Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 4

message: The criticisms portion is in need of a large expansion.  It needs criticisms from the libertartian POV, environmentalist, advocates of rail travel, etc. --MSTCrow 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, like anyone's going to research it.  Only pro-freeway Wikipedia users bother to do real research; the railfans are stuck on the train too much.  --Coolcaesar 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can generalize the arguments made in Illinois Route 53, feel free to do so. It seems that the arguments don't really crop up until an expansion is actually planned or in discussions, though, which means that any criticism might be more properly put in a criticism section for a specific route. —Rob (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the societal effects of cutting up poor neighbourhoods and ghettos with these things, and cutting many major cities off from their waterfronts!  New Orleans is the most often-cited example, but there are many others. Miken32 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there should be an "Effects" section created and written up, because many will argue that the commercial benefit of the IHS balances any negative effects. —Rob (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I'm surprised this page doesn't list the fact that the Interstate Highway system is missing connections between important metro areas. I would propose adding something similar to this (please advise on relevency):
The interstate highway system does not connect every U.S. Metropolitan area. Here are the more notable holes in the system:
*New York - Philidelpia: I-95 is supposed to connect these cities, but there is a gap in this freeway (link to gaps in the interstate highway system)
*Salt Lake City - Denver: I-70 was supposed to connect these cities but the routing was changed due to the perceived defence need to use I-70 as a connection to southern California. Traffic between Salt Lake and Denver currently has to detour through Wyoming or us US 6, a 2 lane highway over Soldier Summit.
*Las Vegas - Phoenix: Both are cities that were small when the system was created but since have sprawled in size.  Currently the connection between these cities is made via a very congested U.S. 93. Soon this will be a connection hole in name only as Arizona and Nevada are frantically upgrading U.S. 93 to interstate standards.
*Las Vegas - Reno: Again, both of these cities have sprawled in size since the creation of the interstate highway system. Connection is made via U.S. 95
Davemeistermoab 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is very noteworthy. I also think that list of state capitols not served by Interstates is equally unnoteworthy. Nova SS 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe these facts should be added to the article. And frankly, they seem like opinionated statements. Perhaps someone would make the statement that Charleston, West Virginia and Washington, DC should be connected by a single Interstate, but they're not. The same goes for San Francisco, California and Los Angeles, California, Boston, Massachusetts and Hartford, Connecticut, Norfolk, Virginia and Raleigh, North Carolina, Jacksonville, Florida and Tampa, Florida... joturner 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holes in Coverage 

message: Isn't this a spur off I-680 that doesn't end on an interstate at the other end, that is still named starting with an even digit? If so, should this be added to Interstate Highway System#Three-digit Interstates or Interstate Highway System#Exceptions?
:It was to connect with I-80 in downtown Frisco. --SPUI (T - C) 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it doesn't connect, so isn't that an exception? -- Paddu 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[I-280 (CA)]] 

message: The Interstate 75 photos are just awful because (1) Michigan has crappy weather and (2) the photographer apparently does not know that one of the cardinal rules of photography is to NOT SHOOT INTO THE SUN unless you absolutely have no choice.  I will replace them with better photos from my state (California) soon.  Any objections? --Coolcaesar 05:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll object to your objection in that Michigan weather is quite nice is the summer and it actually looks like a pleasant day.  The photographer is poor and furthermore has a habit of spreading unattributed pictures around the Wiki.  And those pictures really don't add anything useful to the article.  Finally that I-75 shield is one of the (I think four) recently installed misprinted 2di in a 3di shield, so it shouldn't be used as an example.   I'm going to remove them. -- KelleyCook 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the photographer's defense, you try shooting pictures at grade-level at 65 mph and tell me how good a shot you get. :-) —Rob (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the following (and yes, I was in a moving vehicle at the time): , , , , and .  It's not that hard; it just takes a little practice, that's all, and a decent digital camera with high shutter speed (I use a Olympus "prosumer" model).  --Coolcaesar 07:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a MESS 

message: I don't think the funding is right. For one thing, not all of the funding in the highway trust fund goes to highway funding, quite a bit is diverted into other projects. This  site says that user fees pay for around 90% of roads in the US. Knowing the anti-automobile crowd, I do not doubt that they would lie. --Rotten 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: "The future of the interstate system as we know it is in question. It is entirely possible that parts of the system will have to be tolled in the future to meet maintenance and expansion demands, as is done with adding toll HOV/HOT lanes in certain cities like San Diego, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, and Washington, D.C." These sentences appear to have crossed a bit over the wiki is not a crystal ball guideline to me. It's probably salvagable. Jon 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the entire paragraph is bad and taken from a warning now 10 years out of date. -- KelleyCook 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible [[Crystal Ball]] 

message: The peer review recommended that the trivia section be removed. How about merging the trivia section, List of structures built on top of interstates and List of long-distance mileage signs on interstates into a separate article? -- Paddu 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Trivia article? 

message: I find it interesting that the left lane is virtually always used to break the speed limit (at least here in the south, but I'm pretty sure it's everywhere.) 68.119.213.157
: This comment is irrelevant to the topic, "Interstate Highway System."  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the Hammer lane article to me. --TinMan 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institutionalized speed limit-breaking 

message: I think the following trivia is irrelevant and does not belong in the article:
:All but five state capitals are directly served by the Interstate System. Carson City, Nevada; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri; Juneau, Alaska; and Pierre, South Dakota are not, though this will change once the Interstate 580 between Reno, Nevada and Carson City is completed.
This might have been relevant if someone could show this contravenes a clearly-worded intent or rule that interstates should go to every state captial.
What next, a statement analyzing the percentage of cities starting with the letter Q that are not served by an interstate?
Nova SS 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant trivia 

message: Is the map of the interstate highway system supposed to represent all spur routes in the country? The reason I ask is it seems as if in the Los Angeles area some of the spur routes (the 710, 605 and 105 are what pop to mind) don't seem to be on the map. Or is it only supposed to represent the major spur routes (or am I just being blind and not seeing these routes?) 216.185.194.21 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Major spurs. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Under History, it says the removal of a traffic signal was considered the completion of the Interstate Highway system in 1991, but I-70 in Glenwood Springs, CO was finished in 1992 and is also sited by the CDOT as the completion of the mainline Highway System. http://www.dot.state.co.us/50anniversary/funfacts.cfm  I'd be inclined to change the article, but not sure if there is any other, more compelling info out there? Jawsdog 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completion of the System 

message: Shouldn't this article be located at the official name of the system, "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", rather than its common name? I am not bold enough to move such a major article without conversation... – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 06:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, wikipedia encourages us to use common names. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article? 

message: What's the point?  Seems pretty silly.  The Steinbeck quote is nice but the stuff about rural roads being romanticised sounds OR.
--M a s 10:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's required for WP:NPOV reasons. —Scott5114↗ 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. And the "criticism" generally has nothing to do with the interstate highway system. More specifically, the criticism should be in regard to some general highway design characteristics, signage, effects on topics like suburban sprawl or white flight, etc.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: "The following two-digit Interstates change signed direction from their normal (even=east-west, odd=north-south) direction:
*I-69 east of Lansing, Michigan 
*I-76 in Nebraska 
The I-69 segment is an extension of its original route; I-76 only runs for two miles (3 km) in Nebraska before ending at I-80."
I do not understand what point is trying to be made.  What does I-76 only running for two miles in Nebraska have to do with anything?  I-76 and I-80 are both east-west interstates.
:Seems clear to me. I-76 is signed N-S in Nebraska, but only does so for two miles. —Scott5114↗ 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd grammar 

message: === State Versus Neutral Shields 2 ===
Again that map is incorrect. Minnesota uses both the name of the state in the shield (like Interstate 35E and 35W) and the neutral shield.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowRanger (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the writer meant "across" where they said "in diameter."  --Coolcaesar 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, removing it. —Scott5114↗ 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oklahoma specifies the state name in the standards document, so it should definitely be blue. However, I think we need to provide a cite (like a state DOT standards doc) for all states on the image page (I'll start a section on it), so that we're not just doing things like "well I went through I-40 in Arkansas and they had mainly state-name shields...." —Scott5114↗ 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  West Virginia uses a mix of state-name and neutered shields; Ohio has neutered shields, although older signage reflects that they once had state-name shields.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What's this orange tg for. Those informations are right. I-Guide ands AA Highways are reliable on ths stuff but some infos like future routes are not. --Freewayguy (Comm 90) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're not the ones posting the shields, are they...? Anyway, there's no reliable way to say which states use which shields - OK specifies state-name shields in their standard documents, but the name is missing on a lot of shields in Oklahoma City, probably due to contractor-made shields.—Scott5114↗ 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Ever been to Oklahoma? —Scott5114↗ 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in agreement here. This is so trivial and so un-encylopedic, and it is already covered at AARoads, from which this list is derived from.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed as well. This type of thing is a nightmare to source and is the type of cruft that really doesn't add anything to the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is too difficult to source and is extreme trivia. Paragraph on states using "state shield" versus those using "neutral shield" struck from article -- I think we've got a consensus here. ;) • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the only good source we have is ODOT's PDF diagram that clearly includes the state name, and gives no option for omission. ODOT, however, fails to follow their standards much of the time, and doesn't do a very good job ensuring their contractors follow them either, so that's why some shields Oklahoma City lack the state name. Missouri also specifies the state name in their official standards, but my current desktop wallpaper quite clearly shows that there's neutered shields on the BGSes at the I-44/US 65 junction. Everyone seems to agree that sourcing all of this is more trouble than it's worth; AARoads does an admirable job trying to keep track, but we can't rely on unverifiable reports from the field (especially when they conflict with the official sign drawings). Out it goes. —Scott5114↗ 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The shield is trademarked by AASHTO, which is not a government organization, but has quasi-governmental status due to its membership and FHWA's practice of basically going along with their decisions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shields 

message: Again that map is incorrect. Minnesota uses both the name of the state in the shield (like Interstate 35E and 35W) and the neutral shield.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowRanger (talk • contribs) 03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Versus Neutral Shields 2 

message: "By 2000, the shield size nearly doubled, some interstate shields reaching 36 inches in diameter."
Since the shield isn't exactly a circle, and most signs I have seen are not circles, why is the size referenced as a diameter?
Sloppyedwards 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the writer meant "across" where they said "in diameter."  --Coolcaesar 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield size 

message: Does it even need to be in the article? It's already covered on some roadgeek websites. Seems crufty. Also, right now, it's extremely lacking of references.—Scott5114↗ 05:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, removing it. —Scott5114↗ 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Versus Neutral Shields 3 

message: Can someone correct this map? Maryland and Arkansas should be color turquoise because recent 4 years they have been starting to neutralize shields. Maine and Pennsylvania should be color white because they began to nuetralizing shields ever since 1996 and for four years the state shield is not very many. Oklahoma remains blue because most shields are still state shields.
--Freewayguy--Comm 90 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oklahoma specifies the state name in the standards document, so it should definitely be blue. However, I think we need to provide a cite (like a state DOT standards doc) for all states on the image page (I'll start a section on it), so that we're not just doing things like "well I went through I-40 in Arkansas and they had mainly state-name shields...." —Scott5114↗ 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  West Virginia uses a mix of state-name and neutered shields; Ohio has neutered shields, although older signage reflects that they once had state-name shields.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What's this orange tg for. Those informations are right. I-Guide ands AA Highways are reliable on ths stuff but some infos like future routes are not. --Freewayguy (Comm 90) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're not the ones posting the shields, are they...? Anyway, there's no reliable way to say which states use which shields - OK specifies state-name shields in their standard documents, but the name is missing on a lot of shields in Oklahoma City, probably due to contractor-made shields.—Scott5114↗ 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Ever been to Oklahoma? —Scott5114↗ 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am in agreement here. This is so trivial and so un-encylopedic, and it is already covered at AARoads, from which this list is derived from.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed as well. This type of thing is a nightmare to source and is the type of cruft that really doesn't add anything to the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is too difficult to source and is extreme trivia. Paragraph on states using "state shield" versus those using "neutral shield" struck from article -- I think we've got a consensus here. ;) • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the only good source we have is ODOT's PDF diagram that clearly includes the state name, and gives no option for omission. ODOT, however, fails to follow their standards much of the time, and doesn't do a very good job ensuring their contractors follow them either, so that's why some shields Oklahoma City lack the state name. Missouri also specifies the state name in their official standards, but my current desktop wallpaper quite clearly shows that there's neutered shields on the BGSes at the I-44/US 65 junction. Everyone seems to agree that sourcing all of this is more trouble than it's worth; AARoads does an admirable job trying to keep track, but we can't rely on unverifiable reports from the field (especially when they conflict with the official sign drawings). Out it goes. —Scott5114↗ 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution in Interstate shields 

message: Yes, but the map may make mistake. I thought Ks is blue state because the only place missing state names is the turnpikes ex. of Interstate 335. Let me ask why we need state shield on Okla-if many shields in the OK-City is missing, or should OK state hsield be remove? By the way most of states is mix-state shields. 14 of states only have few state shields. In CaliforniaI was at San Francisco Bay over the summer the 3-digit interstates were mainly state shields in the bay, even Interstate 205 is state name shield. When I was on it, I-205 did alot of modernization.  But the 5 in Central Valley is missing state name sheild I was passing through it to get back to LA.--Freewayguy (Comm 90) 19:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the only good source we have is ODOT's PDF diagram that clearly includes the state name, and gives no option for omission. ODOT, however, fails to follow their standards much of the time, and doesn't do a very good job ensuring their contractors follow them either, so that's why some shields Oklahoma City lack the state name. Missouri also specifies the state name in their official standards, but my current desktop wallpaper quite clearly shows that there's neutered shields on the BGSes at the I-44/US 65 junction. Everyone seems to agree that sourcing all of this is more trouble than it's worth; AARoads does an admirable job trying to keep track, but we can't rely on unverifiable reports from the field (especially when they conflict with the official sign drawings). Out it goes. —Scott5114↗ 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: States with many diamond shields

message: I believe that federal trademark law prevents the federal government from registering trademarks. So I'd like to use a term other than "trademarked" to more accurately describe the uniqueness of the shield. However, the word is tagged with a citation; could someone with the book look into just what is being cited? Johnlogic 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The shield is trademarked by AASHTO, which is not a government organization, but has quasi-governmental status due to its membership and FHWA's practice of basically going along with their decisions. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trademarked"?