Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 69

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgy4 (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 29 December 2021 (→MDOT: Clarifies the disagreement over what constitutes the "orginal" I-69). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconU.S. Roads: Interstates C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics
 Interstate Highways  
Note icon
This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
Note icon
This article does not require a junction list.
Note icon
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
 

MDOT

  • Was there ever any previous attempt from MDOT or some other highway organizations to truncate I-69 on the highway between Grayling, MI and Lansing, MI on what is now known as U.S. Highway 127? --SuperDude 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, this was never addressed, but I may as well now; I-69 was never on the (now-)US-127 corridor. When it was extended from Charlotte in the 70s, it went straight to Flint, junctioning with—and its new terminus passing—what was then US-27 (which I believe is what you may be talking about, and whose northern terminus has been truncated at Fort Wayne) by a good 40 miles. —IW4UTC 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, that segment north of Lansing has been suggested as being part of I-73 in Michigan. If Michigan hadn't killed the missing link along US 127 and US 223 to Toledo to the south, it could have worked.74.78.155.128 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map shows the original I-69 as extending from Indianapolis to Port Huron. However, the originally proposed I-69 only went as far as the Indiana Toll Road. It was extended to I-94 in 1968, and did not reach Port Huron until 1992. http://www.i69info.com/existing.html Edgy4 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. As originally proposed in the 1950s, I-69 extended from Indianapolis to Marshall, ending at I-94. The first Michigan segment opened in 1967, but it was part of the 1956 plans. Its definition was extended in pieces, that much is true, but you have your chronology wrong. North of Marshall to Lansing and east to Port Huron, Michigan was converting US 27, M-78 and M-21 into freeways anyway. The first extension by Congress in 1968 was to I-75/US 23 at Flint. It was further extended in 1973 to I-475 on the east side of Flint. The final official extension was made in 1987 to Port Huron,[1] although segments east of there to Port Huron were already open and designated as I-69. The 1987 Where you're also wrong on the chronology is that the last segment opened in 1992 wasn't near Port Huron. MDOT had finished those segments between Flint and Port Huron in 1984. It was the segments southwest of Lansing to Charlotte that were the last to be finished, culminating in the one that was needed to connect I-69 to I-96 at Lansing. All of this is written, in great detail, with sources in Interstate 69 in Michigan, a Featured Article.

That's still the "original I-69" compared to the extension to Mexico. The designation was extended as one organic process that had a definite endpoint when all of I-69 was designated between Indianapolis and Port Huron in 1987 and completed in 1992. The rest of I-69 was developed much later. Imzadi 1979 → 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weingroff, Richard (July 16, 2013) [1998]. "Part I: History". The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved August 18, 2013.
    • My recollection is that the original I-69 went from Indianapolis to I-94 near Marshall. However, the page I cited (http://www.i69info.com/existing.html) said otherwise. Since you are sure of it, I will go with you. And my recollection is that you are right about the Charlotte-Lansing link being last, as well. That was already a divided highway, and was lower priority to upgrade or bypass than other construction projects in the state. Where I disagree with you is that Indianapolis-Port Huron can be referred to as "original." The highway was authorized in the mid-1950s, and the connection to Port Huron was not authorized until 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Michigan). So the map that is designated "Map of the original I-69 route" should be renamed, "Map of the I-69 route in 1987." Edgy4 (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Canada to Mexico I-69

  • Having recently visited USA for the first time and seen the "future corridor" signs to the southwest of Houston, Texas I have been surfing the net and found out about the planned Canada to Mexico I-69. I feel this should be mentioned in the introduction to this article, not just under "Notes" and "External Links". --PeterR 16:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

  • The final route of I-69 from Indianapolis to Evansville has not been settled and is still being hottly debated in Indiana. There have been several acts of vandalism in recent weeks related to the expansion. I updated the notes to reflect this.

Expansion (merge?)

  • I think that the proposed expansion route needs to have its own section or sub-section, aside from the notes. I also think the expansion route notes need to be better ordered and perhaps start in Indianapolis and move south to the mexican border (north to south) instead of the way it is currently arranged (south to north)

MS stretch already open!?

Then why in the heck isn't it showing up on Google or Rand McNally, even under construction dashes? --KHill-LTown 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't realize it was already signed. --NE2 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is I-69 completed between the MS/TN state line and the MS-304 junction? This map seems to suggest it is, but I'm assuming it's just a signed duplex with 55? I'm lookin to update the map I made and need to know what exactly is completed and open in MS. Cheers! Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the photos, it doesn't look like it's signed along I-55. --NE2 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the concurrency is not signed; I don't think MDOT and TDOT have the authority to do that until the SIU 9 environmental study receives its Record of Decision from FHWA (probably at least a year off). --Lordsutch 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thanks. Stratosphere (U T) 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think FHWA approval was needed to post an overlap, only AASHTO approval. The overlap would add no Interstate mileage, so there would be nothing for FHWA to approve. --NE2 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the actual routing of I-69 along the whole SIU isn't technically approved yet by FHWA; they could still say no to the unbuilt section between Millington and Memphis, necessitating a change in the remainder of the route. --Lordsutch 03:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The FHWA should be issuing their Record of Decision on SIU 9 within the next month or two, after the public gets its chance to look at the final EIS that was presented in December 2006. Technically, MDOT and TDOT can begin erecting I-69 and I-269 signs along the existing freeways (I-55, I-240, and TN-385), once the Record of Decision is entered into the Federal Register. In actuality, however, TDOT and MDOT might wait to install I-69/I-269 signs until the unbuilt portions are finished. --Wxstorm

Temporary I-164 Designation in S. Indiana

Below is an excerpt of my e-mail reply explaining the possibility of the southernmost segment of I-69 (SIU 3) being temporarily signed as I-164.

The southernmost segment of I-69 in Indiana possibly being signed temporarily as I-164 is speculation at this time. Logically, it makes sense because the new section will not yet connect to any other portions of I-69, but it will start at the I-164 terminus and continue north for 13 miles. My thought is that once the remaining sections further north are built, tying into the existing I-69 at Indianapolis, the entire route will then be signed as I-69.
Signing a proposed Interstate route temporarily as a 3-digit spur of another Interstate is actually quite common, since the FHWA and AASHTO try to avoid having many discontinuous segments with the same 2-digit route number, which would be the case with I-69.
A similar approach is being taken with the Interstate 49 extension north to Kansas City and south to New Orleans: One section of I-49 west of New Orleans has been temporarily designated as I-310, and another segment in Arkansas has the temporary designation of I-540. Like I-164 in Indiana, I-310 and I-540 will be re-designated as I-49 once additional segments connecting it to the existing I-49 are built. --Wxstorm

SIU 3 SAFETEA funding

The article states in SIU 3 that "Congress allocated an additional $58 million in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU authorization to begin upgrading State Road 37 to a full expressway between Indianapolis and Bloomington." Would someone please confirm this? Thank you.

AMDS 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoosier National Forest

Note that an alternative previously considered during study in Indiana SIU #3 (Alternative 5) went through the Hoosier National Forest. The selected Corridor (alternative 3C) does not as the map on http://deis.i69indyevn.org/DEIS/Summary/enviro_s.jpg shows. Please also see this map of the Hoosier National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hoosier/docs/topo_map_details.htm and any map of alternative 3C at http://www.i69indyevn.org. AMDS 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. The alignment of I-69 through southwest Indiana will stay to the west of Hoosier National Forest. A route that doesn't disturb the national forest was a major reason Alternative 3C was selected. Wxstorm 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an SIU??

This article repeatedly uses the abbreviation SIU without explanation, and there's no Wikipedia article for it. That's very bad form. I looked at several other web pages talking about Interstate highways and found several references to SIUs, but no elaboration of the phrase being abbreviated. Lincmad 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Segment of independent utility". First result on Google for that phrase turns up an article for I-69 SIU 8. I'll admit, I didn't know it either and had to ask around, so to speak, to figure it out. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The I-69 corridor was broken down into 32 SIUs in a way that each section becomes its own "stand-alone" project within the overall 1600-mile macro-corridor. Theoretically, if the federal government were to decide to cancel I-69, state Departments of Transportation and the FHWA could continue with the design and construction of individual segments as their own project, with goals unrelated to those of I-69. Wxstorm 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy jargon

There's already a word for what an SIU is: a segment or road segment. "Segment of independent utility" is wordy.Dogru144 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Here's a small bit of history: [1] --NE2 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple list of SIUs

  • SIU 1: Port Huron to I-465 north
  • SIU 2: Indianapolis
  • SIU 3: I-465 south to I-64
  • SIU 4: I-64 to Pennyrile Parkway
  • SIU 5: Pennyrile and Western Kentucky Parkways
  • SIU 6: I-24 and Purchase Parkway
  • SIU 7: Purchase Parkway to I-155
  • SIU 8: I-155 to SR 385
  • SIU 9: SR 385 to I-55/MS 304
  • SIU 10: I-55/MS 304 to MS 713
  • SIU 11: MS 713 to bridge (originally MS 1, since shifted west to the bridge approaches)
  • SIU 12: Mississippi River bridge (originally MS 1 to US 65)
  • SIU 13: US 65 to US 82
  • SIU 14: US 82 to I-20
  • SIU 15: I-20 to US 171
  • SIU 16: US 171 to US 59/US 259 (TTC-69 SIU 1)
  • SIU 17: US 59/US 259 to US 69 (TTC-69 SIU 2)
  • SIU 18: US 69 to proposed Grand Parkway (TTC-69 SIU 3)
  • SIU 19: Greater Houston (TTC-69 SIU 4)
  • SIU 20: Grand Parkway to Victoria, TX (TTC-69 SIU 5)
  • SIU 21: Victoria, TX to US 77 @ I-37 (TTC-69 SIU 6)
  • SIU 22: US 77 @ I-37 to US 77 near Raymondville, TX (TTC-69 SIU 7)
  • SIU 23: US 77 near Raymondville to Brownsville, TX (TTC-69 SIU 8)
  • SIU 24: Victoria, TX to US 59 @ I-37 (TTC-69 SIU 11)
  • SIU 25: US 59 @ I-37 to US 281 in Linn, TX (TTC-69 SIU 12)
  • SIU 26: US 281 in Linn, TX to McAllen, TX (TTC-69 SIU 9)
  • SIU 27: I-94, Port Huron to Chicago
  • SIU 28: I-530, I-69 to Pine Bluff
  • SIU 29: Texarkana to Carthage (TTC-69 SIU 13)
  • SIU 30: US 59 @ I-37 to I-35 in Laredo (TTC-69 SIU 14)
  • SIU 31: US 281 in Lynn to US 77 near Raymondville, TX (TTC-69 SIU 10)
  • SIU 32: US 77/83 in Imito, TX to Port of Brownsville along FM 511 (TTC-69 SIU 15)
  • not part of the I-69 SES: Corpus Christi to Laredo (TTC-69 SIU L-CC)

Can somebody with the "I-69 Corridor 18 Special Environmental Study" from 2000 please fill in the rest, and confirm what's here? Thank you. --NE2 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that [2] listed all the SIUs, but it's not archived. --NE2 16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the list of SIU boundaries at http://www.i69info.com/state.html is correct; I have a copy of the Special Issues Study executive summary, but not the Special Environmental Study. I think I determined these originally from the SIU map at TDOT's website. Lordsutch 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; [3] is presumably that map. It appears that the TTC I-69 SIUs more or less match up, just with different numbers. --NE2 08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "not part of the SES" segment is essentially SIU 30 with wider study boundaries at the east end (e.g. a modification of 30). Lordsutch 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laws

  • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991[4]: (18) Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, to Memphis, Tennessee, via Evansville, Indiana.
    • (20) United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas.
  • Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993[5]: (18) Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Shreveport/Bossier, Louisiana, and to Houston, Texas.
  • National Highway System Designation Act of 1995[6]: (18) Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport/Bossier, Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, and to include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
    • (A) IN GENERAL- The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment--
      • (i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and
      • (ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment.
  • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century[7]: (18) Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport/Bossier, Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows:
    • (A) In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
    • (B) In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
    • (C) In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
      • (i) follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
      • (ii) include a connection between the Corridor in the vicinity of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
    • (D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
      • (i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
      • (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
      • (iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
    • (1) STUDY- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing an Interstate quality road for a route that runs in south/west direction generally along United States Route 61 and crosses the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to Highway 79 and generally follows Highway 79 to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
    • (i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-69.
    • (ii) RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE FUTURE INTERSTATE SIGN ERECTION CRITERIA- The Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to determine the appropriate criteria for the erection of signs for future routes on the Interstate System identified in subparagraph (A). Such rulemaking shall be undertaken in consultation with States and local officials and shall be completed not later than December 31, 1998.
  • Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998[8]:
    • (1) STUDY- The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing an Interstate quality road for a route that runs in south/west direction generally from United States Route 61 and crosses the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to Highway 79 and generally follows Highway 79 to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
    • (4) TEXAS STATE HIGHWAY 99- Texas State Highway 99 (also known as `Grand Parkway') shall be considered as one option in the I-69 route studies performed by the Texas Department of Transportation for the designation of I-69 Bypass in Houston, Texas.
  • Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000[9]:
      • (ii) include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
  • Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002[10]:
    • (E) In Kentucky, the corridor shall utilize the existing Purchase Parkway from the Tennessee State line to Interstate 24.
    • The Purchase Parkway corridor referred to in subsection (c)(18)(E) shall be designated as Interstate Route 69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes and/or corridors referred to in subsections (c)(18) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 69. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii), or any other provisions of this Act, the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall erect signs, as approved by the Secretary, identifying the routes and/or corridors described in subsection (c)(18) for the Commonwealth, as segments of future Interstate Route 69.


I believe a strict reading would require Michigan and Illinois to post I-69 signs on I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron. Ha. --NE2 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Huron end

I find it odd that this page says that 69 overlaps 94 to meet the Blue Water Bridge. I'm from Port Huron, and can say that this is not the case. I-69 passes over I-94, and one can transfer highways before coming to Port Huron, but there is never any overlap. 69 ends on the west side of Port Huron, several miles from the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.133.38 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signage ([11][12]) shows that I-69 does end at the bridge. --NE2 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition and controversy

Excuse me, a new Wikipedian, for saying so, but the phrase "heavily overpaid union jobs" in the following sentence seems to express either a bias or a misguided form of satire:

"Opponents believe that I-69, by subsidizing trade between Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and Latin America, will further cut the heavily overpaid union jobs in Michigan as commerce moves south."

By the way, why would opponents of I-69 put forward the indicated sentiment? Without more specific knowledge, I am unqualified to recommend changes. Paul Niquette (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.83.202 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed extension

Can we have a map for the proposed extension section that shows the approximate route it would take from its start in Port Huron to its end at the Texas/Mexican border? I think that'd be quite the useful addition to that section. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some maps on this already: e.g., "Proposed I-69 route has experts divided" http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/projects/nafta/naftai.php

Interesting that this is titled under NAFTA, and it is dated 1999. Perhaps people were drawing connections to NAFTA and movement of things from Michigan to the South.

Also, why isn't there a section on I-69 on the page on proposed Interstates? Is it that a stub of I-69 in Indiana has already been constructed?Dogru144 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on Talk:Future Interstate Highways, that page is about new Interstate designations, not extensions of existing ones. The powers that be created the "NAFTA Superhighway" concept, and I-69 is being extended from Indianapolis to Texas to fulfill that role; it is not a new designation. Imzadi 1979 → 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Texas Section

Could someone add notes throughout the article (in appropriate places, of course) to the effect that I-69 now runs through Texas?

Allen (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map in infobox

Given that several portions are open, is it time to expand the map? A similar basis is Interstate 74, which shows the opened portions in North Carolina as well as future areas under construction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Interstate 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion

I'd suggest that in the infobox, we have a section of each state's section, rather than one continuous route. That's just saying the route is completed. -EBGamingWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBGamingWiki (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it. The infobox only supports a maximum of four sections. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INterstate 69

A map would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32F4:E740:C569:B0B1:F27F:ADA9 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean OTHER than the one at the very top of the article? --Jayron32 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Interstate 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_69&oldid=1062658238"