Talk:Maryland Route 200 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viridiscalculus (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 9 March 2011 (→Moratorium on Formal Review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:22, 9 March 2011 by Viridiscalculus (talk | contribs) (→Moratorium on Formal Review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

U.S. Roads: Maryland Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal 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.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Locations	Maryland
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article may or may not contain a junction list. Please check, then add `\|needs-jctint=` to this template accordingly.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Maryland C‑class Mid‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening heading

Regarding the recently-added information on projects to form an outer Beltway, I am not aware of any other "Outer Beltway" projects in Maryland that are being planned apart from the ICC. If the Techway refers to a series of proposed roadway alignments from long ago, when an Outer Beltway was indeed proposed, the wording should be modified to reflect that the outer beltway concept is no longer an option and that the ICC is (and likely will be) the only portion of the aged concept ever to be realised within the state of Maryland. Can anyone verify the information presented here? --Thisisbossi 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Those claims, at least on the Maryland side, are without foundation, and I have added appropriate links to the 2002 Potomac Subregion Master Plan and a quote from that document to substantiate same.--Cpzilliacus 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alot of external links are embedded in text where they should be formatted as citations or added to external links at the bottom. Some sould have been replaced with their corresponding wikilinks but I've fixed these already. I'm sure there are probably other problems with it, so if anyone has the time to really look through this and see how it can be straigtened out please do so, thanks.-Jeff 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will pass on the large-scale cleanup, but I did remove two external links from the bottom. The first is a Boston Globe article from 3 August 2006 . While this provides some insightful commentary, it is just one of hundreds of similar articles. I feel that if we post one, we might as well post them all. I also removed the online Location Reference manual because it is not particularly useful for a highway that does not yet exist. It is better left as a link on the MD State highway list. --Thisisbossi 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was already in sections that simply lacked headings, so I took care of that. Other than that the only thing that needs to be fixed is the wording of the Outer Capital Beltway section at the end. Phrasing such as "Highly speculative at best" just doesn't seem to fit the tone.-Jeff 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits recently made by SurfLayill were removed by SchuminWeb, and I agree with that. For one thing, SurfLayhill (if you are reading this) your interactive map contained several factual errors. Second, I am not certain if content of this nature is appropriate for the "body" of a Misplaced Pages article. Anyone else have comments? Cpzilliacus (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the article too long? I have rather greatly expanded the History and Opposition sections to add content, backing most of the content up with articles from The Gazette and The Washington Post. Now I get gentle reminders that the article might have gotten too long. Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The article is perfectly fine as far as length goes, and has lots of great sources. Keep up the good work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I added some more information about the opposition to funding of the ICC, and that at least some of that funding came from the Prince Charitable Trusts (based on documents that are a matter of public record, such as the PCT's IRS Form 990 and a document on the Web from PCT). Now I see that the document InterCounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives is cited twice (at least I think it's the same document) in footnotes 69 and 70. Could/should these be merged? I think it's important that the involvement of PCT in funding ICC opposition groups and projects (including this report) be documented, but I am not exactly sure how to handle this one. Ideas? Cpzilliacus (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

With the second identified reference (number 70) pointing to a web page with links to several PDF files (each a portion of the full report), and the first such reference (number 69) for a specific one of those file portions (though from a different source), I figure they should both remain. The second reference is for a general statement, and it's not clear which if any part(s) of the report are more directly associated. —ADavidB 01:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Opposition and History sections be merged?

I just added headings and more opposition information to the opposition section. But I got to thinking that much of the opposition material (including Glendening's opposition in his second term as governor) and efforts by the Montgomery County Council to remove the road from the master plan of highways are in the history section. Thoughts or comments? Cpzilliacus (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Both sections contain substantial content that doesn't seem conducive to easy merging. Instead of merging them, perhaps a {{See also}} or {{Details}} template could be put in place to refer to the other section? Such templates usually refer to other articles, rather than sections, though #section suffixes could be used. —ADavidB 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

Considering that the ICC is to be designated as Maryland State Route 200 (MD 200), I believe we should move this article to conform to the naming convention used with other state routes. Anyone agree? --Thisisbossi 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I was expecting it to be designated I-370, but I guess since it will be a toll road instead of built with Interstate funding, then the state highway designation makes more sense, plus it mirrors MD 100 to the north. Anyway, according to the rules of Misplaced Pages I think we would need a source for this info. Being that you work for the SHA, I know you would know what it's going to be designated, but the problem is that it can't be verified by other people. If there is actually a source online that says the ICC will be designated MD 200 then post it here and we can move it to Maryland Route 200, otherwise we'll just have to wait for one.-Jeff 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see the source, I see no problem with moving it.-Jeff 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We have Baltimore-Washington Parkway instead of Maryland Route 295. The Intercounty Connector is going to remain the most common name for the highway, for sure, especially after the age-old controversy over it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference with the B/W Parkway is that it is a federal parkway, and parkways have thier own naming convention, which happened to be the one that was favored when the B/W Parkway and MD 295 articles were merged. The ICC is only a state highway and state highway articles have their own naming convention. Indeed people will probably still search for Intercounty Connector but that's what redirects are for.-Jeff 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Any idea what the UL in MD 200UL means? --SPUI (T - C) 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps Thisisbossi would know.-Jeff 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I was thinking that maybe we should leave this here at least until construction begins.-Jeff 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. And when the project begins (and especially when the MD 200 designation becomes more public), I would agree with the move to Maryland Route 200. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Some news articles have been suggesting that this road will replace I-370 and run from I-270 to US 1 for a distance of 18 miles. The HLR (MO PG) however, shows the route starting at I-370, rather than replacing it, and running for 13.8 miles. So I am updating information in the article to agree with the HLR, where previous info was based off the news articles.-Jeff 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

O'Malley's position on the ICC?

Does anyone know if he's for or against it? With him winning the recent election I think the last sentence in the intro should be something like: "... however, with Ehrlich losing the 2006 gubernatorial election to Martin O'Malley, an opponent of the ICC, the highway's future is left uncertain", or "Although Ehrlich lost the 2006 gubernatorial election to Martin O'Malley, O'Malley also supports the ICC, therefore construction is likely to proceed as planned."-Jeff 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, found the info in a recently added link. Thanks to the anonymous contributor that added it.-Jeff 02:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Construction is expected to continue as planned."

Is it? Perhaps. Jeff02 thinks it will. I happen to think so. The Sierra Club and friends might disagree. Certainly the new County Council includes members who ran on slow-growth platforms and who opposed the ICC. That, plus the road's start-stop history, just might add a few credible voices to the "do not expect" camp.

This from a planning commissioner: "I want an affirmation from the council and the governor that this is still the transportation policy." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301043.html)

So what's the fair wording here? "Proponents of the road, and world-weary opponents, expect construction to continue?" Ah, but then we'd need to name a few of these folks.

Chelt 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in my edit summary, it is mentioned in the linked articles that Flanagan does not expect the lawsuits to have an impact, here's a quote from one of them:

Maryland highway officials were not named in the lawsuits, but state Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan said he had expected them. Still, he said, he was confident the state's study -- and federal officials' approval of it -- would withstand legal scrutiny.

Also here's a quote citing O'Malley's spokesman saying he will defend the lawsuits and expects the highway to be built:

A spokesman for Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said the governor-elect stood by his campaign statements in support of the project -- a rare point of agreement between him and the Republican incumbent he ousted. "We will defend the lawsuits, and the ICC will progress, will be built," said Rick Abbruzzese, O'Malley's spokesman.

That's what I went off of when I added that sentence. If there's going to be a dispute over whether to add that bit of info then I don't think it's that important, I just didn't want info to be removed that I saw as already being cited.-Jeff 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see where the confusion came from, it appears my edit summary was cut off.-Jeff 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Purpose of Road

The ICC FAQ indicates that the ICC

"...is not designed or intended to relieve congestion on the Beltway, I-95, or I-270"

but it

"...is designed to improve mobility and safety in the ICC corridor area between I-270 in Montgomery and I-95 in Prince George's County."

My understanding is the the ONLY route that will have even an element of improvement is to travel for the entire length of the toll road. As a daily toll, this is unlikely to become well traveled. All the other intermediary routes within the planned route have negative impacts to travel times.

So, my question is that if the citizens of Montgomery County and Prince Georges County do not want this the road will be an improvement, and it isn't even intended to provide relief outside of these areas...what is the purpose of the road?

As a side comment, I have a friend from just south of Frederick that is convinced that it will relieve traffic for his use of 270 on the way to Washington and also to Baltimore, but based on the statements above from the ICC website, it won't help him either.

Or do I have the wrong end of the stick? Any thoughts? --Alex.rosenheim 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the highway is intended to serve two purposes: to relieve traffic from local roads, and to provide an alternate route around DC and the Capital Beltway for traffic between the Gaithersburg/Rockville area, and Baltimore. So it really isn't intended to relieve traffic from the beltway, but rather to help traffic avoid it.-Jeff 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between intending to "relieve traffic from the beltway" and helping to "avoid (the beltway)"? Sounds like the same goal to me. And it is not a goal that the designers even acknowledge would be achieved by building the ICC. The quotes I presented above were from the ICC website, itself. Not from one of the opponents.

If the road does not relieve congestion outside of the area of the road, then it must be, by process of elimination, intended to improve the existing roads and travel within the survey area. Well, my point is that the only trip to be improved would be a full trip from end to end, and even that would only save a few minutes daily, not to mention...does not represent a route that is currently or is expected to be a highly used route.

Comparing the minimal improvements, significant hindrances, economic and environmental damage, not to mention the enormous cost, which could be diverted to real projects (like the Purple Line and other mass transit projects) that WOULD actually clear some cars off the road...I am still left unclear as to why anyone would support such a project.-Alex.rosenheim 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Late to the party, but in case anyone is still reading, the ICC was billed as something that would relieve traffic congestion until the studies came out indicating the the ICC will increase VMT and likely lead to more congestion on the beltway in the long term. Once that came out, the state had to drop all claims that the road is being built to relieve congestion because otherwise they'd have to admit building it is a bad idea. -63.167.196.17 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correct, its purpose is to relieve congestion along MD 198 and MD 28 (of which the connection between the two was built by Montgomery County a couple years ago as a "pseudo-ICC"). --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Concerns

Looking at the article the way it is now, it seems to have some POV issues. Notably, claims that it has been concluded that the road will increase congestion, increase fuel consumtion, etc, need to be either backed up or removed. I understand the topic of this article is controversial, and just like any controversial topic, we need to make sure the article remains neutral. -Jeff 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand some of your POV concerns. I should have included the references to the peer-reviewed studies that were produced by the opponents of the road. The key here is that they were scientific peer-reviewed studies. It becomes irrelevant who produced the studies...as long as the authors (and their intent) is known and that a good faith professional peer-review is done. The point of getting the peer-review is to prevent the author's potential bias from being incorporated into the rational discourse and conclusions.

And just from my memory, I remember that the study does show that at least two of the 14 criteria that were investigated would, actually, be improved by the road. But the overall conclusion would be to either "Not Build" or to proceed with one of the other alternatives studied. I will leave the POV note in until I can find the time to compile that documentation and incorporate it into the article. -Alex.rosenheim 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages isn't to draw conclusions, but to state facts. So we shouldn't try to tell the reader why the ICC should/shouldn't be built, but to give them the facts and let them draw their own conclusions. The problem is when there are facts that are given to push a particular point of view. Up until now, the article has contained mostly neutral facts, such as planned routing and when the road is expected to be opened. That kind of information is straight fact and won't be disputed, but if someone were to say "the road will relieve traffic" or "the road will have a significant environmental impact", that might be disputed by someone who is for or against the ICC. A better way to say these would be "the road is intended to relieve traffic" and "a study by the Sierra Club shows that the road could have a significant environmental impact". While that makes the comments facts as opposed to someone's POV, they still somewhat carry their original bias. So another point of concern is the placement and balance of these kind of facts. The intro makes several statements in opposition to the ICC, while it only makes one statement in support of it (that proponents claim it will improve the flow of interregional traffic). The intro above all sections should be neutral, I think the best thing to do is to put anything that is in support or opposition to the ICC into a "Support" or the "Opposition" section, or better yet, in place of those sections we could have a single "Controversy" section to give facts from both sides of the debate.-Jeff 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I can't decide if a a large scale re-editing would be in order? I don't think so. If all of the content regarding the intent and history of the development of the road were stripped, the summary would be neutral. But the intent of the project as well as the development process is integral to the road itself. Roads and other public infrastructure elements are not just collections of concrete, asphalt and steel...they are one of the sources of lifeblood for our society. They are the physicalization of how society chooses to organize itself. So, the purpose of the road is essential to definition of the road...but a road, as are all public works, is a collaborative process. This means that the purpose IS subjective.

So, where does that leave us? We must include the intent and the projected impacts. Maybe that is the key. It is not up to the Misplaced Pages to say that this fact is from a supporter and shows a positive impact or that this fact is from an opponent. It should state things more like, the State of Maryland indicates that the road will reduce drive times from this spot to that or the Sierra Club study states that the road will increase congestion for this region or that. Or, I suppose, go even further and just state these types of comments with footnoted references that identify the source of the statements. It would be up to the reader to decide if the identified project outcome is positive or negative and also if the source of the projected outcome is trustworthy.

-Alex.rosenheim 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I have a problem calling the studies you cite "peer reviewed." Compared to the process used by the Transportation Research Board ( see http://www.trb.org/am/TRR-C3.pdf ), the studies you cite were not peer reviewed.Cpzilliacus 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to address these POV issues in my update today. Psinu (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

-Jeff - Thank You for removing the link to http://www.iccproject.info/ - this is a site set up by the owner of the former ICC370 anti-ICC pages, and is entirely biased. Further, according to the registration information, he's a resident of Oregon, not Maryland. Cpzilliacus (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Future road

Should the "This article contains information about a planned or expected future road." tag be removed now that the ICC is under construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpzilliacus (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not until it opens to traffic, that's usually how the future road template works. Even when the first section opens in 2010, the tag should still be in the article, but be moved to a section on future development.-Jeff 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Freeway vs. Expressway

Definitions (taken from the online version of SHA's MUTCD; ) are as follows:

27. Expressway a divided highway with partial control of access.

29. Freeway a divided highway with full control of access.

Note that there is no reference to tolling above - the ICC will be a tolled freeway, and that's what it should be correctly called. Note that this is correct even though Maryland has Expressways (I-83, the JFX), Highways (I-95, JFK Highway; and I-595/U.S. 50, John Hanson Highway) and even Pikes (I-70, Baltimore National Pike) that are functionally classified as freeway. So NE2, you are exactly correct. Cpzilliacus (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone include a photo of the road under construction? It would be helpful to illustrate the current state of the project.-Jeff 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Well I have some good news -- I should be around the project site most of the day tomorrow.~~ --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Doh... field work got cut short due to the weather. I'll see if I can make it out there next week. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally got the photos uploaded. Dreary weather and there really wasn't much to see without trouncing around the site. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's official, MD 200 is now signed

Well, sort of anyway. According to this M.T.R post, signs posted along the work zone are already identifying the new road as MD 200. So should we move the page now, or at least wait for some more definite evidence?-Jeff 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It'll have to happen eventually. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page should be fine assuming a redirect is left at its current location. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure the redirect will stay. We already have several redirects from the name to the route designation (such as Ritchie Highway). And even if they end up calling this road something else, the fact still remains that "Intercounty Connector" was the project name, so it will remain a perfectly valid redirect.-Jeff 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually page moves don't happen after a day, so we should probably wait until at least tomorrow just in case someone else wants to say something.-Jeff 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. And if another project ever gets coined the Intercounty Connector: that's what disambiguation pages are for. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Archaeological digs in the path of the ICC

I added a new section about the Archaeological sites in the path of the ICC, since there did not seem to be an appropriate place to put them under the existing headings. Cpzilliacus (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interchange list (missing interchanges in Prince George's County?)

A look at the plates for Contract C shows a half interchange (off-ramp eastbound and on-ramp westbound) between Briggs Chaney Road and I-95 in Prince George's County. The plates show this as planned road A-59. Should this be on the list of interchanges?

Similarly, in Contract E, there's a half interchange (off-ramp eastbound and on-ramp westbound) between I-95 and U.S. 1 at Virginia Manor Road (or Planned Maryland 201 Extended).

Should these be added to the list of interchanges? Cpzilliacus (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'd say yes the info should be included... but on the other hand, I'd say they'd be better fit for the I-95 and MD 201 articles, respectively. My viewpoint is that this article should focus on what will ultimately become MD 200, whereas those two interchanges will be on different roads entirely. Granted, since they're being constructed as part of the same project, I don't think they would fit in with the MD 200 interchange list; but they may make good additions to the text of the article. Thinking to what this article may look like in the future: a history section may detail each of the phases and could mention the work done along other corridors. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bossi, I may not have been clear - these are half interchanges with Md. 200 (directly), similar to the one planned for Briggs Chaney Road. Take a look at physical page 4 of the plates for Contract C ( http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/web-plates-contract-c.pdf ), and the interchange between A-59 and Md. 200 is very clearly shown, even though A-59 is shown as dashed and marked as Planned A59 Interchange. The interchange with Md. 200 and Virginia Manor Road (to possibly become Md. 201 Extended in the future, according to the map) in Contract E ( http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/web-plates-contract-e.pdf ) is even more obvious. My reading of this plate is that the half-interchange will be completed with Contract E, regardless of what happens (or does not happen) with Md. 201 Extended. Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I created that list a while ago and based it off the map that was available at the time. If any interchanges have been added since then (or weren't covered by the map I saw back then, whatever the case may be), then certainly add them, as long as they are interchanges with Route 200 itself.-Jeff 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not modify the map, but I did add A-59 and Virginia Manor Road to the list of planned interchanges. As an aside, the plate for Contract E also implies that Virginia Manor Road is where Md. 201 Extended will run in the future, but I do not think there has been any decision reached about that, so I did not put a reference to Md. 201 in the table. Cpzilliacus (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact on Cross Creek Golf Course

Apparently due to a surveying error, this golf course encroaches onto the ICC's right-of-way, as reported by the Gazette. I put a reference to this under Environmental Mitigation, but I am not at all certain that's the best place, though I did not see anything more appropriate in the article. Comments? Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bike Trail

The ICC bike trail and what path it will (or will not) take is still not decided. I added a section discussing the trail. Cpzilliacus (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Project funding

Under Route description, I put in the specifics of how construction will be funded. I am not very good with tables. If someone wants to convert this to a table, please do so! Cpzilliacus (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockville Facility a/k/a Rockville Freeway

In doing research for the ICC, this road comes up in the earlier days (1970's) of ICC-related controversies. It was to run roughly west/southwest from near the Trolley Museum on Bonifant Road (at an interchange with the ICC), crossing Md. 182/Layhill Road, Md. 97/Georgia Ave., Md. 185/Connecticut Avenue (some of the ramps and an overpass for Md. 185 were built long ago), Md. 586/Viers Mill Road, Parklawn Road, Md. 355/Rockville Pike (at Randolph Road) before reaching I-270 at Montrose Road. The present-day Montrose Parkway uses the Rockville Facility right-of-way, and plans are for the parkway to continue as far east as Md. 586.

Most of the right-of-way of the Rockville Facility between Md. 586 and the ICC has become Matthew Henson State Park, thanks to efforts by the late Idamae Garrott in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

It's very relevant to the history of the ICC, but it should perhaps be its own article.

Anyone have more information about the RF?

Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that, given how long the Intercounty Connector project was around before the road was built, the history of that project should be its own article (though WP:SS). Perhaps this proposed road could become a part of that article.-Jeff 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I read you as saying that the history of the ICC should be its own article. Is that correct? If your answer is yes, I just think you may be right about that (I have a fair amount of content to add to the history still). Regarding the Rockville Facility, maybe there should be an article for the Montrose Parkway (there's none in Misplaced Pages now), and an article with the history of the Montrose Parkway that would include the Rockville Facility? As an aside, the Rockville Facility was once the alignment of the proposed Outer Beltway (from near the site of the Trolley Museum then west and south along what is now Henson State Park and the Montrose Parkway). In the 1970's, the proposed alignment of the Outer Beltway was re-routed north along what we now know as the ICC's master-planned route as far west as I-70S (now I-270). The existing article about Randolph Road mentions the Montrose Parkway, though they are really separate (though related) roads. Cpzilliacus (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting into sub-articles

With the "verylong" template notice at the start of the article, the History and the Opposition sections appear to be the best candidates for any splitting of content to separate articles. —ADavidB 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Splits made. See History of Maryland Route 200 and Opposition to Maryland Route 200. There is also now a category: Category:Maryland Route 200. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All three articles are awful. Please see WP:USRD/STDS for how this article is supposed to look. There are way too many quotes, which is the main reason behind the unreasonable length of the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This split should have never happened. All the information should be presented in the Maryland Route 200 article, it just requires cleanup to remove all the unnessecary information. Dough4872 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am less than sympathetic to your views because where were you when we discussed this split, and where were you in cleaning up this article all the time? Your article "standards" mean nothing if no one is willing to actually help out and build an article that complies with them, and we don't need a flock of Monday morning quarterbacks who are quick to complain while doing no work to reach the ends that they desire. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been busy working on getting several other articles to GA. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to tend to every single road article. There are other editors who could help cleanup this article too. Dough4872 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

USRD articles need to follow USRD standards. It was your responsibility to see what the standards are and make sure the article complies to those and to Misplaced Pages standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, splitting the article isn't necessarily a bad idea, but there should be a summary of the section that's split out and not merely a link to it under the heading. - Algorerhythms (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the amount of detail in the subarticle on opposition is excessive (the specific legal verbiage is in the various similar motions is not necessary--this is what external web sites are for) & to some extent duplicates what is here--and what is here is excessive detail also---the harm to a specific single hole on a golf course is not encyclopedic content. The net effect it gives is promotion of a POV. I've proposed a remerge. DGG (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support remerging the article, we just need to trim the unnessecary information in the opposition subarticle. A trimmed-down version of the history should be merged back into the main MD 200 article as well. Dough4872 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a strong position about merging or not merging the articles. I do know that much of the quoting is needed to provide context to the long, long tale or opposition to the project. And it's important to discuss same, since the ICC is the first large, new highway project in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties to be built since the 1960's. Cpzilliacus (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the ICC is in a unique situation given that it has a history of planning that dates back to the '60s. For that reason, it's perfectly deserving of an article on its long history, but the opposition article is overkill. Past controversies can be covered in the history article, and any current ones can be covered in this one. Also, yeah the history needs a summary+link here to comply with Misplaced Pages standards.-Jeff 06:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the history and opposition sections be merged into one (separate) article? Opposition would seem appropriate as part of the history of the project, especially with one as long as that of the ICC. Cpzilliacus (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that past opposition issues would be appropriate for a Route 200 history article. —ADavidB 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

If someone wants to dispute neutrality of an article, that's fine - it's appropriate to discuss such matters candidly. But I really resent someone adding that tag without stating why they are adding it. So I will ask - why was it added? I will state that the ICC was, and remains, for some persons and groups, especially the Montgomery County Sierra Club, certain (small) municipal governments in suburban Maryland (mostly inside the Capital Beltway), Maryland's Smart Growth industry, and some embittered persons who self-identify as members of Earth First! and among members of Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council, a stinging defeat. But that does not make the article biased. Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you dispute the tag, feel free to remove it, especially since it was added without explanation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Message from Montgomery County Green Democrats in August 2009

Speaking of POV, I received this communication from the Montgomery Green Democrats which states as follows (names redacted):

Original Message -----

From: The Montgomery Green Democrats
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:03 PM
Subject: Green Democrats Meeting: Thursday, August 20th 7:30 pm hosting Xxx Xxxx, Montgomery DEP

President Becker noted that the article in Misplaced Pages about the ICC seems very supportive to an unbalanced degree. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx suggested contacting ICC opponents to collect the research concerning the substantial downside of the ICC (e.g. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxx )

Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm almost tempted to write a pro-ICC group to see if they think it's slanted too far negatively. If so, then we're probably properly balanced. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I represent no group, though I am a member of the only pro-ICC group that I know of. And yes, I am (and always have been) in favor of the ICC. I do not hide that. But I have really tried to represent all of the perspectives over the years when it comes to the ICC. Maybe it really comes down to an unwillingness (on my part) to repeat some of the untruths that have been circulated about the project, such as the destruction of "old growth" forests if the ICC were to be built (not true, since there are none) and the issues related to the brown trout in the Paint Branch of the Anacostia River (these trout are an alien, introduced species (native to Germany, not Maryland) and cannot be protected under current federal environmental laws). Cpzilliacus (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Trimming unnecessary information

I understand that people have put a lot of work and research into this article, and I respect that greatly; it shows that people are really putting effort into covering this subject (which is good considering people pretty high up are reading it). However, after reading through all three articles of the subject, the unnecessary information is glaring. It is as if every single piece of news, research, or video even remotely related to the ICC made its way into the article, which Misplaced Pages is not for.
Keeping that in mind, I have been trimming down choice pieces of information, such as the blow-by-blow account of how far along the ICC's construction has come this day, this day, and this day. Is posting all of this necessary? I know that this freeway is a very controversial road, and its construction schedule should definitely be noted, but what I'm seeing is basically a report on how far it's come every single time someone publishes something about it.
That said, there was also a paragraph mentioning that construction of an overpass would cause delays on Interstate 95. I believed that was unnecessary; road construction always causes some sort of slowdown or delay, so this is nothing particularly notable to MD 200.
Any other thoughts on trimming this article of unnecessary information? —Onore Baka Sama 20:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not from Maryland, I've only been there once, and I didn't get to see the ICC on my trip. Personally, I'd like to see this article start to fall into more of a standard article's format. The junction list should be dropped to the bottom. Either the history or the route description section first. The daughter article on the history should probably be combined with the appropriate details from this article. A good history section should answer the basic questions, Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. The three articles taken together all have the same problem: too many quotations. I think a good revamp would allow someone to pull most of the quotations and replace them with single sentences. If the two daughter articles are left, then you still need a summary of each in this article. Half of this article though is history information that's not in the history article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move (keep current name). Orlady (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maryland Route 200 → Intercounty Connector — Move per WP:UCN (Use common names) and WP:ASTONISH (Principle of least astonishment) Current name is barely used outside of official documents. — AjaxSmack 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of usage is of "Intercounty Connector" or "ICC", not "Maryland Route 200" including the official project and planning websites , local media , and interest groups . In almost all of these sources and others cited in the article, the name "Maryland Route 200" doesn't appear at all making it a poor choice of title for the article. I can anticipate arguments for intra-Misplaced Pages consistency but (despite WP:ROADFAN) Misplaced Pages should be optimised for readers, not editors (See also WP:NOTMANUAL #5 and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Cf. Baltimore–Washington Parkway, Jones Falls Expressway.) — AjaxSmack 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar discussion is currently underway at Talk:Alberta Highway 100. — AjaxSmack 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

Support as nom. — AjaxSmack 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Jones Falls Expressway is a bad example since that's only one segment of I-83. As for B-W Parkway, large parts of MD 295 are unsigned, making the named designation the logical choice for the title. Based on File:ICC Route 200.jpg, the highway will be signed as MD 200, which makes it hard for me to justify moving it from the number to the name. I have no real vested interest either way, but that's my take. – T M F 08:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- True but all of the ICC is unsigned (at the moment). — AjaxSmack 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for consistency in article naming with other state highways is my gut reaction to this proposal. Many other highways are maintained at their official numbers, and the cited examples differ in two respects.The Baltimore–Washington Parkway is an article on a single road with multiple numbers. Maryland Route 200 has a single number. The Jones Falls Expressway is a segment of the larger I-83 in Maryland. It's appropriate to subdivide that section of highway for its own article for different reasons than this. Imzadi 1979 → 08:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consistency is fine but it should not trump WP:UCN and WP:ASTONISH. — AjaxSmack 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  - WP:ASTONISH doesn't apply here. It would apply if a reader searched for Intercounty Connector and was redirected to Maryland Route 200 with no indication why the redirect ocurred. In this case though, the former is listed in the first sentence in boldface type, mitigating any astonishment. Imzadi 1979 → 17:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Intercounty Connector redirects to Maryland Route 200, so anyone who searches for the former will arrive at the latter. Also, the state of Maryland will be phasing out use of Intercounty Connector in favor of Maryland Route 200 once the highway opens. From the Baltimore Sun article ICC moving toward opening of first section:

As the highway moves closer to completion, Marylanders can expect to see fewer references to the ICC and more mentions of Maryland Route 200 — the designation the toll road will bear on state maps.

Ray Feldmann, a spokesman for the project, said the state plans to "rebrand" the highway — a move that would phase out a name that has been associated with controversy for decades.

"A lot of people may still call it the ICC," Feldmann said.

The highway should be labelled here as it will be in the field once it opens. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

VC's quotation only furthers my opposition. I assumed that something similar would happen, that if the article was moved we'd be discussing moving it back in the near future. That article supports my assumption. Imzadi 1979 → 16:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"The state plans to 'rebrand' the highway." Maybe but Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. If the usage changes in the future, the article can be moved at that time to reflect that. Right now, even official sites don't use "Maryland Route 200" (check the links in the nomination). "Anyone who searches for will arrive at ." True, but "Maryland Route 200" is so rarely used and Intercounty Connector/ICC is overwhelmingly used that it violates the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH). Go through the sources for the article; can you honestly say that "Maryland Route 200" is the right title for an article in a encyclopedia for a general audience? — AjaxSmack 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH does not apply here, as explained by Imzadi1979. None of the tenets of WP:CRYSTALBALL apply here:

We know the highway is going to be signed as and referred to as Maryland Route 200.
Maryland Route 200 is not an article created based on a systematic pattern of names for events that have yet to occur. The route number is defined on good authority.
Naming the article Maryland Route 200 is not based on original research.
This is not a science article.

I think the only Misplaced Pages policy in which you are not grasping for straws is WP:UCN, but even there your argument is not convincing. It is quite clear from reading the first paragraph of the article what the highway's name and project name are. Even a moron in a hurry would not be confused by the article title being Maryland Route 200. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The route number should be used as the title rather than the name of the road. This is standard practice with most USRD articles. Dough 48 72 00:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Support a move. I do however Oppose Intercounty Connector as it seems too generic. Maryland Intercounty Connector could be a possible alternative. Amongst reliable sources, Intercounty Connector is the hands down leader. Same goes for in the press. Simply because the highway will be signed as Maryland Route 200 does not mean that is the common name. The official project name is Intercounty Connector and it seems appropriate to use some varierty of that name until something else becomes more common. If the Maryland Route 200 name becomes employed more often after the completion of the project than a name change can always be considered then.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just because Intercounty Connector seems to be the most referred to name, most road articles are titled by their route number if the number is signed. Once this road opens with MD 200 signage, MD 200 will become the main way of referring to the route in official terms. Dough 48 72 21:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  - "Most road articles are titled by their route number if the number is signed." So? Misplaced Pages should be optimized for readers, not editors. "MD 200 will become the main way of referring to the route in official terms." Really? Which crystal ball did you see that in? — AjaxSmack 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    - Considering that VC has provided a source that quotes an official source that the ICC name will be withdrawn on opening of the road, and we have a photograph of the reassurance marker assembly to be installed on the road, no crystal ball is needed in the face of reliable sources. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      - I don't see Maryland Route 200 being genuinely in use, so section 2 of WP:CRYSTALBALL does seem to apply. As I stated before, the popular name may very well change but that doesn't seem likely for some time now. I am also not saying a name to Maryland Route 200 might not be warranted in the future but there isn't the reliable source usage data to employ Maryland Route 200 at this time. A single source stating what will be done in the future (borderline WP:CRYSTALBALL) isn't sufficient, not to mention a photo is clearly WP:Original research. Since the DOT is principally employing ICC at this time, I don't see the "Most road articles" argument holding up much weight given WP:USSH clearly states that there is no issue in using a fully prose name so long as the DOT uses it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        Photos are an exception to the policy on original research. A photograph, unless altered, is a reliable source as to its contents. (See WP:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. " " As for WP:USSH, the examples of "official nicknames" embodies single roads that are comprised of multiple different highway numbers or single sections of longer highways. (The Golden State Freeway is one section of the longer I-5 in California. The Tri-State Tollway is a section of I-94 in Illinois and I-294, including a segment of I-80 in Illinois. The New Jersey Turnpike is parts of I-95, I-78 and unsigned NJ-700.)
        Point #2 from CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply because MD-200 isn't pre-assigned to the roadway, it is already assigned there. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        Almost. Free user-created photos being used to illustrate an article are not considered original research for purposes of that policy. Using a photo not from a reliable source in a citation to verify article content is still original research.
        In the case of the use of the Route 200 designator, I live really close to where the highway is being constructed, and every road sign about the construction has the SR 200 shield on it, near the picture of the walking construction barrel. So based on the sign, it would indicate that SR 200 will ultimately be what the road will go by. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        I have used photos as sources in Featured Articles to cite the information contain in them. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan uses a photo of the mileage sign showing the mileage to Miami, FL from Copper Harbor, MI and the sign at the terminal cul-de-sac as sources in the article. For the DYK hook on M-6 (Michigan highway), a photo of a horse on the unopened freeway during the Southbelt Shuffle open house event is proof that horses were on the freeway during the event. Unless the photo is shown to be altered or doctored, it is considered a valid source. Imzadi 1979 → 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per previous consensus. When this article was created, it was called Intercounty Connector. When it was first reported that it would become MD 200, the article was moved. See above. –Fredddie™ 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- "It was first reported that it would become MD 200" is still peering into a crystal ball. Misplaced Pages doesn't do official names and common usage is not preordained. — AjaxSmack 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Official documents have the route becoming MD 200. It is USRD practice to refer to roads by their number. Dough 48 72 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    - "Have the route becoming"'... hmmm...interesting verb usage but it still means something "might be happening", i.e., crystal ball gazing. What is USRD? — AjaxSmack 02:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      - Trust me, there are signs with "200" on them posted for the Intercounty Connector. Every project sign for it that I've seen has a SR 200 shield on it. Also, for what USRD is, see WP:USRD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no speculation here as to the route number. Work zone approach signs along the entire corridor, from I-370 to I-95 and everywhere in between, clearly indicate the new highway as Maryland Route 200, using official MD state highway signs. Highways treated similarly on Misplaced Pages include Interstate 695 (Maryland), known locally as the Baltimore Beltway, Interstate 476] (known locally as the "Blue Route"), amd Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway), known locally as the "Capital Beltway" and nationally known simply as "The Beltway", with the parentheses in the second case only serving to disambiguate from other Interstates 495. The Interstate 695 article has Good Article status. --Clubjuggle /C 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The Baltimore Sun reports "As the highway moves closer to completion, Marylanders can expect to see fewer references to the ICC and more mentions of Maryland Route 200" Billhpike (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Additonal note: An example of the posted MD-200 signage is at . Note also the absence of any mention of "Intercounty Connector" on the sign. --Clubjuggle /C 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed the maintenance tags

I've removed the maintenance tags from the top of the article. Basically, considering that the tags are 11 months old with no movement on those fronts, it's likely that the article is fine on those fronts, and that the article does not need a complete rewrite, and that we're probably fine on quotes. If someone disagrees, then by all means, retag the article, and add the current date to those tags. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Readded. There's still a gross overuse of quotes, and it's hard to say it doesn't need a rewrite when it has five non-standard sections and one of the standard sections contains nothing more than a hatnote. – T M F 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the rewrite tag again due to non-specificity. Could you please tag the five sections individually that need particular attention? Would definitely help in making improvements. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Every section not listed on WP:USRD/STDS: "Funding", "Construction schedule", "Opposition", "Environmental mitigation", and "Associated construction projects". The first three clearly should be under history, and I question the need to have the latter two, especially when a history subarticle exists. And considering six of the article's nine sections need rewrites, I'm restoring the tag at the top of the article. – T M F 03:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium on Formal Review

One of this article's prospective daughter articles, History of Maryland Route 200, was nominated today at Good Article Nominations. The results were swift and predictable: the article was mercilessly raked over the coals and failed without hesitation. The qualities (or lack thereof) manifest in the History daughter article are also prevalent in the other daughter article, Opposition to Maryland Route 200 and this main article. This article and family of articles is a mess. Do not be deluded into thinking it is not. Delusion leads to an article being nominated in a formal review, failing, and then a few things being changed before nominating again, where it predictably fails again, ad nauseum, with the hope that some way, somehow, if this crap is thrown against the wall enough times, eventually it will stick, i.e., sprout a green plus sign symbol.

However, I do not want to make this into an auto-da-fé. I also want to speak of this article's potential for greatness, while cautioning it will not happen overnight. The subject matter of this topic is extremely rich. The highway, its history, its opposition, etc. have been very well documented by the media, both the traditional media and online. Many, many of those sources have been referenced and applied in the article so far. However, an article is not made simply by dumping sources into a bucket. Like with constructing a concrete road, the sources must be tied together appropriately in the correct proportions, in the correct order, at the correct rate. And like with building a road on a new alignment, where after the trees are cleared and the path graded, the roadbed must lie fallow for a year to allow the elements to properly settle the road...we must take time to step back from our passionate work, then come back at a later time and refine the article, noticing mistakes previously made and improvements that can be made. This must happen repeatedly. It is not easy and it is not meant to be. It is not quick and it is not meant to be. Luckily, in Misplaced Pages there is no deadline. There is no rush to complete this article.

Speaking of completion, nominating an article for a formal review gives the impression that the article is complete or is nearly complete. There are two properties of completion. First, that a very high percentage of the information that could eventually find its way into the article is presently in the article. This article fails this property because most of MD 200 has not even opened yet. Would you declare an article about a music album, an upcoming movie, or a future sporting event complete before its release or before the event happens? Of course not; the situation is still very fluid, with many essential details yet unknown, such as what exactly happens in the movie or how the album is critically received. The other property is how refined the article is. If you have read the article, you can see it fails this second property. It is a very rough article that can only be smoothed with repeated refinement.

Therefore, I make the following proposal. I request that we place a voluntary moratorium on nominating this article for formal review. This moratorium will not be binding; i.e., bad things will not happen to you if you nominate this article at GAN. That being said, I do not think it is too much to ask to recognize the mess this article is in; to recognize there will need to be a lot of time and energy expended by many editors to make this article worthy of being recognized content; and to recognize exercising some discipline to hold back and let this process of improvement take its course can only be beneficial for the state of this article in the long run. As MD 200 is expected to be substantially completed in early 2012 when the segment from MD 97 to I-95 opens, I propose this article or any of its daughter articles not be nominated for a formal review until after March 31, 2012, or one month after the completion of the MD 97–I-95 segment, whichever date is later. V C 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grand Rapids, Michigan might be a slightly smaller area in terms of population, but I'm going to offer a template for this article. M-6, the South Beltline Freeway, was first proposed seriously in the 1960s, although other proposals were made in the 1940s. A freeway along its path was included in the first Interstate Highway planning maps for Grand Rapids, although I-96 and I-196 were ultimately shifted northward. The state of Michigan increased the gas tax in the 1970s with the goal to use the additional funding to finance this freeway among other projects in the state. When studies were started in the 1980s, two opposition groups formed to oppose the freeway. The first consultant was fired and a second hired to complete the studies. The project was dead until the 1990s when actual engineering finally started on the road. Ground broke in 1997, and the freeway was completed in 2004. M-6 was even part of a general issue about the state's roads and road construction in the gubernatorial campaign in 1998.

Now with all of that backstory, M-6 only has one article. There are no excess quotations, no POV issues. The article does not give undue weight to any part of the freeway's history. It is concise, summarizing a rocky history of 40+ years into one article. Oh, and if I can toot my own horn (and I will), the article is primarily sourced to news accounts. It is a featured article, passing it's nomination earlier this year.

The MD-200 article family is a dumping ground. Every time it makes the news, someone adds more to one of the articles. When the M-6 article was started in September 2004, only a third of it was open to traffic. In fact, it was open for nearly 6 years before I revamped the article. It's going to take a small group of interested editors a few weeks to sift through everything in the 3 articles and hack it down in terms of size. The story of the Intercounty Connector can be told in one article. The history of the road's planning and the opposition to construction can be summarized down and merged back into the parent article. All of the information needs to be distilled to include only what is needed to tell the overall story. Minor details will be left out based on consensus over what needs to be included. A complete story can't be told though until after the rest of the road opens next year, and even then, maybe not for another year at least. Critical and popular reaction is going to take some time to percolate into reliable sources. There should probably be a year's wait to include updated, accurate traffic counts to the article. The release of those first figures a year or so later will probably trigger additional news coverage.

My serious suggestion is that if anything additional is added from here out to the articles, something minor is removed. For every new piece of information, a minor detail is removed, and transferred to the talk page. Every quotation, especially all of the block quotes, needs to be examined. Most of them should be paraphrased and summarized. Once the basic article structure and content is reined back into control, then, and only then, can anyone start to polish the article for GAN or FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time that have read this article's talk page. (1) I believe that even if a daughter article is generated, it is appropriate to have a brief summary of that article in the parent article. I would add a brief summary of the Opposition article to the corresponding section of this article at the point where the daughter article was split off. However, I am opposed to the deletion. As to any analogy with M-6, the problem is that Michigan has a population of 9.8 million with 778,000 living near Grand Rapids (8 %). However, Maryland has a population of 5.7 million, Montgomery County has a population of 972,000 and PG County has a population of 834,000 (32 %). So MD 200 affected a much bigger portion of Maryland's population than did M-6 in Michigan. It was a big factor in the Governor's election. Hence, I can not use M-6 as a guideline. (2) Also, the idea of limiting the depth of coverage of one topic just because Misplaced Pages lacks depth of coverage in another is contrary to the spirit of the project. If Grand Valley State University has a limited article, that should not limit people interested in Harvard University from producing a group of high-quality articles with better coverage. If the folks interested in covering Michigan politics or Michigan history want to write an in-depth article about the history of M-6, they are free to do so. What an editor writes is a matter of personal choice. One editor could spend all of his spare time writing about every obsure, little-travelled state highway, while a different author could focus on the sociological and historic aspect of urban freeways. So long as each topic is notable, it is allowed and should not be torn down or disparaged by others. The suggestion that "anyone who wants to add to the MD 200 article must remove something else from that article" makes as much sense as a proposal that "anyone who wants to add to the MD 200 article must remove something from the M-6 article." (3) Finally, WP:QUOTE says, ""When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Misplaced Pages'." I believe the use of quotes and the resulting length in the article is appropriate. Racepacket (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

1) There was a lot of opposition to California State Route 241 and I'm sure to parts of Interstate 95 (think New Jersey). Neither have opposition articles, and I-95 is way more important than this road. You say that if you merge the three articles together it will violate WP:SIZE. Well, half of the stuff in this article shouldn't even be here. Please read WP:USRD/STDS. 2) It's called notability. Verifiability != notability. 3) WP:QUOTE is an essay, not a guideline. Even at that, you're ignoring the section related to overusing quotes. --Rs chen 7754 06:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, what is your opinion on my proposal for a moratorium on nominating this article for formal review until 2012? V C 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories: