Talk:New England Interstate Route 9

U.S. Roads: New Hampshire / Vermont / Maine

	U.S. roads portal This redirect 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.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Locations	New Hampshire Vermont Maine

Interstate highway?[edit]

An Interstate highway is a highway built to a specific design standard, including limited access (cloverleaf or the like exits an entrances), and designed for high speed and high volume use, like I 93 in MA and NH, or I 95. Rt 9 is properly just a highway, not an Interstate Highway, having an article identify it as Interstate is misleading. SailorfromNH 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the modern Interstate highway system, but the 1920s New England Interstate Routes. Polaron 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Oppose combining the current state routes into this long discontinued route article. The state routes are now seperate entities. Gateman1997 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Route 8 (New England). This is simply a continuous route that crosses state lines. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that it's a continuous road that crosses state lines, the routes over those roads are unique to each state and maintained by each state individually, have different signage, different mileage, etc... There is no such thing as a "New England Route" at the present time. Gateman1997 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say could be applied to U.S. Routes and Interstates too. However, even where split into multiple articles per state, there is still an overview article for the entire route. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with US and Interstate routes is they were created by the national government at various points in time then given to the states to administer. State routes were never created by a centralized entity. The individual states just chose to number them concurrently as not to confuse people driving on them, but they're not the same routes.

These routes were created by a centralized entity as much as AASHTO can be called one. They were the product of the states working together to come up with a consistent numbering, one which was admittedly not as good as the U.S. Routes, which is why AASHO didn't simply extend it. The states have worked together to coordinate numbering afterwards too - as far as I know, every route that crosses a state line in New England and remains a numbered route keeps its number. When the Interstates came, Connecticut changed 93 to 169 and New Hampshire changed 86 to 286, even though I-93 didn't enter Connecticut and I-86 didn't enter New Hampshire. Massachusetts even kept Route 295 because New York didn't want to change. These are continuous routes that the states have worked together to keep as such. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Route X (New England)" designation also can be classified as OR as it doesn't exist anywhere but on Wikipedia. Gateman1997 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand how disambiguation works, do you? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand disambiguation.

Your classifying of standard disambiguation as original research says otherwise. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I also like a term you're fond of... common sense. And another term... common usage. No one is going to search for "Route X (New England)". No such route exists as New England isn't a state, has no government, etc... It's just a region. They will however look for Massachusetts Route 28, or Route 28 (Massachusetts), etc... Gateman1997 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or they'll search for Route 28. Any of these terms will get them to the right place through disambiguation pages and redirects. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However what if they only want info on a specific state route. I propose we do the following. If you're intent on having a New England Route X article why not make it independent of the individual state articles. Not unlike how many of the named LA freeways have articles independent of their route numbers. Gateman1997 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough information to split off a state, it can be done just like with Interstates and U.S. Routes. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please don't cut up my comments as it makes the page hard to read.Gateman1997 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it makes it easier, as you can see which part I'm replying to. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm not dumb I can figure out for myself which part you're replying to ;). As for having seperate state articles like the interstates that's what I suggested above and what we have now. Why merge and eliminate that? Have your centralized NE article and have the 3 individual state articles. It's not like Wikipedia is that strapped for server space.Gateman1997 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to the point where it's long enough to be split, it can be done. Otherwise it's just content forking. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forking is easily avoided if the NE article is kept to basics and the state articles go more indepth with milage markers, junctions, route desc. etc... Gateman1997 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And there's no reason to do that now. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I've periodically worked on the ME 9 article and will continue to do so. As is I think it's got plenty of info that is unique enough to sustain an independent article with a link from the NE article should you choose to create one. Gateman1997 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That can easily be included in the NE 9 article, though, in this particular case, it's not quite so clear, as NE 9 itself only ran to Wells. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also there is the issue with the state systems being completely represented. I feel this would be a step backward if we remove articles from a state system. Frankly I think a NE plus state articles is a happy middle in this case. You want a NE article, I want individual state articles. Why not go the middle route so to speak? Also as you point out the old route 9 only went to Wells. Gateman1997 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did point that out. Which is why - in this case - I'm fine with leaving the Maine article separate. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 05:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that routes that were clearly derived from the New England route system are probably better merged. Other state routes that keep their numbering across two states were probably just numbered as a courtesy. But clearly, the New England routes that cross 3 or 4 states with the same numbering are the same road. Also, many of these state highway articles don't have that much content in them anyway so a merged article might be a more interesting read. Polaron 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Mountain Pass[edit]

On a 1925 Rand McNally auto trail atlas, the section of Route 9 between Brattleboro and Bennington has a special designation as the Green Mountain Pass auto trail. The symbol given is the black and yellow New England Route 9 pole marker shown in the article. The road is also labeled ⑨ for New England Route 9. - Parsa (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]