Talk:Interstate 95 in Maryland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated C-class, High-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has been recognized in the following venues:
Updated DYK query.svg
A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in March 2015.

Area between MD 32 and I-195[edit]

Does anyone have any information about why so many bad things happen on this stretch of 95? for example the truck rolled over, state trooper was shot, and other stuff. Hollowman512 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Resubmitting for evaluation[edit]

How do we resubmit this article for evaluation? The article is similar in length and content to Interstate 70 in Maryland, yet it only has a Start rating. I checked the assessment project page but couldn't find anything that explained how to resubmit an article. -TheOneKEA

If you think it's better, just change it. Unlike good or featured articles, there's no bureaucracy here. --NE2 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Route description[edit]

Why does this article lack a route description? -TheOneKEA

In short, because no one's written one yet.-Jeff (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay it has one now. -TheOneKEA


Shunpiking the Susquehanna River Bridge[edit]

Northbound travelers wishing to avoid paying the toll for the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge at the Perryville toll plaza should exit I-95 onto MD 155, follow MD 155 west through Webster as far as the southern terminus of MD 161, then turn onto MD 161 north and follow it to US 1, where northbound travelers can cross the Susquehanna River using the Conowingo Dam. To return to I-95, travelers can use either MD 222 or Truck MD 222.

Seeing as how shunpiking is viewed as 'original research', I have transferred the paragraph on it to here to confirm this evaluation. I personally feel that it is a useful addition to the article, given its prevalence among Maryland residents. However, if it is indeed 'original research', then it should be removed. -TheOneKEA

If you can find a reliable source such as a newspaper article stating that it is a popular toll-avoidance route, you can clean it up and add it back, citing the article. --NE2 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this count? It doesn't cover the northbound Perryville toll route that I found but it does describe an alternate, as well as the Delaware toll avoidance route and the Pennsylvania Turnpike avoidance route. -TheOneKEA
The US 40 routing probably is, since it's written by a Baltimore Sun columnist on a newspaper-hosted blog. I'm not sure about the Delaware toll, since that's a letter from a reader; the I-70 route certainly isn't, since it's a comment added by a reader and not filtered through Mr, Rodricks at all. --NE2 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's only possible to do this southbound, and I found this out on a summer drive up and down the east coast. But I didn't do it to avoid paying the toll. I did it because driving on the Millard E. Tydings Memorial Bridge scares the living daylights out of me. Six lanes that high with no visible structural support over what looks like a nothing more than a measley highway overpass? Even the Long Island Expressway near the Queens-Midtown Tunnel isn't that scary, and that's 106 feet above ground. ---- DanTD 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Exit List[edit]

I feel that the overabundance of notes in the Exit list column is warping the table by making the Notes column too wide, with the other columns being squished as a result. I feel that a separate section on the three ghost interchanges should be created, to allow the matter to be addressed in a more suitable manner. -TheOneKEA

OK, I went and created the section - I believe that the new section is a far better way to present the history of these ghost interchanges. -TheOneKEA
That looks better. I also like what the contributor did with making the exits purple. I was wondering if the future ICC exit should be a different color too to show that it doesn't currently exist.-Jeff (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I seriously feel that this article needs to be split - the addition of a proper section on the ghost interchanges brought the article size up to 35KB, which is rather big. There are already separate articles on the Capital Beltway, the Fort McHenry Tunnel, and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; is there scope to create more articles? -TheOneKEA

Perhaps Canceled highways of Baltimore, Maryland could be created, there is certainly enough notable info on them to create an article.-Jeff (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There is probably enough info to create Interstate 95 (Baltimore, Maryland)! -TheOneKEA
Before we go creating intracity articles from intrastate articles, I'd go take this up at WT:IH to get more opinions, and maybe more options. You're talking about creating a whole new set of articles and standards that could balloon out of control (I-70 in Frederick, I-76 in Philadelphia, I-95 in Miami, I-55 in Saint Louis, etc). I agree that something needs to be done, though. --MPD T / C 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course. An article explicitly on Interstate 95 in Baltimore would probably invoke the precedent set for D.C., as Baltimore is an independent city and thus similar (but not precisely so) to D.C. in terms of article scope IMHO. The same argument could be applied for other independent cities, like Richmond, Virginia or Carson City, Nevada - if sufficient information on routes through those cities existed, I don't doubt that fully fledged articles could be written. -User:TheOneKEA

OK, the article has been split. Comments welcome. -TheOneKEA


I have refurbished the infobox and used the neutered shield. The shield is neutered since MD does not use it anywhere on any Interstate. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not new shields, but there is at least one I-95 (MD) shield somewhere within the I-395 stack interchange in Baltimore. -TheOneKEA
If it's only five at least one but not not the majority of all the shields, the shield stays neutered. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree; we shouldn't be putting the state name in unless it's standard in the state. --NE2 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

See WT:USRD. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging Chesapeake House and Maryland House[edit]

the beginning of this article[edit]

There is a summary of I-95's journey through Maryland, but it's written north-to-south. I thought your normal convention was to write about northbound for a north-south route.

Also, I-95 from Baltimore city to the I-295 split in Delaware used to be called Maryland Northeastern Expressway (in Maryland) and Delaware Turnpike (in Delaware). They BOTH are part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (which, as you note, got that name after JFK's assassination only 8 days after the dedication). Some articles need to be revised because John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway is not limited to Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion 2013[edit]

The articles about the Chesapeake House and Maryland House service areas should be merged into the service areas section of this articles as they are lacking in information and individual service areas are generally not notable enough for their own articles. Service areas on other toll roads are covered in a section of the toll road article and I see no reason why these two service areas should have their own articles. The 2010 merge discussion resulted in no consensus, so I wanted to see if we could get more consensus here. Dough4872 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sounds good to me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Not that I don't understand your reasons for wanting to merge them, but doing so only leaves Illinois Tollway oasis in the Rest areas category. Granted the article isn't for an individual service area, but both the Maryland and Chesapeake Houses seem distinguished enough for separate articles. If you do decide to merge them, I'd recommend expanding the "Service areas" chapter some more. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that the Chesapeake House has reopened, that really makes sense for the articles to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Needless to say, I'm going to redirect them right now by putting some of the info from these articles to the Interstate 95 in Maryland#Service areas section.

Support merger — These individual service areas are not notable enough to have their own articles and can be detailed in a section of the main article without violating summary style.  V 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with DanTD's comment above and oppose the merger. There is no consensus to merge. Maryland House and Chesapeake House are two of the most visited rest areas in the United States, with over five million visitors every year. That is more than the population of 28 of the individual states! Though the articles could be further expanded, and should be, the argument for merger seems unaware of their historical and current significance.--Milowenthasspoken 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just because these are among the busiest rest areas in the country does not justify the existence of separate articles. These rest areas have little to say special about them other than the fact they are busy. The information about them can easily be covered in the Service areas section of this article. Dough4872 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)