Talk:Interstate 95/Archive 1

The writeup on this looks suspiciously like that at http://www.interstate-guide.com/interstate/i-095.html. I know the owners of this site (and a couple of pictures I took are there too), and I don't think they'd be too pleased to see this... Kirjtc2 20:42 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moved from the article:


 * (Information possibly stolen without permission from AARoads.com) -- 68.224.91.212

Also removed, text that seems to have been copied directly from the above page:


 * The East Coast's Main Street, Interstate 95 serves the entire Northeast Megalopolis, while also serving southeastern cities of Jacksonville and Miami along Florida's Space Coast. The highway is an important factor in commerce and tourism, linking scenic New England with the tropical environs of southern Florida. Overall, I-95 follows United States Highway 1, but it deviates from U.S. 1 in Georgia, the Carolinas, and southern Virginia. 

The rest of the article seems to be OK, although it needs more eyes checking to be sure. Information in itself is not copyrightable (is that a word?). The source may have been the above page, but if the road is 381 miles in Florida then that is a fact that can be repeated anywhere (IANAL of course). Some of the figures are different in any case, it looks as though a different source was used for most of the article?

sannse 10:19 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why is this article only in kilometers? Given that miles are still used in the U.S., where did they disappear to? –radiojon 05:14, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

only continuation with same number
OK, I got a little confused in looking at recent reverts. SPUI had disambiguated a link to I-76 east and also removed this statement: (This is the only instance where an Interstate and its Canadian successor have the same route number.) For some reason I thought that he had been adding it. I don't actually know if this is a true statement or not, but if someone wants to restore it, that is fine by me -- I actually thought I was restoring it when I reversed the reversion of SPUI's edits. older &ne; wiser 14:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I sort of restored, and clarified, it. MB 29 is rather short and easy to miss, but it's there.` --SPUI (talk) 14:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a curious bit of trivia. I also notice that U.S. 75 continues as Manitoba highway 75. Any other such U.S. highway-Canada highway continuations? older &ne; wiser 14:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are actually a whole lot of them on the U.S. Highways. There are so few with Interstates because the provinces didn't care to renumber (for example British Columbia 99 becomes I-5, which used to be US 99). The cases of 29 and 95 were new highways built to serve the Interstates. I believe the only match with Mexico (U.S. Highway 57) was first numbered 57 in Mexico; US 57 is a rather short east-west route with an odd (north-south) number. --SPUI (talk) 14:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Though interestingly, a road exists a bit east of MB 29 that once connected to US 81 (US 81 is now on I-29 there). I wonder if that was originally MB 81. It's unfortunately too short to appear on most old maps. --SPUI (talk) 14:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some routes numbered after continuing US highways that I can think of in Canada: MB-59, ON-61, ON-71, MB-75, MB-83, BC/AB-93, BC-95, BC-97, BC-99 and BC-395. BC-101 is also derived from US-101, but it never reaches the Canadian border (if it truly was a connecting route, the only one that would make sense would be BC-19 on Vancouver Island via ferry, and the doubling-back of US-101 would create a "spur" 101...) CrazyC83 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

9 July 2005 changes etc.
I made some changes, most notably to the introduction. Most prominently, I moved the discussion about the New Brunswick connector route 95 to the notes section, and added a more general overview of the highway.

(While the fact that the eight mile long Canadian connecter route is also numbered 95 and the fact that it is rare for a Canadian connector to have the same number as the interstate might be interesting to a road buff, it is not the essential piece of information to give as an introduction to the general reader about the I-95.)

I also worked with the paragraph about the gap in New Jersey. Hopefully it is an improvement.

Finally, I think the notes section is too long and need to be either shortened or at least organized. Most of the notes section is about various spur routes. Perhaps we should consider moving the discussion of spur routes to a separate article, or to the articles pertaining to the specific spur routes. -- Ithacagorges talk 00:46 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Stub?!?!?!
This is way too long to be a stub. worthawholebean talkcontribs 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a stub because it does not meet the WikiProject standards. If you want you could change it to cleanupint. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) My RFA 04:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

State-by-state
I really like the idea of the state-by-state subpages. They should contain the road descriptions within the states, the exit lists, etc. that would be far too long on the main pages. They should be made for the other long Interstates as well. CrazyC83 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this, but I'm willing for a compromise on I-95 since it is long. But here as is noted at TFD, we're opening a can of worms here. That means that short interstates might get split (like I-5) or I-495. Then we get splits between maintenances... we've got to be careful here. Therefore, we should only do Interstate 95 like this, and be judicious about splitting things off. Like... do we want to split the District of Columbia portion off, describing te 0.11 miles in the District? It's an extreme example but we need to think about stuff like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, if anything Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia should redirect to Interstate 395 (District of Columbia-Virginia), with maybe a disambiguation up top linking to Woodrow Wilson Bridge. As for further splits, like I-95 in New York being the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Cross-Bronx Expressway, Bruckner Expressway and New England Thruway, those can have even more detailed articles, like we would do for a typical state highway. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to only do this sort of thing in cases where the main article would exceed Wikipedia's recommended article length (I'm not really sure what it is, but I know there is one, because I get warned about it when editing large articles.) In this particular article, there is a ton of info from New Jersey, but not so much from others. I think it should be based on the amount of info on that state, not the length of highway in that state. For articles that are under the recommended max length, with all info included, there is no need to split it up. If someone wants to add info about a state, they can just add it to its section in the main article. If and only if that makes the main article too big, then it should be split. --Chris 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For example, look at Interstate 95, and then look at Jersey. Although Flordia's I-95 is longer than Jersey's, the NJ guys have written a ton more info about their Interstates. (As a matter of fact, there is no Florida state by state section at all.) As for the other states that have stuff, the New York section I wrote certianly doesn't deserve to have its own article. Now if me or someone else were to greatly expand that section, then we could think about creating Interstate 95 in New York. So I suggest improving your state's section, until it becomes too big. Then and only then should it be split. --Chris 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - I'll get to Florida. I live here and can certainly write enough for a full article. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed on length issues. The only Interstates that such would apply IMO should be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35, 40, 55, 65, 70, 75, 80, 81, 85, 90, 94 and 95. Definitely not for the intrastate Interstates or the shorter ones (such as 26, 57 or 89). BTW, the District of Columbia section of I-95 does not warrant a separate page; there is little to say other than it sits there, it was built in one shot by Maryland and Virginia and there are no interchanges or unique features there. CrazyC83 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, I-95 doesn't even touch land in DC. I'm not even sure that I-5 should be split; the only state that has worthwhile information there is California. But it should probably be on an individual basis, and should be extremely limited so things don't get out of hand. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need to split up those where only one state is significant, even if there's alot of info about it. --Chris 22:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I think something like Interstate 76 (east) or Interstate 78 is a good length, even with expanded description and history sections. It just gets stupidly insane for stuff like I-95 when we cover the routes in detail. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Single-state next/previous boxes
I don't think it's appropriate to list at the bottom a box for "brows[ing] numbered routes" for a single state through which I-95 travels as if this article is one of a collection of stories about that state.

If you insist on having that sort of box, it should be listed under a Massachusetts section elsewhere in the article

Jkatzen 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the box is for all of the states I-95 goes through, not just Massachusetts. See WP:IH for details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Junctions
Since when were other primary interstate junctions not "major"?Gateman1997 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus on longer 2di's such as I-95, has been that only the major routes in the cross direction are "major". IMHO, I-85 should be listed as a major junction since it's the northern terminus of 85. Otherwise, I agree with keeping the list manageably short. C.Fred 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I-75 was put on there by someone, and now it's been taken off. What about I-75 via I-595 or something to that effect? Just curious.MPD01605 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added I-75 back (via I-595 as it showed before), as it's just as significant as ther northern terminus I-85 (this is I-75's southern terminus), ending in 0/5. Jkatzen 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, I'd say it doesn't really intersect, because of the I-595 connection. On the other, that would disqualify I-70, which while designed to hit I-95, doesn't make it all the way there. I'm torn on this one. C.Fred 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my theory: after consulting Interstate-Guide.com, I have discovered that up closer to Baltimore, the signs on I-95 do say "695 to 70". Therefore, Interstate 70 should be included since it is referenced on the sign.  However, I could not find signs in Miami on 95 that say "595 to 75", or even any signs referencing 595 from 95.  So, that said, I say that 75 STAY UNLESS someone can prove that it is NOT on a sign on I-95 that indicated 75 is via 595, if anybody understands what I'm saying.  Benefit of the doubt, and I-75 isnt hurting anybody, since it is a major interstate, and the list is still manageably short.  MPD01605 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, as this is a north-south Interstate, the junctions should be east-west. Other possibilities include seeing which junctions are in decent-sized cities, or which ones are along natural travel patterns. I-40 would be removed in favor of I-85 under the first criterion. As Miami is already mentioned, I-75 adds nothing new, and much traffic going to I-75 from Miami does not use I-595. I don't see how adding I-75 makes the infobox any more useful. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 20:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No big deal that I-75 was lost, but if your theory of "only east-west highways can be mentioned on a north-south interstate" and vice versa is followed, I-10, I-5, I-65, I-75, etc would all need to be changed. It should be that any long interstate with a 5 or 0 (almost national length, of course) that is intersected by an interstate of 5 or 0 (of any length) be put in the box, especially if a 5-or-0 interstate ends at that route.  That doesn't put I-75 on the list, and that's fine.  But 85 stays.  I'm not gonna go start changing all these things to make them reflect that, as you shouldn't go on a spree and tear every I-x0 from an I-x0 routebox.  As of now, I-95 is good, and all the others look good, too.  Thank you. MPD01605 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe I'll go change the others in a bit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to advise against that. From WP:IH, "For I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95, and for that matter any interstate that is long enough to have 15 or more 2di junctions, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0." Therefore, 85 stays, and all the other ones stay, too.  MPD01605 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "only list", not "list all". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the interstate system were a true grid, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that, especially in the southeast, there are some major diagonal interstates (85) and some minor ones (26—and at some point in the future, the 73/74 multiplex). Because of this, I-85 warrants a mention on the junction box of I-65, 75, and 95. And, conversely, all of those are listed on I-85's junction box. Now, looking at that flipside part of the equation, I-95 is not listed in I-75's junction box—it's not even mentioned in the article! By extension, I-95 shouldn't mention I-75 in the junction box, though it may mention it in the text of the article. (By contrast, the I-70 junction box does list I-95.) I say, Keep 70, Keep 85, Delete 75. C.Fred 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Now that still leaves issues like I-10 and I-20.  I-20 on I-10's?  Also with that, on I-5's, which is relatively short, should we keep I-8?  I could put that in I-5's discussion, but seeing as how we're on here anyway, what should we do?   MPD01605 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can live with I-30 beling excluded from I-20 and I-40, because it's such a minor major. I-20 is long enough, though, that I think it should stay on I-10's page. I-8 on I-5's page? If it's that short of a list, why not? To me, the routebox should tell me, in a nutshell, where the interstate goes. It should list every major interstate that it crosses, since they're useful mileposts. If the list is manageably short, it should also list all interstates. For 3di's, the list can be expanded further to US and state routes. More than 10 items on the list becomes unmanageable. C.Fred 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The rule about only those ending in 0 and 5 on those ending on 0 and 5 was to keep the list down. I seem to remember having something to do with it and just pretty much focused on shortening the huge routebox. So an easy way to cut down the size was to apply a simple rule. if it ended in anything other than 0 or 5, i removed it. There is merit to the 0 on 5 and 5 on 0 only thing, but it's not a perfect grid. The long 80 and 90 concurrency is a pretty major thing (they are 2 of the 3 only interstates to touch both 5 and 95). Anyway, as far as access via 3di's goes, they were originally elimnated, but I suppose as long as they are accessible via 3dis of either one. (so hypothetically I-5 to I-10 via I-210 or I-205, but not I-15 or I-115), so long as the list is still short enough. So each junction list should be dealt with individually. Another hypothetical example: say I-60's junction box is 15 long when you include it's intersection with I-50 and it's I-95 connection via I-160, then the indirect connections and similar-direction interstates should be removed. In summary: Since the rule was all about keeping the size down, it need only be strictly enforced in cases where size is an issue. Each exception should be dealt with seperately.--Chris 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list
Andyjay729 has started an article for the I-95 exit list. Because of the length of I-95, the full exit list is correctly not in the main I-95 article. Is the exit list, in one place, a valid encyclopedic resource? The alternative would be exit lists by state, but again, what will happen to the states that don't have their own subarticle? Will we just tack "For an exit list, see Interstate 95 in Georgia" onto the end of the article? Myself, I like the concept of the exit list in one place, but I want other input. --C.Fred 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a seperate article is fine personally only because.... well it's I-95, a super long interstate. But there might be a problem with Article for Deletion/Precedents... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article". Should is not shall, though, but we need a compelling reason. Is there more value to having all the exits in one place instead of across 15 state-specific articles? Do we really want to create separate articles for I-95 in Georgia, Delaware, etc. to basically have some place to park the exit list? Does that headache then justify the in-one-place exit list? --C.Fred 05:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes... (srry about the red link) but others might disagree. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say have one page with all the exits organised by states. Will it be a lot?  yes.  But will it be easier to follow exits through states like New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, which have very few and would just take up space?  I say that an "I-95 Exit List by State" would be good, starting in Florida at US 1 and ending at Canada.  It'll save from clicking through each state, back and click and back and click.  To follow it would be easy.  Then in the State subarticles, a link to the I-95 Exit List page would be appropriate.  I apologise for the confusion in this explanation, but I'm sure I got the jist across. MPD01605 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's my idea -- Start with a new page for an exit list that can be expanded into a whole article on I-95 through the state itself. SPUI's Interstate 75 in Georgia page is pretty short except for the exit list. DanTD 8:49, 28 June 2006 (EST)
 * Which actually is how the exit list is evolving. As articles are written for states, the exit list portions are pulled off to that article. Which works fine by me. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why hasn't the one for Interstate 95 in Virginia been pulled off yet? And is anybody else working on an article for Interstate 95 in Georgia? Because if not, I'll start one off. DanTD 11:22, 30 June 2006 (EST)

Heads up: The exit list has gone to AfD. C.Fred 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the exit list for South Carolina. US 15 was mislabled as South Carolina State Route 15. DanTD 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good pick-up. I've verified and changed it to US 15. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I made some changes for South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. DanTD 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maryland length

 * Prince Georges 34.10
 * Howard 11.59
 * Baltimore 26.47 (no details on the part in the city, but it matches )
 * Harford 18.39
 * Cecil 18.50

I-95 / PA Tpk
I have seen that map, and many designs for the interchange area. Although, from looking at specifically that map, it appears that there will be a turnpike main plaza west of the interchange where they will collect and dispense turnpike tickets, whereas it states that the toll plaza on I-95 east of US 13 will be a westbound-only Delaware River bridge toll plaza. It is also unlikely that I-95 will incur PA tpk tolls because the interchange between I-95/295/276 will be a high-speed interchange, lacking any toll plazas, therefore a mainline toll plaza east of the interchange for the turnpike would be unfeasable and pointless. Interstate 95 @ InterstateGuides.com, a source used throughout Wikipedia, states

"The connection will be a high-speed omnidirectional interchange, with the primary direction changes of northbound Interstate 95 to eastbound Pennsylvania Turnpike and westbound Pennsylvania Turnpike to southbound Interstate 95. The project includes a barrier toll plaza west of the interchange, at which point the ticket system will end. From there east, the toll system will be coin drop. This, of course, allows the interchange to be built without a toll plaza. (Len adds that federal law from 1986 [?] mandates a high-speed interchange.)"

You can go there to check all that out. The "coin drop" system will be the Delaware River Bridge toll. I also emailed the PA Turnpike project with the question of the PA tpk toll, so I won't edit that until I hear back from them.

The PA Turnpike toll was removed from that section on 26 February, too. I appreciate your steadfastness, though. --MPD01605 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point. The way I'm reading the map though, it's calling for a westbound toll on the bridge, and a separate two-way toll barrier (coin drop) that would be part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike... I have no clue which one of us is right.  Even if it turns out that there's no PA Tpk toll on the I-95 section, though, I feel we should still list it with "(defunct)" next to it, as has been done with the Connecticut Turnpike and the former toll bridges. -- Northenglish 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From: Leslie Richards 	Mailed-By: admarble.com
 * To: MPD01605@ .com
 * Date: May 10, 2006 2:54 PM
 * Subject: Reply to question submitted via the PA Tpk/I-95 Interchange Website
 * Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | ::Show original | Message text garbled?


 * Question: It is my understanding from reading the literature that the turnpike will technically end just west of the interchange with I-95, and the only toll on I-95 will be westbound for the Delaware River Bridge, thus travelers on I-95 will not pay a turnpike toll. I am verifying information that I am reporting on. Thanks for your time, Bobby Hidy


 * "Answer:


 * Mr. Hidy:


 * Thanks for your question and interest in the project. You are correct. The only I-95 toll in PA will be the westbound toll for the Delaware River Bridge, which will continue to be jointly owned by the PA Turnpike Commission and New Jersey Turnpike Authority. A new toll collection terminus for the PA Turnpike will indeed be established with the construction of a new mainline toll plaza (with Express EZ-Pass in the center) west of the new I-95 interchange.


 * If you have any other specific questions or need project information, please feel free to call the project office at 215-355-3577.


 * Thank You,


 * The Design Management Team


 * Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project"


 * --MPD01605 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've edited it to reflect that.  Thanks! -- Northenglish 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I-95 Disasters
It's hard to tell -- does this article only mention incidents on 95 itself, or does it include spurs, loops, etc., too? If the latter, then a brief reference to Air Florida Flight 90 might be considered in the "Disasters" section. 68.221.113.144 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one might consider the "sniper" attack (John Allen Muhammad) that occurred in Fredericksburg, VA. This closed off the beltway interstate for many hours as they searched for the then-unknown killer.

At very least, this should be considered if we are going to consider human remains being found a "disaster" due to the time it was closed... and if highway closure is considered the main grounds for it being a "disaster", one ought not omit the time a truck carrying black powder tipped over 495 (?) Southbound, sometime around 1998-99. It resulted in the closure of all southbound traffic on that portion of the highway for at least an entire working day. 72.150.130.107 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (same author as above comments)


 * First, the beltway does not go anywhere near Fredericksburg, and the sniper attacks that shut down the beltway were not on I-95, just 495 near Tysons/Fairfax. Second, I do have to agree though that the human remains are hardly a disaster.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Beltway" was a case of me typing faster than I was thinking. The article is about I-95, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.  Regardless, I'm quite certain that the shooting in Fredericksburg (near the steakhouse) shutdown I-95 for a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.187.233.202 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC).


 * If we include disasters on the various spurs, loops, etc. of I-95 in the I-95 disasters section, the section could become far too long and almost unmaintainable. It would be best if the section only contains disasters on I-95 itself.  Additionally, I also agree that the section should be kept to major car crashes or the like -- i.e., not the finding of human remains.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to revisit the disasters section. Some of these can be weeded out.  Hurricane evacuations aren't really disasters.  A truck striking an overpass isn't really a disaster, it's not infrequent.  Perhaps the commuter bus accident in Stafford could go, it's not the only commuter bus accident in the country.  Many of these are just accidents that happen.  Hail storm accidents?  Yeah, and accidents due to icy roads happen all over the place.  I just feel that some of these are overhyped accidents.  There was an overturned tractor-trailer on I-81 last January that closed both the north- and southbound lanes in Harrisonburg for hours.  I wouldn't call that a disaster.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A lot of these are just regular accidents. Maybe include only those that cause complete closure in both directions that last for at least several days or at least those that made it onto national news. --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The overpass in Quebec that collapsed? That's a disaster. Bay bridge in Oakland collapsed? Disaster. Chain-reaction accident? Bad accident, but unless it's historic, not a disaster. Also, an editor just went in and changed a lot of info on the disasters, so it would need re-vetted anyways. IMHO, if there's not a citation from Time, Newsweek, or something of that scale to back it up, it's not a disaster. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Length in DC
Obviously, it's not finalized yet, but with I-95 having moved onto a new span of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, does this change the length of the interstate in DC, and do we know what the new distance is? The reroute wouldn't be significant for VA or MD but would for DC. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Google Maps, the distance of the new (currently open) span is shorter than the old span by what I'd guess to be a hundred feet (I'm not good at estimating distances). But the second under-construction span will be in the same place as the old Wilson Bridge.  I don't know how you'd compute it due to the angle of the DC line, but I'd take the average of the two spans from the centre of the bridge at the line.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Direction of Information
I am curious why the Length and Intersections sections are done from south to north. It seems upside down to me.(Tenorcnj 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC))


 * This is done because highways are mile posted in that direction. For example, in Florida, Exits 1-9 are in the southern part of the state in Miami, whereas Exits 335-366 are to the north in Jacksonville. -- NORTH talk 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Notes" section
I am concerned that the very large "Notes" section of this article goes against WP:TRIV. It's a haphazard mix of trivia, ranging from historically important construction information, to unimportant trivia ("the highway's spurs have set three records", etc.), to information about spur routes that probably belongs in that spur's article (I-395's length, etc.). Perhaps the historical information should be culled into a new "History" section, the spur information moved to the spur articles, and the rest either integrated into appropriate points in the article or discarded?

I have noticed that this article is not alone, most of the mainline Interstate articles here on Wikipedia seem to have these large "Notes" sections as well. Looking at their history, it seems that most of them were suspiciously copied verbatim from the website ihoz.com in late 2002 by the user "Gpietsch" (compare and ) and inherited the "mileage followed by trivia" format of that website. Some of them have been refined greatly since then (compare that old version of the I-76 article with Interstate 76 (east) as it is now); perhaps the rest of the Interstate articles should be rewritten as well.


 * I agree. I think that these notes could be better incorporated into the article in paragraph form and whatnot instead of a bulleted list. I'll take a look at that site tomorrow and work with some then.  -- M PD  (T / C) 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I went through the trivia section bullet-by-bullet and integrated all relevant info into the article and the state-specific I-95 pages. Much of the info was duplicated already on those pages, not all of it though, for example all the historical info about I-95 in Boston that was in there is now on Interstate 95 in Massachusetts where it belongs. There was some irrelevant trivia mixed in too though that I discarded; stuff like there being more canceled I-695's than any other Interstate, the type of lights used on I-95 in Baltimore, etc. aren't really notable at all, don't fit in well, and don't add to the article.Krimpet 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the notes here. I'll work some of these into the article later today. -- M PD (T / C) 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't just "blank" the notes section. Like I said, many of the "notes" in the list are already mentioned in some form or another in other articles, you can look over them yourself if you want. I will go into more detail. For example, a couple of bullets mention information that the Fort McHenry Tunnel and Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) articles go into great detail about the history of those crossings, they are not needed in the main I-95 article. The second bullet about I-95 and US 1 rambles off-topic and starts explaining the I-95 completion debacle that's already discussed well at Interstate 95 in New Jersey, so I added a single sentence to the first paragraph of the article noting that I-95 mostly parallels US 1, conveying basically the same information. I also added a whole new section to Interstate_95_in_Massachusetts based on info directly taken from this Notes section. I also integrated info from the section into Interstate 95 in Maine and New Jersey Turnpike.
 * And yes, I did discard some of the "notes" altogether. The first bullet is a perfect example of discardable trivia that violates WP:TRIV and WP:NOT, there are no "records" for highways and this is nothing but unencyclopedic trivia, better suited to a website like which is a collection of the sort of information that WP:NOT discourages. The naming of a rap group would be better off discussed at the 95 South article (which is nothing but a stub at the moment). The fourth bullet is completely unverified and unquoted trivia, search Google for "Cocaine Alley" and nothing about I-95 comes up on the first page, search for "Cocaine Alley I-95" and you get all Wikipedia content. The fifth bullet is a completely out-of-context description of an intersecting route in Florida that otherwise has nothing to do with I-95. Also about half of the bullets mention unsigned and unbuilt spur routes that are already covered in a much less haphazard, more consise fashion in their own articles.
 * If you do feel that any of these notes contain information not covered anywhere else at all in the I-95 family of articles that does not violate WP:TRIV, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR, feel free to integrate it into the proper places, but I am confident that I covered everything. Krimpet 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general sentiment expressed here by Krimpet, though I have not looked specifically at each of the bullets and what he has done with them. --NE2 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with most of what Krimpet said, and did for that matter. Although I feel that some of these could be included into the article, which should also be fleshed out a little bit.  That's why I added them here so they could be easily accessed, even though I could have just as easily gone into the edit history and retrieved them from there at a later date. I don't mind not including these- as they are- into the article.  Tomorrow, I should have a lot of downtime.  I'll single out what I feel we could include- even parts of these trivia- and let everyone decide and edit.  That's how Wikipedia works. -- M PD  (T / C) 05:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one key issue that should be considered while redeveloping this article is the way that it is divided into sub-articles for each state. While the page may appear that it needs to be fleshed out further, in reality the state-specific I-95 articles are developed pretty well... but as-is they are barely accessible from this article at all, only linked in an easily overlooked "See also" section, which is a major issue.
 * I propose that perhaps this page should be relatively short, with information that mostly just pertains to the route as a whole (maybe just the introductory paragraphs that there are now, the mileage table, the list of intersections with other interstates, and the auxiliary routes template (but not the more bloated list that currently sits above it)), and prominent links to the state articles, and the state articles should be the ones fleshed out further. That way, if someone wants to read about I-95 in NJ, they can go right to Interstate 95 in New Jersey; if they want to read about the whole route, they can go to the Maine or Florida article and navigate up and down using the template navigational thing at the bottom of those pages. I think that a separated arrangement like this suits the nature of long interstate routes like I-95, since it travels through over a dozen states, and I-95 near DC's history and quirks are largely independent of those of I-95 through Philly, for example. Also, by clearly dividing the article up in this way, it would encourage contributors to contribute to those individual pages instead of this main one when appropriate. Krimpet 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally removed many of the notes from the Auxiliary Routes section, but I received a message on my talk page from User:Jkatzen about said edit. So I reverted because he has a point.  I just assumed people would link in the 3di template, but not all routes are listed there.  So here's what I propose: We make I-95 a model Interstate Highway article, that all other Interstate articles can look to for a good article.  To do that, we should do a few things.  First, we should rewrite the intro; it's not bad by any means, but it could use a little touch up.  The Cities go into the Major Cities template that is on the WP:IH page, which will then be just under the infobox.  Under the main article, we go into a state-by-state short summary of the route, perhaps a region-by-region summary (we could lump New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island into one, Maryland and Delaware into one, etc.) which would include links to the state-specific article using the main heading under each subsection.  The lengths list would stay where it is.  Below that would be the Intersections with other Interstates in its current form, including only 2dis.  Beneath that is the Auxiliary Routes, listing current and future routes, not including defunct or former routes, and maybe business routes.  Perhaps a new way to display that information.  We should create a page about all current and former auxiliary routes of I-95 because that would give us a place to go into detail about the former routes, and maybe to fill out that article, add some short info (more than the I-95 article, but less than the 3di articles themselves) to make that article more substantiative, should it be necessary to do so.  Now someone will say "why not just use the 3di template?"  Well, we could add a little more description to the Auxiliary routes, like where in the state they are, perhaps what their purpose is, and maybe something else I haven't thought of yet.  Under that are Tolls on the highway, both former and current, as it is now, and then Disasters under that, which maybe should be cleaned up some, although a lot of thsoe could be mentioned in the state-by-state (region-by-region) sections.  Follow that with a See Also section that includes a few more links (like gaps in the Interstate Highway system; it may be mentioned in say New Jersey or Maryland, but it's frustrating to dig through an article to find one link), followed by the rest of the article: external links and references.  That, I feel, will make a great article, as long as we keep the information in the state/region subsections concise.  Other thoughts?  -- M PD  (T / C) 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response at and continue this discussion down there. -- NORTH talk 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
In response to MPD's proposed rewrite above:
 * Full agreement that a "Route description" section needs to be restored. I looked through the page history from several months ago when the state articles were completed, assuming something from the old "State by state" section could be salvaged, but I'm not sure that's the case.  Here's the last version before someone (myself, actually... oops) deleted it: .  There's just nothing there.
 * Totally against creating a new article on the auxiliary routes. I don't see what the other editor's issue was; as far as I can tell, all the defunct routes MPD had removed are listed in the 3di template.  My plan would be to remove the bulleted list, since all it does is repeat what is already in the template.  The auxiliary routes section should contain the template, followed by a paragraph (not a list) of all the notes about how I-95 has the most spurs, etc.  There is some benefit to being able to list where in the state they are, etc., in a separate article, but IMHO not enough benefit to warrant a new article that would probably be called crufty by non-road editors.
 * The rest of the stuff MPD brought up is minor organizational stuff that certainly doesn't seem controversial to me.

If you have any thoughts, let me know. If you like, I can work on a rewrite in my sandbox, even shove it to the top of my priority list -- although my slate's a little full at the moment.

On an unrelated topic, this page is prompting the "This page is XX long" notice, so I'm going to archive everything except the new discussion on the notes section. Just to warn everyone. -- NORTH talk 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Notes needs to go. If we do that we stand a good chance at FA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The notes section has already gone. I'm a little curious about what to do with the Disasters section though.
 * I see MPD is already working on the rewrite in his sandbox. Good thing I don't have to, otherwise I'd never get anything done. *wink* -- NORTH talk 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks pretty good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although apparently he's gone ahead and created Auxiliary routes of Interstate 95. Please rethink this... -- NORTH talk 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is odd... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Something I was looking at to move some auxiliary routes (namely defunct ones) off the main article and clean it up, but in retrospect that's a terrible idea and I rushed to try and put something together because I needed to get off the computer I was on. That would only open a can of worms. I finally have a chance to work more on the I-95 proposal, feel free to comment on it (you may have, this was at the top of my watchlist, so I clicked it).  -- M PD  (T / C) 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OH S**T! That was supposed to be under a userpage so I could see how it looked! Oh no! That needs to be deleted ASAP! And my apologies for such a grievous overlook on my part, i don't know where my head was. But you guys are right, that's a bad idea. -- M PD (T / C) 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, things seem to be normal now. The Auxiliary routes article has been deleted, as you can see.  My rewrite of Interstate 95 is for the most part complete.  Here's what I've done.  I added the route description, and moved the cities to the city box.  I cleaned up the intro a little, just moved a few things to elsewhere in the article.  I redesigned the Auxiliary routes section.  I'm on the fence about it, but IMO, it's easier to see and gives more information than that there's a spur in a city.  Before, some of the routes gave a brief description, while others were just listed.  I did not include a description for the defunct routes, because they do not exist.  If someone wants to read about former I-895, they can certainly follow the link.  In Tolls, I italicized defunct tolls, and removed the Pennsylvania Turnpike toll, because there will not be a toll for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, per se.  I-95 will be put on to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but the only toll will be southbound, and that will be a toll for the Delaware River bridge.  Thus, no PA Turnpike toll will ever be imposed on I-95.  In disasters, I moved significant, but not unusual disasters to their state-specific articles, and I kept, as I put it, "unique" disasters: mainly, as you can see, part of it was destroyed in Philly, and four tanker trucks have exploded on it, which I actually find interesting.  I removed the See also I-95 links, and replaced them with the Interstate Highway System link (although at the top and probably a few other times, people may not click in the article, but click at the bottom, that's usually where I click a lot of links), and a List of Gaps link, because it pertains directly with I-95.  I believe that's all I've done.  It may need a little editing.  So if you'd like to look it over for yourself and decide if it's something we should put in place of I-95, feel free to check it out at User:MPD01605/Interstate 95.  Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made.  Thoughts?  -- M PD  (T / C) 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would place the disaster section in a new "History" section and make the disaster section a third-level heading. Also, I would then integrate the toll listing into either the Route description or the History, depending on the item in question. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like what it is now? I think there may need to be a little more in the History section; something that isn't already covered in the rest of the article. -- M PD  (T / C) 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks pretty good. For the tolls, if we could determine the date that the toll sections were assigned/removed by state, that'd be great. It may also be possible to flesh the toll listing into a paragraph or two, using a brief description of the toll roads in question (termini on I-95, length, date assigned, etc.). An additional idea for the history section: history on I-95 itself, such as dates when the roadway was constructed and such. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your rewrite of the article so far is great, and yes this would make a very good model for the rest of the Interstate pages. One thing I would like to suggest about the Disasters section, though, is that even these more important disasters should be moved to the state-specific articles. I agree that the these "unique" disasters are certainly notable enough to be mentioned, since for example the I-95 tire fire in Philly is a pretty significant event in the history of the road, but I think they are more of a local phenomenon (like the history of the route in each state), and would fit the state-specific articles better.
 * Conversely, I do think "Current and future projects" fits the main article well, since while it is mostly stuff of local importance too it also pertains to the continuity of the route as a whole, but I think we should make sure that each project is mentioned on its state-specific page as well, where it can also be expanded upon. Krimpet 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and port it now. The history section can definitely be expanded, but the bulk of the work is done at this point, and the rest can be done on the article itself. -- NORTH talk 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with North. The history section looks much more robust than it did last night, and the article as a whole is ready to be ported. Nice job, BTW. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just finished the Tolls section, but I do have an issue with one.  I don't think the J.F.K. Mem Parkway in Maryland is defunct...  It's still listed on the MdTA toll facilites page and there's no mention of the bridge as the toll.  If there's no objections, I'm going to remove it and un-defunct (refunct?) the JFK M Pkwy with the $5 NB toll.  Then I'll copy it all into I-95.  -- M PD  (T / C) 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Toll facilities
Just a note on why two aren't there. I don't think the J.F.K. Mem Parkway in Maryland is defunct... It's still listed on the MdTA toll facilites page and there's no mention of the bridge as the toll. Also, once again, there will be no Pennsylvania Turnpike toll on I-95. To quote my correspondence with an official (on the Talk:Interstate 95/Archive page: "The only I-95 toll in PA will be the westbound toll for the Delaware River Bridge". So I removed that reference.  While it will follow a brief section of the PA Turnpike, it won't have a toll for it. Also, does anyone have any information on the Trout River Bridge?  -- M PD  (T / C) 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Trout River Bridge is no longer a toll bridge; tolls were probably removed at the same time as the Fuller Warren Bridge. --NE2 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think a section of toll locations and prices on the main page would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.243.102 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The J.F.K. Memorial Highway has a two-way toll booth in Delaware, a one way toll booth north of the Susquehanna River Bridge in Maryland, and a two-way toll booth north of the Baltimore tunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.112.113 (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

long distance mileage sign
Photos: ; Exit 51 sign pictured right.
 * Petersburg, Virginia &mdash; Heading southbound on Interstate 95 past Petersburg before the I-85 interchange, there are two signs that show Miami (which is 920 miles away) as the destination of I-95 and Atlanta (507 miles away) as the destination for the I-85 exit. Signs on southbound I-95 heading toward Richmond, Virginia at the I-295 interchange showing Miami (958 miles away) as a control city (via I-295) were removed in 2001.


 * This sign(Image:I-95 exit 52.jpg) has to be added to the Interstate 95 in Virginia article somehow! If nobody finds a way to do so, I swear I'll add it at some random point along the page! DanTD 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If all else fails, find an article about how the road was quickly favored by long-distance travelers. I just added the picture into Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although the picture is kind of small. DanTD 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuity in lead
The discontinuity has five separate mentions in the paragraph lead. Is there any way to sharpen these four paragraphs? Jd2718 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maine Highways (95, 195, 295, 395, 495)
Maine highways... 495 as stated in article is unsigned... 295 goes through portland, not around... 195 is a spur into old orchard beach.... 395 is a spur into bangor/brewer, and not around bangor. Opinion: 495 only exists for purpose of federal funding (red tape). It does not exist when concerning the motoring public (duct tape). Rkinci (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of users
The amount of annual traffic is some important info that should be included somewhere. --Pkenans (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancer prevalence in Delaware - include here?
I am providing here a news citation related to I95 in Delaware and cancer prevalence; the headline is, I think, misleading in that "leading" has not been established (as pointed out in the reader responses to the story).



--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unique disasters
How are these "unique"? -Branddobbe 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer you to above under "Proposed Rewrite", near the end, where we discuss it. Maybe not "unique" per se, but I-95 seems to be a magnet for fuel explosions and fires of sorts.  -- M PD T / C 08:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, I thought that 'notable' was a better word that's more consistent with Wikipedia treatment elsewhere, so I changed the section title from 'Unique disasters' to 'Notable disasters'. That should pass muster better. I still think the word 'disaster' is a little sensationalistic but I will leave it alone for now since I have no strong objection to it. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox revisited
Quoting WP:IH here, and with emphasis added: "For any interstate that is long enough to have 8 or more 2di junctions, such as I-80, I-90, I-40, I-10, I-75, and I-95, only list 2di junctions where the number ends in 5 or 0." IMHO, a change in the junction box needs to go up to the project level, as opposed to discussing it here, so they stay consistent throughout. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big deal is. The guideline was created to prevent infoboxes from being longer than the articles. If a junction is truly significant, it should be added even if it doesn't end in a 0 or 5. The 0 or 5 guideline exists because typically those are more major interstates nationally, but not always. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Distance in Washington DC
I amended the distance of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge section. Looking at the Google maps, the two spans are south of the former span, and since the DC line is a diagonal, the distances will be shorter. The Outer Loop is measured at 328 feet and the Inner Loop is measured at 390 feet, which are something like 0.065 and 0.073 miles, respectively. If you doubt this, extend the length to roughly where the old span crosses the DC line, and you get just about 0.1 miles, which coincides with the FHWA Route Log, which is over 6 years old and doesn't include a lot of things. It's not scientific, but clearly the old "0.11 miles" measurement is no longer applicable. -- M PD T / C 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Main" highway on the East Coast???
I disagree with the introduction of this article that says "Interstate 95 is the main highway on the East Coast of the United States". It should say "Interstate 95 is the main Interstate highway on the East Coast of the United States". The current introduction has no proof that 95 is the "main" East Coast highway. I mean, U.S. Route 1 covers virtually the same ground as Interstate 95 and then some. (haven't you noticed?) Please, either cite your sources or change the introduction! [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty standard information. 95 is clearly more highly-used than US 1. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see his point. But if you ask me what the fastest way is to get from New Brunswick to the Keys, I'll say "95" and never mention US 1 unless someone really wants route details.  I'm not opposed to making a change, in fact I would have thought it to be a bold change.  Other thoughts?  -- M PD T / C 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see his point. Anyone who's driven anywhere in the area (or has even watched any sort of travelers report) is clearly familiar with the fact that I-95 is THE main highway along the east coast.  No question. Famartin (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it would be on par with Interstate 5. [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Junctions
Shouldn't this list contain major junctions that aren't with 2di's? For example, the junction with I-16 is listed, but the junction with the Garden State Parkway and I-278 (the Bruckner Expressway), which ware WAAY bigger, aren't.  129.42.208.177 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

infobox junctions
I'm thinking of changing the junction list to focus more on major cities. My proposed list is below. If the junction is outside city limits (but within the metro area), use "near" instead of "in".
 * I-10/Jacksonville FL
 * I-20/Florence SC
 * US 64/Rocky Mount NC
 * I-64/Richmond VA
 * US 50/Washington DC
 * I-76/Philadelphia PA
 * I-80/New York City NY
 * I-90/Boston MA
 * US 302/Portland ME

Anyway, this is just a thought. If people are comfortable with the I-x0 junctions, then no big deal. --Polaron | Talk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. --NE2 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "0" and "5" rule on WP:IH was designed to limit the number of junctions on routes such as I-90 or I-95, but now that we have a USRD-wide limit of 10, I think we can abandon that rule and favor major locations instead. That said, that list looks good to me. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since that's 9, I'd like to see I-85 (Petersburg, VA) included. If so, I'm cool with it.  I'd debate I-40 in favor of US 64, but unless someone has numbers on those two, that list is fine with me, too.  -- M PD T / C 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Petersburg is, however, a suburb of Richmond and my idea was to have each junction be from different metro areas. That said, since there's room for one more, I'm not adverse to it. Regarding I-40, can "in Benson NC" be replaced with "near Raleigh NC"? Benson is technically part of the Raleigh metro area but, not being familiar with local practice, I don't know if Benson is close enough to be "near" Raleigh. --Polaron | Talk 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be pushing it with "near Raleigh". The I-40 junction is about 20 miles north of Fayetteville, and 20 miles southeast of Raleigh.  That said, US 64 is fine.  It IS a major interchange (they're trying to make US 64 an Interstate between 440 and 95).  US 64 is just easier. -- M PD T / C 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. We have a major cities list to note what cities the route serves. The junction list in the infobox shows the most major highways it crosses. In the case of I-95, this would be the other major (?5 and ?0) interstates. I think a case could be made to add I-76--or I-195, on account of the NJ gap. However, I don't think the junction list should be repurposed--at least not without discussion the WP:IH talk page. (Note: used to list major cities, but by consensus, that list was removed from the infobox.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The list of cities cited is uneven regarding population. For instance, it lists New Haven (second largest city in Connecticut), ignores Bridgeport (the largest city). It lists (in a sentence talking about "most populated urban areas") Petersburg, Virginia which is a small part of the Richmond-Petersburg area. TEDickey (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Upgrading to Good Article Status
Any ideas how to make this article better? It is a high-importance article, and as such, it should be rated high on the quality scale. Any thoughts?

PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Major junctions revisited
You know, the 10-junction rule might be fine for the infobox, but I don't see what'd be so wrong with adding major junctions for Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. Sure, they may not be 2-di interstate highways, but that doesn't mean there aren't major junctions in any of those states. -User:DanTD (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In my recent change, I only converted what was in place. I did not add 3dIs initially because they're all listed in the section immediately below in the navbox. I'm not opposed to the judicious addition of more junctions, but we still have to be careful to avoid ballooning the list too long. If it gets two long, we may want to look into making it wrap into two columns within the section.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 95 (US 95) is a north–south U.S. highway in the western US. Interstate 95 (I-95) is the main highway on the East Coast of US. --173.220.180.218 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this article is about I-95. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Interstate 95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207180103/http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=sj184 to http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=sj184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213103631/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5019 to http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5019

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania now ends at Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road.
Hello Fellow Wikipedians:

There is no longer an Interstate 95 Trenton Section. This section is now Interstate 295 from Exit 67 at U.S. Highway Route 1 (Brunswick Pike) to Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road in Pennsylvania. The changes have been made by the NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation) from Exit 67 on Interstate 295 to Exit 2 on Interstate 95 (Trenton Section) at CR (County Route) 579 Beaver Tavern Road and by the DRJTBC (Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission) from Exit 2 on Interstate 95 (Trenton Section) at CR (County Route) 579 Beaver Tavern Road to Exit 51 at Taylorsville Road in Pennsylvania. See http://I95Link.com (I95Link.com ).--Myeabnwp (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sad, but it should be kept for historic reference. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Route Length
The length of the route as given in the state-by-state boxes sums to 1896.8 miles and not 1900.19. Is this what is supposed to happen, due to rounding or whatever, or is there a mistake somewhere? 22:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.81.81 (talk)
 * If we're going to use the FHWA table to show I-95's length, we need to use 1919.31 miles until it is updated. –Fredddie™ 00:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Auxiliary Routes
Maybe we expand the auxiliary routes section? Articles for other major interstates list them all out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needforspeed888 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:31 December 17, 2018
 * Which route is missing? Currently, there's a nice, condensed table in the article listing them all... -- Jayron 32 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any benefit to accessibility for using a straight list rather than the template? —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If I can say this, I hate the current presentation. Why are presenting this as a vertical bulleted list that duplicates the navbox? Instead, we should have some sort of prose summary (see Interstate 96 for an idea) that discusses the various 3dIs. That would add some value over the horizontal list in the navbox. The the box should really be shuffled down to the bottom of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the reason why I suggested expanding the section is because the template isn’t visible in mobile view. We definitely want to be incluseive of those who are reading this on their phones. I tried to make it into more of a “prose” format, but if anyone has a better idea, don’t hesitate to put it out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needforspeed888 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * a quick reminder, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I-91 vs I-4
do you prefer Interstate 4 as a major junction or interstate 91? I want consensus to stop edit warring over this. --98.116.128.15 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Cards   84664   21:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can make arguments for both options. The section of I-95 in Florida is so much longer than other states and has several other Interstate–Interstate junctions that including I-4 makes sense. Also, New Haven is considered part of the NYC metro area, so it's somewhat redundant to the pre-existing I-87 junction n NYC; Daytona is the hub of its own metro area.
 * On the other hand and given the 10-jct rule including the two termini, we can list just 12 junctions total in the infobox. There are 15 states and DC through which I-95 runs. That means no state should be duplicated, and some states will have to be skipped.
 * The usual rule is to include I-x0 and I-x5 Interstates first as the most major. Then it's to look at major metro areas and space them out along the whole length of the highway. On that basis, I'd still go with I-4 over I-91, or pick a different junction from Georgia, like I-16 in Savannah.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * i added I-16. --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Philadelphia collapse
Notwithstanding WP:NOTNEWS, the bridge collapse on I-95 is certainly nonroutine and will disrupt traffic for months. This seems to me to be notable and worthy of mention. Dgndenver (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reversion in error
I have no idea why I would have changed "gasoline" back to "petrol," when obviously gasoline is right. I don't even remember doing it, but clearly I did. Thanks for fixing it. Dgndenver (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)