end of the Interstate number (78I, 86I, 490I, etc.) for indexing. If the DOT doesn't use the "legal definition", then why should we? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the case of New York, it's probably better to remove them from the articles as they don't really add meaningful information there. It might be useful to include them in the Interstate section of List of State Routes in New York though. --Polaron | Talk 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be open to that option for NY. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say farm this off to the states, but with the restriction that it can't clutter the main article. If they want to put it in the state article, that's fine, but not the main one. But in California it's somewhat useful though- for example, parts of California State Route 2 are not State Route 2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State law additions 

message: Somewhere on Wikipedia is an old map of the planned Interstate highways from the 50's.  I think it's from '57 but I'm not sure.  Does anybody know where it is?  --MPD T / C 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the Yellow Book map scans? If so, they're here. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: US-wide map series for Interstate plans starting from here. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old map 

message: Peer reviews
It'd be great to have some input... Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstate 5/archive1. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we want to get any Interstate article up to GA or even FA, the Notes section for that highway needs to be broken up and rewritten into prose. A big section of disconnected trivia isn't really GA/FA-standard material.—Scott5114↗ 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in general, there are a lot of lists.  I like the idea of the list of cities template like on the U.S. Routes (U.S. Route 1 for example).  That would remove one list.  And to get rid of another list, perhaps we could include all Interstate junctions in the routebox.  It would make the routebox really big, but it would remove another list from the article itself.  Just a thought, though.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't interstate junctions be merged into Route description though? (Take a look at some of the Oklahoma state highway articles to see what I mean.) —Scott5114↗ 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea that I can go to one place and see a whole list of junctions rather than skimming through a route description.  Ease of finding information is an important part of an article.  It's not bad as it is, but to be a GA or even a FA, the lists may need to be presented in a different way. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that those should be part of an exit list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:IH guidelines say that a intersection list is optional, but should not be included if an exit list is "present and complete."  On something like Interstate 5 or Interstate 95, an exit list is in a different place, so IMO, an intersection list is perfectly fine. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I just expanded and formatted Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) – although I put the history section before the exit list (per WP:NJSCR and most other state wikiprojects) instead of after (per this wikiproject) – and nominated it for GA status.  If that fails, I'll probably open a peer review then. -- NORTH talk 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. -- NORTH talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm disappointed at the lack of Wikipedia community (non-roads people) support of Peer Reviews.  Sure, all us roads people have our views, but the best views would have been from non-roads people, like on I-95.  That said, I think I-95 looks great, and I think it should go to GA nomination.  Do others feel this would be a good move?  --MPD T / C 03:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know; I doubt it's ready for GA.  A lot of sections are still solely bulleted lists. -- NORTH talk 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews 

message: I noticed today that the good article review for the I-295 article was tagged with "Progress: Awaiting consensus to be reached."  It seems to me that concensus already has been reached, as the only person who still says it's not GA is the editor who originally failed the nomination, and good points were made by multiple people in support of GA status.  Nevertheless, additional input from editors from this project (especially those who have already given their opinion on this page), would be most helpful. -- NORTH talk 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R#Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)]] 

message: To match the project guidelines with what's being used in practice, I propose adding an optional "Future" section to the project standards. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - The IH is always being expanded.  This especially has to do with Interstate 69; have nothing to say now. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: - Only makes sense; always big projects or extentions being done somewhere.  --MPD T / C 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: - That's not there already? That's a bit of a surprise to me. (I have yet to figure out what to do with Interstate 290 (Illinois)#Lingo too, though... so I'm thinking the section structure is strict, but also open-ended.) —Rob (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Surprised it wasn't there... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: - Why it's just being brought up now is shocking to me.  I'm all for it! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are we voting on this? Can't we just be bold and add it, or even just add it to any articles that might have a use for it? --NE2 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't intended on making this a poll - it just turned out that way. Really, my intention was just to see where consensus stood on this issue and, based on the results above, this addition would be supported by consensus. So, I'll go ahead and add the section. As for adding the section to articles... that's the reason I brought this issue up - some articles already have this section. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section proposal 

message: Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for exit lists...again 

message: Has anyone heard of this? I've marked it for deletion because I couldn't find any sources. --NE2 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it; and 15 Google pages later, still nothing.  Deletion sounds fine.  --MPD T / C 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There doesn't seem to be any evidence anywhere that the current routing of I-78 was ever proposed under any other number prior to it being proposed as I-78 after abandoning the route through Philipsburg. This "I-278" seems to have been completely made up. Krimpet 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Commented on this issue over at WT:PASH; my comments there are identical to the ones above. Green light to deletion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck! I have never heard of this one. I'll give www.phillyroads.com a looksie but I didnt see it there before. But yeah, I think it was a vandal. Jgcarter 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly I just noticed that this image, from 1967 according to the description, seems to suggest that plans for an Allentown bypass may have existed prior to the rerouting of I-78 in 1969, but there is no information about it anywhere on the Internet to confirm this, let alone that it was to be numbered I-278. Krimpet 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 278 (Pennsylvania)]] 

message: In the past, I actively spoke out against moving the History section above the Exit list, using the reasoning that the present (exits) should come before the past (history). However, after cleaning up the article on the New York State Thruway a little while ago, I realized that placing the History in between the route description and the exit list may actually make the article not only appear better, but actually be better. For this reason, I propose moving the History and Future sections ahead of the list sections (Major intersections and Exit list). The Notes section...ideally, the articles wouldn't have a Notes section as everything in the Notes should be incorporated into other areas of the article. If it can't be integrated into other sections, then chances are that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Returning to the point, the History/Future/Notes (?) sections should come before the Exit list and Major intersections. Some articles already have this format, but I'd like to see where consensus stands on this issue. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your idea.  The notes section could just be a "Miscellanea" section or something...I dunno. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always advocated putting the exit list last; just look at what it did for Pennsylvania Turnpike.  Notes and Miscellanea...yes ideally it shouldn't exit, but we all know there will be times when Notes (Miscellanea) may happen.  As for putting all that in front of the Intersections list...it could be very beneficial.  I'd have to see it in action on something like I-10 or I-90.  I've brought it up before, I thought I'd brought it up before (I can't find it), but I still think we could make intersections into a box much like the Cities...but like many things, it sounds good in my head, but in practice it may not work well at all.  Anyway, point: Exit list, after all prose and other lists.  Intersections, let's do a trial for a week or so with a few different Interstates, and if we and other editors like it, we can go ahead with that.  --MPD T / C 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section shuffle 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Article Improvement Drive for what we could do.  I think it would greatly benefit this project.  I know almost everyone who reads this has read it there, but here's the subject on this project's page.  --MPD T / C 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement Drive 

message: Can someone who knows about California verify if the recent additions are true, and, if so, cite sources? Thank you. --NE2 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate-guide.com supports this... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a reliable source, and from my experience is full of speculation. --NE2 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one: , section 3.5. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this sentence pretty amusing: "Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention." --NE2 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Although you never know.  Maybe Caltrans could throw their weight around and have Bud Schuster switch his highway to 7 or 9 (or better yet, 67 or 73) to free up the number for them. -- NORTH talk 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Proposed Interstate Highways]] 

message: Should we use  or the custom table with the cyan border? From what I've seen, the usage is about 50/50. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use , as cleanup of articles use this.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple question 

message: This is an unusual case.
I-294 (53 miles) is wholly and entirely within the Tri-State Tollway (78 miles). This makes reading and editing the two articles an exercise in frustration.
Previous merges of this sort have been the Eisenhower Expressway (23 miles) into I-290 (30 miles). But I think in this case I-294 is just going to have to redirect to Tri-State Tollway, and then we can make a consistent article from there. —Rob (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this.  If that happens, you could also suggest merging I-276 into the PA Turnpike, and I'm sure there are some other examples.  I support merging expressway (or "named roads") pages into Interstate articles, but not the other way around.  I can see where you're coming from though.  --MPD T / C 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict] That's what I was about to say!  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I suppose at the expense of the Tri-State Tollway article, anything that has to do with I-294 will be placed in the I-294 article. —Rob (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it like you would any other article, in the 294 section of the Tri-State Tollway article, put  at the top.  --Holderca1 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Interstate 294]] into [[Tri-State Tollway]]? 

message: Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know and finally taking care of that. -- NORTH talk 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I got all of the 3di templates updated, so we should be good to go. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:3di 

message: Hello Fellow Wikipedians!I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!All the best!Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye 

message: m:Polls are evil, but I think it's important that we stop and ensure that we are all on the same page, and looking at the same reality here, so let's step back, ignore each other's opinions, and examine the substantive facts of the matter.  Numbered statements in this section should be simple statements, or logical extensions thereof.  Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any.  Any combination of facts must state its derivation.  If you oppose any suggested interpretation, you must state why you oppose.  Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopted - no further comment on this particular one.  Enough arguing over technicalities, we know which 2-mile piece of road we're looking at.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopted - clear agreement on this one.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Adopted Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Adopted - as with 1.2, it's clear which stretch of road we're dealing with.  Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Rejected Chris cheese whine 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Rejected - not a well-formed proposal.  Break the first sentence up into a logical sequence, and lose the second sentence altogether.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How can you "reject". Gateman1997 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, asd I've said three times now, it is not a well-formed finding of fact.  Chris cheese whine 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify this, the two parts of the first sentence need to be proposed independently.  One is proposed as #7 below, and the second makes a jump without identifying its premises.  The second sentence is pure opinion, and does not follow from the premises given.  Chris cheese whine 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: *Support. Chris cheese whine 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
1. The endpoints of the road are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.


message: *Support.  Chris cheese whine 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
1.1. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.


message: ::Adopted - no further comment on this particular one.  Enough arguing over technicalities, we know which 2-mile piece of road we're looking at.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.2. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with what are now I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

message: ::Adopted - clear agreement on this one.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. The numbering of I-238 is non-standard.

message: ::Adopted Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Following (2), the number I-238 would imply a spur of I-38, which does not exist.

message: ::Adopted - as with 1.2, it's clear which stretch of road we're dealing with.  Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. The road is a little over 2 miles long.

message: ::Rejected Chris cheese whine 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
5. Following (1) and (4), the road is part of the I-80 system.


message: ::Rejected - not a well-formed proposal.  Break the first sentence up into a logical sequence, and lose the second sentence altogether.  Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you "reject". Gateman1997 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, asd I've said three times now, it is not a well-formed finding of fact.  Chris cheese whine 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify this, the two parts of the first sentence need to be proposed independently.  One is proposed as #7 below, and the second makes a jump without identifying its premises.  The second sentence is pure opinion, and does not follow from the premises given.  Chris cheese whine 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
6. Although I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally), it is not legislatively a spur of I-80. As Wikipedia is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Wikipedia.


message: *Support - from Rschen's statement #6 above.  Chris cheese whine 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 7. From (1.2), I-238 functions as part of the I-80 network.

message: *Support - from the discussion above.  Chris cheese whine 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 8. As in the cases of [[I-105]] and [[I-370]], an Interstate route does not need to meet its parent directly 

message: *Support (unless I'm missing one) Chris cheese whine 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9. I-238 meets no other Interstate highways than I-580 and I-880 

message: ::Adopted Chris cheese whine 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. CalTrans proposed the number 238 based on, amongst other factors, the previous designation of the road as CA-238.

message: *Support.  Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.


message: *Support - evidently they didn't like it while approving it.  Chris cheese whine 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
2.1. AASHTO initially expressed tacit objection to the number.


message: *Support - they did express some objection, clearly.  Chris cheese whine 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2.2. AASHTO expressed tacit objection to the number.

message: *Support - stated in the article.  Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. AASHTO suggested alternative options which would have numbered the road in the I-''x''80 series.

message: *Support - not a big jump.  Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. Following 
(2)
(2.1) and (3), AASHTO's intention was to number it I-''x''80.