Talk:Interstate Highway System/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Interstates Along Routes

I have noticed in several places where an interstate was built near or over an existing route that the interstate retains the same last digit. For example, I-70 is along Route 40, I-79 is along Route 19, I-81 is along route 1, I-68 was originally Route 48. Is there an actual rule for this or just hapchance that the ones I noticed were the ones that did it? PerlKnitter (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than both U.S. Routes and Interstates ending in 0 are designated as "major", it's just chance. (Besides, there are plenty of counterexamples; I-35 is along Route 77 in Oklahoma, I-44 is along Route 66, when I-49 is built it'll be along Route 71.) So, no, those are just coincidence, there's no intended rule to that effect. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

National Speed limit and Congressional boldness

I wonder about the neutrality of statements such as, "The initial acceptance of the national speed limit emboldened various presidents and congresses to enact additional pieces of legislation, some of which have little to do with highways or transportation." If this is an observation about the effect of the national Speed limit on the culture or politics of past or present administrations, i'm not sure it belongs here... Just a thought and (maybe) a seed for discussion. (please excuse any formatting issues, i'm still kinda new at this) Nothingofwater (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. These have no direct relationship to Interstate highways. They apply to ALL roads. These notes do not belong in this article.

Here's the removed content:

Federal role in financing

The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to achieve legislative goals that fall outside its power to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in the federal [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]. By threatening to withhold a percentage of highway funds, the federal government has been able to stimulate state [[legislature]]s to pass a variety of laws related to the pursuit of "general welfare". In 1987, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] upheld the practice as a permissible use of the Constitution's [[Commerce Clause]].<ref name="sd-vs-dole">{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203 |author=U.S. Supreme Court |date=1987-06-23 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |title=SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) |publisher=FindLaw}}</ref>

The first major example was the introduction of the [[National Maximum Speed Law|55 mph (90 km/h) national speed limit]] in 1974. While its purpose was to save fuel in the wake of the [[1973 energy crisis]], federal speed controls stayed in effect for 21 years. The Commerce Clause was also used to mandate a [[legal drinking age]] to 21<ref name="sd-vs-dole" /> and lower the legal [[intoxication]] level to 0.08%<ref name="23 U.S.C. sec 163">{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC163 |title=Sec. 163. Safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons |date=2005-01-03 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |author=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref><ref name="23 U.S.C. sec 158">{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC163 |title=Sec. 158. National minimum drinking age |date=2005-01-03 |accessdate=2008-01-17 |author=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref>

The former of these two is becoming a heated topic of debate, with [[MADD]] being steadfast supporters of [[Legal Age 21]], and [[Choose Responsibility]] rallying for its repeal, on the grounds that the law causes more problems than it solves.<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Choose Responsibility | work = | publisher = | date = | url = http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/home/ | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2008-03-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) | work = | publisher = | date = | url = http://www.madd.org/ | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2008-03-29}}</ref>

Novasource (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's freeway system

"Both Alaska and Puerto Rico have public roads that receive funding from the Interstate program, although these routes are not signed as Interstate highways (except on paper). These roads are neither planned for, nor built to, official Interstate highway standards."

Puerto Rico's freeway system IS built by interstate highway standards

--BoricuaPR (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[1][2]. Those are not built to Interstate highway standards, which are essentially really well-build limited access free(toll)ways, not surface roads. There may be some sections that are limited-access, but not all of them. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

There's been a lot of criticism by scholarly folks, transportation aficionados and libertarian small government zealots alike of the interstate highway system. But where is it? Lequis (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of criticism? Criticism such as that the Interstate highways ruin the driving experience by removing people from the more scenic routes and can ruin business in smaller towns that were bypassed would not, in my opinion, add anything to the article because those are things that cannot be addressed. I'd feel the same way about criticism against federal funding. But the former points could be said about any highway in any country so I do not feel that they would be appropriate here. Criticism such as the numbering system sucks could potentially be included but that seems like an opinion. Do you have these criticisms? --MPD ^{T / C} 05:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the heading of this article must be changed to Interstate Highway System of USA

Interstate Highway Systems are present all over the world. China has a network of Interstate Highways, same as in India in the name of 'Suvarna Chatushkon'. Australia has similar system and not to mention many countries in Eurasia as well.

This article specifically discusses Interstate Highway System in America.

Given above situation, the heading of this article must be changed to Interstate Highway System of USA.

And another article encompassing a bigger view about interstate highway systems around world should be in place with the current heading.

Katyare (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between Interstate Highway System and interstate highway system. The Interstate Highway System (also known as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) is a freeway system in the United States that is a part of a larger system of interstate highways that aren't always freeways. Lots of nations have freeway and/or expressway systems. Australia and India both have interstate highway systems that include some freeways . In both countries they're called National Highways. See National Highway (India) and Highways in Australia for more information. China doesn't have states, so the adjective interstate/ Interstate would never be used.Synchronism (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) First, are they "interstate highways" or "Interstate highways", the latter being a proper noun, and the former being an adjective? Highway M1/1 in Australia is/was Highway 1, which is an inter-state route, as opposed to an intra-state route, but is not an Interstate route. On an English Encyclopaedia, is there the possibility of confusion? Even then, there are other names this article could be titled "Eisenhower Interstate System", a common name seen on the highways, or "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", which is its official name. I think it comes down to playing semantics, but in the end, the "Interstate Highway System" as currently stands is unambiguous to being of the United States. Interstate Highway also refers to the "I" routes, and not the U.S. Route system, which is also an inter-state system, more akin to those of Australia. Thus, this article should not be changed. --MPD ^{T / C} 06:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Think about it. As I understand it, autobahn is a German word generally equivalent to freeway, but when English speakers refer to "the Autobahn", they always mean the German freeway system. Australia has inter-state routes, sure, but they're not called Interstates, they're called National Highways. Or at least they were—I've heard that Australia is in the midst of a Great Renumbering and are hoping to come out with an alphanumeric system like the UK uses. When you refer to the Interstate Highway System, it's pretty clear that most people would assume you're talking about the US system. If there are any other "Interstate Highway System"s out there in the world, they would probably end up getting the parenthetical dab while this article would get the main title. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading your explanations, I still think the name should have USA in it. Wikipedia is not meant for US readers only. It is refered around the world. This is confusing for readers. I had no reason to think I am going to read about some American transport network system when I visited this page!Katyare (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What did you think you were going to see? Yes, Wikipedia is not for U.S. readers only, but we've addressed this point—what road system in another country, sharing the title "Interstate Highway System", is as prominent as the U.S. one? The most prominent freeway systems in the world that I know of are the 400-Series Highways in Canada, the U.K. motorway network, the German Autobahn, and the Shuto Expressway system in Japan. None of these share the title "Interstate Highway System" (and indeed, none of these countries have "states"), so I'm really not seeing any potential for conflict or confusion here.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the proper noun phrase (with capital letters) 'Interstate Highway System' used in other countries also? YBG (talk)

I'm really getting sick and tired of editors (both within and outside the US) saying "you MUST put USA on articles concerning things in the US". The policy on article names is clear, if something is more notable by far than other similarly named things then you dont need to disambiguate in the title name to avoid confusion. People who have issues with US domination in cultural topics (and I apologize that it does, but oh well, dont have sour grapes) think that everything US orientated has to be labelled as being US or those in the US are being "arrogant". How would you like it if I went to Sydney and said, "No, you have to change the name to Sydney, Australia; because I'm sure there are other Sydney's elsewhere in the world and its being Australia-centric to just assume everyone looking for Sydney is looking for this one, its confusing!" or to do the same for Paris, Moscow, or Hong Kong. I'm one of the most liberal people in the world and even I think this is the most ridiculous political correctness crap that happens in wikipedia. If your country was a world power for the last one hundred years, a superpower for the last sixty, and the only current superpower today then you too would have your places and ideas and names used more than others. Its not intentional or arrogance, its simply what happens when you have dominated history at the point that the US has, it was simply lucky in dominating the world at the point of mass-communication and the shrinking of global boundaries. Forty years from now the Chinese will be claiming the same thing most likely, even on English version of wikipedia, and I wont argue, I will agree with them. Please stop dictating and saying the name must change, that is arrogance and rude and well, plainly wrong based on the naming convention in Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

I'm surprised that there's no comment on the absence of an I-50 and an I-60. --Geenius at Wrok (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Speed limit

I put a on the statement that the nation had a national speed limit enforced by federal law. It wasnt a law that said you cant have a speed limit over 55mph, in fact many states had highways with a higher speed limit (such as New Jersey) during that period. What Congress and Reagan did was to say "you have a speed limit over 55 mph and that highway isnt eligible for as much federal highway money". Congress actually has no authority to directly tell states what the speed limit can be, even on interstates, but as with alot of things, it CAN bully states to conform to federal standards by withholding money.Camelbinky (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Interstate 50

I just created an article on Interstate 50 that talks about why there is no Interstate 50, but I can't find a place in this article to link to it. Anyone know of one?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Articles_for_deletion/Interstate_50 YBG (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Formal Name citation

Just for reference purposes, the first reference:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm

confirms the full formal name of the system.
-- baylink@en.w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.11.216 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations Needed in Extremes

I have just marked most of the bullets in the Extremes section with the {{cn}} tag -- not because I dispute any of these facts, but to encourage documentation. I know many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag and in most cases it is best to use the {{unreferenced}} tag for a section, but I thought tagging each fact would be a better way to keep track of progress toward complete documentation. By the way, I chose not to tag the 49°N as it seemed to fall into the category of general knowledge that need not be specifically referenced. I'm not sure what would be the best form of documentation for some of these. YBG (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed limit extremes

I don't think that section is necessary. The maximum speed limit in the country - 80 mph - can be/should be/is mentioned in the speed limit section. But the lowest speed list will be long I think. So far we have two routes listed as 40mph. I-180 in Wyoming is 40mph, I-68 in Cumberland Md is 40mph as well. I-70 through Breezewood is 35mph. Not to mention the sourcing issues. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a 35mph section, that would eliminate the host of 40mph sections. I was quite surprised to hear about anything below 50mph, so I think the slowest speed is interesting information. If either the fastest or slowest list gets to be more than a few (3? 4?), then add the expression 'and others'. For now, why not include the 35mph information? YBG (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay so thoughts on this: I-70 follows US 30 on a short surface segment through Breezewood, Pa. The speed limit is 35mph. It's not Interstate-grade, but it is still a true speed limit for a section of Interstate highway. I feel it should count as the lowest speed limit and replace the 40mph sections listed. Thoughts? --MPD ^{T / C} 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the whole section is that, while we can say with references "section X is at 35 mph" we cannot say that that is absolutely the lowest speed limit on the whole system, NOR can we say that the list is not trivially long even for that speed. Heck, Deadman's Curve in Cleveland, which is on actual mainline interstate and not a "Breezwood" situation, is at 35 MPH: [3] and with the numerous mountain and urban sections of interstates; one could likely find more. Before it was replaced by the Big Dig, Boston's Central Artery was 35 MPH as well, and though it is being rebuilt, I am pretty sure thatI-95 in Jacksonville features a segment which was 35 mph currently. After digging, here's a similar situation on I-10 in Baton Rouge: [4] and I-385 in S. Carolina and though not evident in this picture, I can attest that this segment of I-295 in NJ also features a 35 mph speed limit. In the other direction, this end of I-76 features 35 mph speed limit as well: [5]. The point is, I dug these up in 15 minutes with google; it seems mindnumbingly trivial that, given the large number of segments which is likely at this speed, we should include this "fact" at all. Even if someone found a lower speed (30? 25?), we could never really assure that the list would be complete, so what's the point? Just dump the whole thing. --Jayron32 05:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, unless we can come up with some way to make specific low speed sections truly notable, lets remove the 'slowest' or replace it with something simply listing a slow speed and maybe one example. I'm inclided to say something just so there is a 'slowest' to go along witht he 'fastest. YBG (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless we have something official, it would represent a novel synthesis to say "well, we can confirm at least 35 mph, so lets call that the slowest". Merely finding a picture (as I did above) which attests to the existance of a mainline interstate section with 35 mph does not mean we can definitively call that the slowest actual speed limit. We would need something official from say a national government agency, or some other official confirmation, otherwise its all original research, and possibly wrong original research as well. --Jayron32 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. But it does grate a bit to have a 'fastest' with a 'slowest'. Alas. YBG (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the whole section. Fastest had the same general problems as slowest did. --Jayron32 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Which backs my original opinion. Sounds good. --MPD ^{T / C} 12:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)