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
This might actually be a good idea. Save for minor realignments (and the expressway section in CT), the route is more or less the same as the 1922 route. We couls conceivably do the same thing for some of the other New England routes (like NE-9, NE-12, NE-26, and NE-28). Polaron14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did the original NE-8 just travel along present-day VT-100 from the MA state line to Wilmington, VT? Or did it go through present-day VT-8 to Wilimington via VT-9 (NE-9)? Polaron19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From further reading, it looks like NE-8 originally may have traveled along MA-8 then MA-8A then VT-100 (via a short VT-112 segment) to end at VT-9 in Wilmington. Polaron19:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the general differences I can see (from 1925 and 1929 maps):
Obviously the freeway in Connecticut - it used (113 and??) 110 from Stratford, then the fairly obvious old route - ended in Winsted in 1925, and began again at Bonny Rigg Corners (NE 5/US 20) - finished by 1929
8A in North Adams
VT 100 from Heartwellville through (or at least to) Wilmington (at least in 1929); don't have anything beyond that
But yeah, basically it looks like it was a continuous transformation from NE 8 to CT/MA/VT 8 to their current alignments. I'm still not sure if the merge is a good idea - it definitely seems good in theory, but there might be some problems. One way I'm thinking about it is - what would happen if the U.S. Routes were suddenly abolished? Would we immediately split up all the articles? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NE 10 - CT/MA/NH (has the issue with 10 being realigned to New Haven rather than Old Saybrook, but that would be covered anyway in the CT 10 article, and was not done in 1926, but in the 1932 renumbering)
NE 11 - VT/NH, but 111 rather than 11 in ME - not sure what the history of this is
NE 12 - CT/MA/NH/VT (swapped with 32 south of Norwich in 1932)
NE 18 - NH/VT
NE 23 - NY/MA
NE 25 - NH/ME
NE 26 - ME/NH
NE 28 - MA/NH
NE 32 - CT/MA (swapped with 12 south of Norwich in 1932, some MA changes after 1929, and then extended into NH - might be messier, but it might be worthwhile to cover it as a multi-state route even if it's not the same as the NE Route)
Someone should add a summary above this comment. I'm going to start by asking a question: where does the name "New England Interstate Route 8" come from? I cannot find any evidence that it was used in the 1920s; for example, a Google News search (which includes the New York Times and Hartford Courant) turns up nothing. All articles I've found that mention the routes just call them "Route 8"; one New York Times article says "Route No. 1, in the New England uniform highway marking system". --NE201:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the name issue for the moment, the main dispute, as I understand it, is whether to treat this as a former route that no longer exists or as the set of current, contiguous routes that bear the same number. That certainly is just a matter of emphasis and both cases can and should be treated in the article. My view is that there was no formal "decommissioning" (heh) of these routes and their current configuration is a continuous evolution. --Polaron | Talk01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the states basically got together and decided to match numbers at the state lines and use the same shield design. This is very similar to the U.S. Highway system, but I don't think there was a semi-official body (like AASHTO) in the case of New England; the 1922 New York Times article describing the creation of the system doesn't mention one. This is certainly not the only case of inter-state cooperation in numbering state highways, though it does seem to be the most comprehensive outside the two national systems. So, while there was no formal "decommissioning" [sic] of these routes, was there a formal "commissioning"? There's nothing stopping us from covering two connecting routes in one article, but there's nothing stopping us from separating them either. --NE202:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point is that there are no other cases in which other routes are lumped together to form one article about
its route, and I do not object to mentioning the current routes. My whole objection stems from the fact that this
article exists solely on the basis that in 1922, New England created their own highway system, and that is why this
separate article exists, like all the other ones, and why there is a differentiation in the infoboxes pointing to the previous and next NEIR. Take a look at Route 17 (New_England) and you will see, in the most basic form, how it should be (an infobox is needed here, obviously). We can get all the information in it, but the old NE Interstate system must be the major focus, and not a lumping together of current routes. See my point? Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree half with one side, half with the other. If the article title is a route that was "decommissioned" in 1926, then the article shouldn't be about routes that exist in 2008. But if there's a consensus that there's no need for three separate articles on the various segments (and as NE2 pointed out, a merge like this wouldn't be unprecedented), then there's no problem merging them this way – it just needs to be at a different title (i.e. Route 8 (Connecticut-Massachusetts-Vermont)). -- Kéiryntalk14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that if this is treated as a no longer existing route, when did it get "decommissioned"? I guess one could go with the date when the first of the three states decided to adopt a new route marker design as the date when the unified route was disbanded. Did any of the states suddenly adopt new state route shield designs when the U.S. Highways were first signed? If anyone has this information, that would be useful for the article. Right now, however, the infobox displays information on the current alignment rather than historic alignment. If we want to use the historic alignment for the infobox, the alignment for which year do we use? --Polaron | Talk15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these routes weren't decommissioned (and the system disbanded) in 1926, then someone had better fix the last paragraph of New England road marking system, and fast.
Even if 1926 isn't the correct date, it's undeniable that these routes no longer exist and are no longer signed as such. Ergo, the focus (and the article title) needs to be the current routes. -- Kéiryntalk18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Vermont, roads after 1926 did not have this New England route marking system because the US highway system had replaced it.
Now I must ask this important question- What is the purpose of having a separate article for a conglomeration of different current state routes all numbered "X" by removing a route that did exist as one route? I say that we either totally remove this article and have one single one for the New England routing system, or keep NE-8, for a conglomeration or routes that is not notable as one is a wasted article, for there are little or no articles like this in any other region (combining common numbered state routes). Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly convinced it's "needed" either, but I'd say it definitely makes sense. I think they certainly are "notable as a conglomeration", since they used to be a single route. Plus, their pre-1926 history (as limited as that might be) is going to be identical, so it might make sense to have it in one place rather than having to write about it on 3 different articles. -- Kéiryntalk13:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, they are notable, but only if they are under the New England route system- without it, they are not notable. That is why it makes perfect sense to label the article as the route they were all under (NE-8, etc.) and then it covers everything- its history and the routes that are now present. By heading the article as a conglomeration of current routes and putting a little section on NE-8 it says that the common 8 is why it is notable, and not the fact that it was all NE-8, which IMO is wrong. Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the each of the component routes by itself is not notable and should not have an independent article? --Polaron | Talk14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a step back a bit here and actually work on improving the article. What needs to be changed in the current article for it to be acceptable to everyone? --Polaron | Talk14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be perfectly acceptable if the infobox contained the NE-8 picture first, alongside the current routes it was (at a lower px size of course), and the article began with the introduction of NE-8 and the history from there as presented already with all routes in detail. I know some of it is a bit unclear from 1926, but it is as accurate as possible. Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that right now, the article has an identity complex – it doesn't know whether it's supposed to be about a New England Interstate Route, or about three current state highways. The article title says it's an NEIR, but the lead says, "Route 8 is a multi-state north-south state highway in the New England region of the United States," which maybe NE 8 was, but isn't now, and hasn't been for 80+ years. The infobox has an NEIR shield, but then says that it intersects I-95 and I-84, which only existed 30-40 years after the NEIRs were disbanded. I think the way to improve the article is to have the article title, infobox, etc., focus on the current routes, and have the history section focus on the history. -- Kéiryntalk20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the whole article should be renamed as you say, but I still dispute the notability of the conglomeration of the roads. As a group, they are not notable- only under the old system of NEIR are they notable, hence the title. If they are notable, then every place in the United States where state routes are connected under the same number should have their own article. That to me would make no sense, and I guess that point is lost. Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, this article should exist as four separate articles. One for CT 8, one for MA 8, one for VT 8, and one historical article on NE 8. However, I don't really edit much on articles for these states, so I don't really have a strong opinion. If there's a consensus that there's not enough information for Vermont Route 8 (for example) to support its own article, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to be merged. There are several instances outside of the NEIRs where this has been done – MD/DE 54, MA/RI 118, Idaho State Highway 41, etc. Where the routes are longer and more prominent, they are separated by state (i.e. New York State Route 17 and New Jersey Route 17). It's just a question of what group these fall into. -- Kéiryntalk15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that the group is notable because they were uniformly marked at one point. Let's say the U.S. Highway system was suddenly disbanded today, would we automatically split up the articles by state (splitting for length purposes aside)? These routes are notable as a group because they have always been marked with the same number from the time they were first designated until today. That can't be said about most routes in other states that keep their number across state lines (i.e. did they get numbered at the same time and was that number kept from that time until now?). --Polaron | Talk15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the opinion expressed by User:Kéiryn that this article should become four articles. The current situation violates the consistency of the articles in WP:MASH. It causes a discontinuity in navigation via infobox - from Route 8A, the navigation back to Route 8 shows the current shield yet links to this article. Certainly it is interesting that the road has kept the same number and route through three states for 86 years. However, the project has the stated goal "(t)o organize, standardize, and expand the articles on Massachusetts state highways". Route 8 should have its own article like all of the other state routes and match their standardized appearance. Within that article, and articles for CT and VT, links to this article about the historical route should be featured prominently in the introduction. The current article should be changed to describe the route's historical configuration and not include the intersections to modern highways.
My current focus is on creating maps for Massachusetts state routes. As part of that project I created a map of Massachusetts Route 8 but I can't place it in the infobox of this article. This is another reason to reconfigure the information into four articles. Sswonk (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is browsing at the bottom of the article and we could also make a map of the entire region to show Route 8 through the three states. However, it might indeed be better to retitle the article if the focus is on the modern Route 8. In any case, the organizing, etc. of articles does not necessarily mean independent articles all the time. --Polaron | Talk12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://docs.unh.edu/VT/wall55se.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://docs.unh.edu/VT/wall55ne.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://docs.unh.edu/VT/wilm54sw.jpg){kind=link}