Talk:Interstate 94

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I-694 (MN) redirects here to I-94

I-694 (MN) should redirect to the Interstate 694 article, not here. Although a portion of I-694 is multiplexed on I-94 in Minneapolis, a substantial portion of I-694 has its own individual identity in Minneapolis. Redirecting I-694 here implies that I-694 is merely some degenerate road identity that is completely subsumed by I-94 in Minneapolis. (optikos) 11:14 17 December 2005

Lane configurations

I think the lane configuration section is fairly superfluous. Are we really going to sum out exactly where, everywhere the route widens? It seems a bit much. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that it's not too much, but it might better belong on articles like Interstate 94 (Illinois) to nail things down to a regional perspective. --Rob 15:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been a precedent set: Interstate 95 in New Jersey. CrazyC83 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Something is fishy with the lengths;

  • 352 566 North Dakota
  • 260 421 Minnesota
  • 351 569 Wisconsin

In miles, North Dakota has a longer section; in kilometers, Wisconsin does. --BaronLarf 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Using 1.606344 km/mile, and taking the mile lengths as "correct" (which I'm inclined to believe come from mileposts, so I'm willing to make that assumption--I'll check Minnesota next time I'm up to the cities...I thought it was "only" 258 mi., but whatever:), the km lengths should be: ND 566.489088 MN 418.42944 and WI 564.879744. Round them how you like. Tomer TALK 18:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I completely redid the lengths, using sourced data from the United States Department of Transportation--BaronLarf 20:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, check you sig figs on your calculations TShilo12!:)--Gephart 02:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was fun. Don't tell my physics profs I did that! :-p Tomer TALK 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Only One?

It's mentioned that I-94 is the only E-W interstate to touch a foreign border. Now even though it's not signed, I-A1 exists in Alaska and also touches Canada and runs east-west (border to Anchorage). Since I-A1, according to AASHTO, does exist, wouldn't that also share the distinction with I-94? EmiOfBrie-(talk) 01:29, August 3, 2005 (CDT)

addendum - I just remembered I-905, when completed in California, will also be an e-w Interstate that touched a foreign border, and the first E-W Interstate to touch Mexico....
I-69 runs (and is signed!) east-west where it ends with I-94 at Canada. --SPUI (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The above comments ALL neglect to consider the important point of the assertion, which is not that the interstate ends at a foreign border, but that it is an EAST-WEST interstate. Regardless of the direction in which the I-905, I-A1, and I-69 run, they are all, by definition, NS interstates, not EW. If the discussion concerned I-904, I-A6 or I-70, then the issue would warrant discussion, but since that's not the case, it doesn't. Keep in mind, according to the definitions set out in the Interstate legislation, only even-numbered interstates are EW. Tomer TALK 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, CA-905, which is what will eventually become I-905, is signed E-W. The 3-digit interstates do not hold to the "odd N-S, even E-W" rule. Their numbering uses a different set of rules. 1/2-digit Interstates that run outside of the continental USA are numbered by another set of rules (the order they were accepted as Interstates) - example, I-H1 is signed East-West (as is I-H201, but that's another example of my 3di point), I-H2 and I-H3 are signed North-South -- EmiOfBrie (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2005 (CST)
I thought I-69 ended in downtown Port Huron, MI. In order to touch the Canadian border, it would need to cross a bridge. Or does it indeed multiplex with I-94 over the bridge and not use the freeway stub from I-94 to downtown PH? -- EmiOfBrie (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2005 (CST)
Hmmm... I'm going to graciously as possible [at this point], bow out of the discussion...I'm clearly outside my element when it comes to discussing technicalities wrt the designation of roads. :-p Tomer TALK 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exit lists

I'm all for them, but the article is really long. Something should be done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move them to state pages, such as Interstate 94 in Montana, Interstate 94 in North Dakota, etc. Once completed, they will be EXTREMELY long. Those pages should also have the history of the Interstates within the state, lane configurations, traffic counts, etc. (For shorter Interstates, like Interstate 26 and Interstate 45, as well as for all three-digit Interstates and most non-Interstate freeways, they belong on the main page) CrazyC83 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not long enough. You need to ramp it up.
Wahkeenah 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I-94 North/South in Port Huron

I deleted this reference to North I-94 in Port Huron. I've been on this road many times and have never heard of it before. I've even attached picture counterevidence in the description. I refer you to http://www.state-ends.com/michigan/i94/ for picture evidence that it is still called West I-94/I-69. KelleyCook 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying adding JCT with I-29

Note: Only major junctions go into the Interstate routebox... these would be other Interstates, and weird things (turnpikes, etc). For primary interstates with several junctions you may need to have 2di junctions only (plus the terminii of course) and delete the 3di junctions. Otherwise the routebox becomes way too big. If any routebox has over 10 or so junctions, then some of the junctions need to be removed. (

Interstate Hwy WikiProject) Uh, where does it say only major interstates? just wondering. --master_sonLets talk 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Granted I-69 could go in as well, use your judgement on that one. --master_sonLets talk 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up

I see that this article is being cleaned up a lot, but if I could make a suggestion. The state-by-state sections are a little slim. I suggest doing something like was done on Interstate 95. There aren't as many states, but it would create larger sections. Also, integrating the notes and news into the sections would add more "beef" to them, if you will, and create a better-flowing article, IMO. --MPD T / C 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northernmost?

Article claims, "Interstate 94...is the northernmost east-west interstate highway..." Looks to me like the northernmost point of I-94 in Glendive, Montana, see here: Google Map, reaching a latitude of +47.1250. I-90 reaches its northernmost point in Post Falls, Idaho, see here: Google Map, reaching a latitude of +47.7150.

State WikiProjects

I just deleted all the state projects. There is an Interstate 94 in (statename) that they are already members. The main article shouldn't fall under their scopes as the other interstates don't due that. -- KelleyCook 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-905 and purely east-west interstates

I think this statement is confusing and I know I'm picking nits here, but I think accuracy is important:

Interstate 94 is the only purely east–west interstate to form a direct connection into a foreign country (Canada). No such interstate currently ends at the U.S.-Mexico border, although I-905 in California will become such when upgrades are completed.

I-905 may be mostly east-west, but because its in the category of a bypass, its not quite the same as a one or two digit east-west road that ends in an even number. Its really just the word purely that I have a problem with. If you're going to say purely, then you should take out the I-905 exception, otherwise you should probably change purely to mostly or something else. And if you change purely to mostly, then you have to reconsider roads like I-190 in Buffalo and even I-95, which obviously is north south, but several portions are more east-west than north-south. -- Suso (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment about mileposts in Indiana

I find:

"mile markers 0.0-15.5 are also posted with I-80, mile markers 15.6-19.0 are posted as I-94 alone"

OK, I-80 and I-94 eastbound are the same road when they enter Indiana from Illionis, and milepost 15.5 is about where I-80 leaves I-94 to enter the eastbound Indiana Toll Road. But what is the meaning of the "19.0" mile marker remark here? It seems to me that the road would have I-94 by itself on the mile markers all the way to the Michigan border, which is much beyond the 19.0 mile mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths table

Unfortunately, the template to this table places it at an awkward position. The template needs to be tweaked a little bit. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 94. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_94&oldid=1207729558"