Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 2

Route Nomenclature

Interstates

Should articles on individual highways be as I-5 or as Interstate 5? (Note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms).) The only existing one I've turned up is I-25, and I personally find using the full word to be very unnatural. (But then, my native usage would be The 5, which is probably not at all acceptable!) For US highways, there's United States Highway 101, and I've renamed United States Highway 1 to match; so I'm inclined intellectually to use the "Interstate #" format, but (currnetly non-linked) mentions are overwhelmingly in "I-#" format. --Brion

I support the [[Interstate #]] format, it is less ambiguous (is I-20 the highway or the Visa, etc.) ~~ (dml)

As do I. However, before we do this we should make sure no other nations use [Interstate #] for their highways. Redirects in the form of I-5 can be used for convenience (this shouldn't be much of an ambiguity problem -- iodine's isotope range starts at I-108 and ends at I-142 and I don't know of any interstates in that range yet -- besides, I don't forsee us ever having articles about each isotope). US-1 would also be a nice redirect. --mav

per Jerzy & hist, the above edit was 10:56, 2002 Aug 23 by Maveric149 on "my vote"

Well, there are an "I-110" in greater Los Angeles and another in Pensacola, Florida, an "I-126" into Columbia SC, "I-129" connecting northern Nebraska to I-29 in Iowa, and "I-135" in central Kansas; "I-124" used to exist in Chattanooga TN  ; "I-115", "I-117" (probably connecting to Prescott, Arizona), "I-120", "I-125", "I-130", "I-140" are all possible. It's conceivable that the range of isotopes of iodine could be extended lower into the nineties or to 165 or so... Nobody is likely to be confused.

As for the regional use of "The (number)" as in California, it applies to Interstates "The 10", US Highways "The 101", or state routes "The 91", particularly if freeways, probably to avoid confusion with the frequency numbers of radio stations that broadcast traffic reports. In California, little distinction exists between Interstate, US, or state routes so long as they are freeways. In some other states that is impossible in part because some Interstate and State routes meet (Interstate 64 and Indiana State Highwa 64) or US and State routes meet (US 70 and Texas State Highway 70) --66.231.38.97 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• With regard to the use of 'The' in front of the highway #, as mentioned above: That is not what people in California say. That is what people in Southern California say. In the north, someone driving from Oakland to San Jose would take 880, not 'the' 880. As for the use of the definite article having something to do with traffic reports or radio stations...what? Freeways and traffic reports are not unique to Los Angeles, unfortunately. We have cars with radios and traffic reports and freeways too, but aren't mired in confusion because we call the freeway just "101". Maybe the use of 'the' is a way of elevating the status of the freeway, not just 101 but THE 101, in collective acknowledgment of the sacred, dominant role of the freeway in the life of southern Californians. I propose changing 'California' to 'Southern California' in the sentence in question and might do so soon if nobody objects. Tjm402 13:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking further discussion of Interstates, including Route Nomenclature

The topics of nomenclature for both Interstates & state routes have been idle 14 months on thisTalk:Interstate highway page. Before editing here on the subject, if it has been continued or made a standard elsewhere, can anyone direct me where?

I'm thinking substantial data has been generated on the "Interstate #" format, so i (clueless re Wiki bots) am not abt to massively edit, but i'm prototyping on I-91 and would like to at least know directions others are going before going too much further. (I haven't looked much further to see how widely Mav has done what he did in June on I-91.) --Jerzy 20:14, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

-- response on naming. I believe it was in reference to article names that we used Interstate 1 rather than I-1, within the articles, the use of I-1 format is probably acceptable, and I think is widely used already. dml

There seems to be a pattern that is worth mentioning in the article. 2-digit routes ending with "5" are major highways and traversing the country from north to south, starting from I-5 on the west coast and ending with I-95 on the east coast. 2-digit routes ending with "0" are major highways and are traversing the country from east to west, starting from I-10 on the south and ending with I-90 on the north. Solarapex 15:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Numbers divisible by 5 are intended to be major among the primary routes, carrying traffic long distances." --NE2 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

State Routes

While we're on the topic... Hey Mav, you work for Caltrans -- should it be California State Highway 1 or California Highway 1? --Brion

It's actually called State Route 1, but I'm not sure that is a good name for us to use (because of ambiguity and the fact that few people acutally use it). On second thought, California State Route 1 isn't so bad. BTW I work in CA DOT Mass Transportation so I had to actually look the name up. --mav

Okay, I do actually see some uses of "California State Route" out on the net (though not many...) if it's the most correct way, I'll use that to name the articles (Isis, if you're listening -- that doesn't mean I have to change every reference to said highway to "California State Route 1"!). --Brion

per Jerzy & hist, the above edit was 11:26, 2002 Aug 23 by Brion VIBBER &sum'd "Ahh, names that no one uses..."

---

Toll "Freeways"

Regarding this sentence in the article: "The roads are called freeways, but this is first because they are free-flowing, not because they are free". The word "freeway" is actually frequently used to refer to toll-free highways, although I think it also probably is used to mean any limited access high speed highway. I think this sentence should probably be reworded or this point should be elaborated on. soulpatch

per hist & Jerzy, above edit was 13:18, 2002 Dec 4 by Soulpatch on "The definition of a freeway?"

I read this talk bcz IMO rewording along these lines is needed. IMO the use of "freeway" to include a toll road is a casual carelessness that is tolerable, bcz usually harmless, in oral usage, but not to be encouraged even in oral usage. One evidence of this is that freeway (in my experience of CA, 3 Midwest states, and 2 northeastern ones) is a popular term only on the west coast, where IIRC correctly toll road are extremely rare. They are certainly rarer than in the northeast.

Thus IMO it should be mentioned here only as being an invitation to confusion. --Jerzy 18:32,

States that have toll highways ordinarily call those highways by some name distinct from "freeway". Some are called "turnpikes" (although some highways carry the name after the toll collection is ended); some are called "parkways" (although they can retain the name after toll collection ends, and the word has been applied to highways that have never been tolled), "corridors", or even "expressways" -- but nowhere are they called "freeways" in the United States. That a toll is collected at a mandatory stop or slowdown itself compromises the concept of free flow of traffic, even iof the toll booths are hundreds of miles apart. The word "toll" implies that a toll is collected for use of the highway from the vehicle's driver. Any state that removes toll collection from a highway now called a "tollway" would likely redesignate it with some other name -- such as "freeway". If (as was proposed in Illinois), the tollway system were to be de-tolled, then such a highway as the "Northwest Tollway" would need some other name once the tolls are removed, were it to be known as something other than "Interstate 90".

In American practice, tolls are rarely collected upon highways other than the expensively-built limited-access divided highways and on toll bridges, one of the more noteworthy exceptions being the Seventeen-Mile Drive near Monterrey, California. Control of access is necessary for collection at toll booths, and the usual street or road with its numerous turnoffs and driveways would not suffice -- but those are not Interstate routes.

So here's how to avoid the confusion: because tolls are never collected on ordinary roads, we can avoid the confusion from the oxymoron "toll freeway" by using "tollway" as a generic term for not only the Illinois and Texas tollways, but also the Chicago Skyway, the Indiana Toll Road, the New York Thruway system, turnpikes that still have tolls, Parkways on which tolls are still collected, tolled Expressways in Florida, and the Toll Corridors of southern California. Toll bridges, causeways, and tunnels might be excluded unless they are parts of toll highways that continue beyond the bridge approaches.--66.231.38.97 22:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Though a 'parkway' may be a 'freeway' or a 'highway' not all freeways and highways are parkways. Historically, the term 'parkway' indicated a planted, tree-filled median, but has been braodened to also include other versions of planted routes such as scenic routes. However, attention to landscape design is required to be correctly termed a 'parkway'.

Freeway refers to the free-flowing traffic, not whether it is toll-free. See Freeway and the citations to statutory and regulatory authority I have added to that article. All of those sources are available online at the Web sites of the proper government agencies.--Coolcaesar 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

300-mile journeys

The article currently states:

Most long-distance land journeys of less than 300 miles (for vacation or business) use the interstate highway system at some point.

Shouldn't that be greater than 300 miles? It seems the longer journeys would be more likely to use an interstate. However, I don't know the source of this statistic; maybe it's correct. Gwimpey 04:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, this is from the Nov. 15 edit by User:Seth Ilys. I think it is most journeys of any type, not just land journeys. Gwimpey 04:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• When they get longer than that, people are more likely to fly. --Xcali 04:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vocabulary question

What does "at-grade" mean in this context? Cool Hand Luke 02:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The equivalent of grade crossing when a highway crosses another road. Basically not built to any sort of freeway standards. Maybe replace it with 'non-freeway'. --SPUI 04:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I linked "at-grade" to the Wikipedia article "Level crossing". Gyrofrog 05:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Eh, that article currently deals only with railroads; either that should be expanded or "at-grade" should point elsewhere. --SPUI 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops, mea culpa. In hindsight prob. confused with an article about a specific Interstate (I-35) that actually had an at-grade RR Xing. Gyrofrog 06:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Hello everyone:

Can someone figure out what to do about that "institutional racism" passage that recently appeared in the article? As currently phrased, it's far too POV and inaccurate.

--Coolcaesar 00:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, we should just get rid of it. Most of the criticisms presented are already addressed in the Effect of the automobile and Freeway articles.

Of course, if anyone is in the mood to rewrite it in NPOV, feel free to put it back in.

--Coolcaesar 07:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

km/h equivalents

SPUI, I disagree with your statements "If I'm not mistaken, whenever a country converts to metric from mph, they always round to the nearest 5, so revert.)" and "er, i mean nearest 10, which is what http://www.dot.state.al.us/Boards_Committees/Metrication/primer/primer.htm has". You are correct that if the USA once would come to its senses and convert to km/h the figures would certainly be rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 km/h. But we aren't talking about metrification here! The point is to show those of us who are not familiar with mph what the speeds mean. For that purpose rounding to nearest 5 or 10 is certainly way too inaccurate! Speeding by 10 km/h could give you a large fine in some countries! 213.112.81.4 20:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supporting my case: Look at Autobahn. km/h speeds are rounded to the nearest mile per hour. 213.112.81.4 20:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's really no reason to give speeds to that accuracy. Can you really tell the difference between 55 and 60 without looking at the speedometer? --SPUI (talk) 01:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure you can't, that's what you have a speedometer for! :-) Between 55 and 60 you get a 19% larger kinetic energy with all the consequences that has for safety. Honestly, as a European brought up with km/h, figures rounded that much are a lot less useful to me. I have only seen 65 mph quoted as 104 or 105 km/h before. Rounding to 100 km/h is really confusing. It had me reaching for my calculator, thinking: "Hmm, that can't be right! I thought it was more than that!". 213.112.81.4 11:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

During the 1970s when Indiana doublesigned its highway speed limits in both MPH and km/h, the signs read "Speed limit 55 MPH; 88 km/h". I argue for rounding to the nearest unit. Kelly Martin 12:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That's a slightly different issue, as it relates to enforcement. If they marked it as 90 km/h, then it would be legal to go faster that 55 mph at a time when the National Minimum Speed Limit of 55 was in effect. But if a country were to change over, they'd likely be rounded. --SPUI (talk) 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But we're not talking about a country changing over. That point has been made several times already, I believe. Kelly Martin 12:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

We're also not talking about a country dual-signing without changing over. The main point is that the mph numbers are always given to the nearest 5 (unless the property owner wants to be cute), despite the possibility of a more accurate speed limit being determined during engineering. The same seems true for km/h (except in rare cases of dual signage), and, barring any other concerns, the km/h should be rounded equivalently. I agree that it's useful to go to the nearest 5 rather than 10, but anything more precise is useless. --SPUI (talk) 12:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've seen "Speed Limit 8" signs before. Most speedometers and every radar gun I've ever seen are accurate to 1 mph, and the police issue citations based on the speed accurate to 1 mph. I believe it's quite clear that the standard degree of accuracy for highway speeds is 1 mph or 1 km/h and that rounding should be to that level of significance. Kelly Martin 13:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, some developers do that to be "cute", or to make people notice the speed limit because they're used to multiples of 5. The standard degree of accuracy is 5, except for a few nonstandard cases. --SPUI (talk) 13:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that rulemakers tend to favor numbers that are multiples of five does not mean that the accuracy of measurement or of expression is to multiples of five. In most states, speeding offenses are graded based on how far over the speed limit the offender was going. These gradations are generally expressed as "1 to 5", "6 to 15", "16 to 25" and so forth. Note the use of "1": clearly, the law entertains an accuracy of measurement to unit miles per hour. In any case, as is pointed out below speed limits are precise specifications, not measurements, and so arguments from accuracy of specification don't really matter anyway. Kelly Martin 18:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures - "If equivalents are given, these should be to the same level of precision as the original measurement, for example, "the moon is 250,000 miles (400,000 km) from Earth", not "402,336 km"."

If you want to change them to the nearest 5, go ahead. But anything more precise just seems useless. --SPUI (talk) 12:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As 55mph is an *exact* figure (hence the manual of style would allow infinite precision), why not round to the nearest tenth of a kph? Then there would not be a need to dispute whether the number would realistically appear on a road sign, since it would never appear on a road sign as such. 132.205.45.148 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

55mph is not an "exact" figure. Speed limits are indicated in gradations of 5mph, so "55mph" means "55mph +/- 2.5mph". The km/h conversion would be "88 km/h +/- 4km/h", so "85km/h" and "90km/h" are both acceptable equivalents to "55mph". And in the real world, the only jurisdictions that enforce to within 2.5mph of the speed limit are those that operate a speed trap for profit. --Carnildo 19:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Just because speed limits are given in steps of five doesn't mean that the intended accuracy is +/- 2.5 mph. Let me give a counter-example: In Sweden speed limits are given in steps of 20 km/h as 30, 50, 70, 90 and 110 km/h. Let's say I'm driving along at 120 km/h on a 110 km/h freeway. Stopped by a police officer giving me a $150 fine I say: "Well, I was driving within the accuracy intended by the legislator". Not a very efficient defense. Clearly the intended accuracy of speed limits is less than the grading of limits. As you wrote above, quoting from the style manual, unit conversions should match the original accuracy. I belive the case is strong that the intended accuracy is +/- 0.5 units, meaning rounding to the nearest unit. I don't think the question of enforcement is relevant here. 213.112.81.4 21:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SPUI on this. As an aside, in my experience, it is relatively uncommon to get ticketed for speeding on an Interstate if you are going within 10 mph of the speed limit. Even though the police might write a specific speed on a ticket, enforcement is still largely a judgement call, and unless the car is going significantly over the speed limit or significantly faster than other vehicles (or unless there are other factors involved, like "driving while black", or weaving between lanes), your chances of getting stopped are fairly small. older≠wiser 01:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule when rounding, here is what they should be shown as:

• 20 mph = 30 km/h
• 25 mph = 40 km/h
• 30 mph = 50 km/h
• 35 mph = 55 or 60 km/h
• 40 mph = 60 or 65 km/h
• 45 mph = 70 km/h
• 50 mph = 80 km/h
• 55 mph = 90 km/h
• 60 mph = 95 or 100 km/h
• 65 mph = 100 or 105 km/h
• 70 mph = 110 km/h
• 75 mph = 120 km/h

FY'allsI: Back in the late 1970s or early 1980s when there was a national speed limit in the US, Florida posted some mph and km/h signs (they used the Euro red circle style for the km/h) and all of the limits were rounded except for 55 mph which was given at precisely 88 km/h. LuiKhuntek 00:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson Bridge

Anybody know for sure that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is Federally owned? I did some related work for MD SHA a while back, and I seem to recall it was jointly owned by Maryland and Virginia, although DC may also own part of it. Toiyabe 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's false, a lot of people are wrong. I think there's something strange with the feds owning it but the states maintaining it. I can't find anything on the reconstruction site though. --SPUI (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here's what had me confused: "Under a new ownership agreement, Maryland and Virginia will co-own the new bridge and split ongoing maintenance and operation costs." From here, seventh bullet. So that statement is currently true, but will be false in another year or so. Toiyabe 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)