Talk:New Jersey Route 495

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNew Jersey Route 495 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Just out of curiosity, why was this article moved from New Jersey State Highway 495? --Chris 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Well done. GA nomination is in order.Mitchazenia(7600+edits) 21:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Route 495/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Article is well-written and comprehensive. Just a few minor grammatical and MoS nitpicks to bring up to GA level.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Lead Clarify: designated as part of Interstate 495
    Route description Split the sentence "The main roadway heads east..." into two for better readability; Likewise, combine the following two sentences into a single compound sentence since they have the same subject ("The route has an interchange with Route 3..." and "This interchange provides access to eastbound Route 3..."; Insert "an" in "and the freeway has an interchange with County Route 501..."; Reword as the "2.02 mi" does not need to be repeated in the sentence "It enters Weehawken at 2.02 mi..."; Reduce the usage of the phrase "past this interchange" to add some variation
    History Change "with" to "when" in "with the first (now the center) tube..."; Fix typo in "but the helix over the New Jerseyu Palisades was constructed"; insert "on" in "...today’s Route 495 opened on January 15, 1952..."; Reword this sentence as the construction is awkward -- "Despite this, the Lincoln Tunnel approach was included in Interstate Highway System and in 1959, the road was renumbered from Route 3 to Interstate 495, despite the fact it does not meet Interstate Highway standards."; change "of" to "to" in "due to strong opposition to the road running through"
    B. MoS compliance:
    The length in the first sentence of the lead should read as "3.45-mi" as it is an adjective. Also, move the toll rate details in the exit list to a footnote or remove it altogether as that might be detail better suited to the Lincoln Tunnel article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Can you clarify what kind of improvements were made to the interchange with US 1/9? Also, you might need to mention congestion issues just so all aspects are covered.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    However, I don't like the first image as it doesn't really show anything. If possible, please find a substitute.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Some minor grammar and MoS fixes plus addition of some bits of information in history and you're good to go. Nomination is on hold pending fixes. Good luck. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and made changes to the article. As for the 3.45 mi in the first sentence of the lead, it is part of Template:Convert, which is used to show the distance in kilometers also. Dough4872 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good and I am now passing the article. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USRD GA audit[edit]

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Dough4872 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles should be correct[edit]

Good article should have factually correct.

  • Their are two exits from the 495 Helix which do not have corresponding extrances: One at Boulevard East (heading north) and one at Park Avenue (heading west), both are located in Weehawken. There is a marginal road which runs down the hill from the last eastbound exit in Union City to Boulevard East, which then runs parallel to the tunnnel entrance and toll plaza requiring a U-turn to enter the highway (where it joins traffic from the helix). on the other side it runs up the hill to the Park Avenue entrance in Union City.
  • Traffic can exit onto Willow Avenue from westbound 495 before it becomes the heix.
  • I-95 begins at the mouth of the Queens Midtown Tunnel and not in the Lincoln Tunnel.

Current revison is an improvement and should be left or made better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.149.114 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 95 never met the Queens Midtown. Interstate 495 does. But this is Jersey.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Lincoln Tunnel article[edit]

With the cancellation of the Mid-Manhattan Expressway, intended to carry Interstate 495 through New York City to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and onto the Long Island Expressway, the NYDOT and NJDOT demoted the Lincoln Tunnel, Queens-Midtown Tunnel, and the freeway link to NJ 3 as state routes. Some signs still list the tunnels as I-495. Although the Federal Highway Administration still considers the Midtown Tunnel to be an Interstate, the Lincoln Tunnel is no longer on the Interstate system. In New Jersey, the freeway was officially demoted to NJ 495 and very few signs still read "I-495". 34th Street links the disjointed segments of I-495.

Merge with NY 495?[edit]

I was looking for the New York State Route 495 article and I noticed that it redirects to Interstate 495 (New York). I personally don't think it should redirect to that article because they are separate roads and not even connected to one another. I know at one time they were planned to join to one another, but clearly that didn't happen. I think that the info about NY 495 should be merged into this article, with the article renamed State Route 495 (New Jersey – New York). I got the idea from the article State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), which happens to be a featured article. I don't want to start any edit wars here, so I was looking for some input. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Histories are totally different. Also - NJ 495 in itself is pretty important. NY 495 is related to the interstate because I-495 (the LIE) was NY 495 for a long time.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.But why don't we merge NY 495,NJ-495,AND I-495(New York)then?They are practically the same route and based on a personal visit NJ-495 is known as i495 in new york — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.224.179 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be overkill to have NJ 495, NY 495, and I-495 all in one article. NY 495 is simply a poorly-signed bridge route between NJ 495 and I-495, which are two important roads in their own right. Dough4872 23:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against. I guess I'm one of those people who likes smaller articles, and a combined article would be ridiculously long. Famartin (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I’m 11 whole years late but I just had a thought that I really wish the NYSDOT would listen to: what if they signed NY 495 in and to the tunnel, and also designated 36th and 37th street as NY 495 as well, leading to I-495/ Queens MDT Tunnel? Similar to I-787 / NY-787, for example. (I know they won’t do this so I’m kinda half joking around here but if the DOT were to actually do this, then perhaps *maybe* we can revisit this conversation.) Jason Ingtonn (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list discussion (09/12)[edit]

Deleting Source Citation[edit]

This article had a statement, "It is used by buses headed east, mainly to the Port Authority Bus Terminal just past the Lincoln Tunnel in Manhattan, serving over 60,000 bus commuters each weekday morning."

There was 1 cited source for that statement:

1. Cichowski, John, PA brainstorms for ideas to speed bus trips to N.Y.C., The Record, March 20, 2005

On Feb 12, 2013, I referenced another cited source below, which is a more authoritative source than the cited Record article, which simply reports on some of the issues and facts, including the fact that 62,000 commuters were using the XBL, that were addressed in this study. This cited source is also currently used in the Wikipedia article in reference to another article statement.

"Lincoln Tunnel Exclusive Bus Lane Enhancement Study". Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Wondering55 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 9/15[edit]

exit 17 on I-95 / Turnpike has been added to existing exit list, which is otherwise correct and detailed. Entire route within Hudson County municipal borders. That Park Ave/UC exit is last before toll is worth mentioning. The first/final entrances are from different roads, s/b noted here. The state line IS mid-Hudson. The roads that tunnels lead to are destinations, notable since tunnel is not NY495 and designation is vague elsewhere. Djflem (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route 495 is signed as exit 17 on the southbound turnpike, but it is signed as exit 16E northbound. Yes, the state line is mid-Hudson, but that is part of the Hudson River, and it's important to note that the road is underwater (see I-78 in NJ and I-95 in NJ articles). As for the destinations in the last line: these destinations are technically on the New York side, so they part of NY 495 and shouldn't be in the NJ 495 article. The road is signed on the NJ side towards "New York City". Since NY 495 is unsigned, the shield is not displayed on the junction list (note: a shield should never interrupt a line of text, see MOS:RJL). Hope this clears up any confusion, — c16sh (speak up) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No confusion. Yes, it is wise to note the exit number from the north. Destination is GWB. Also there is also a westbound entrance at Park Avenue. It is clearly noted that the Lincoln Tunnel travels under the Hudson River. A destination is the destination irregardless the state of destination's location. The actual route and designations of New York 495 are unclear. Since the link to New York State Route 495 actually links to Interstate 495 & does not cover the subject of NY495 comprehensively or with any citations statements like "technically' risk becoming OR. The use of to is used as seen here with Route 46. Eastern terminus noted.Djflem (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "to" with US 46 is quite different, actually. Signage on NJ 495 indicates that the exit to the northbound turnpike leads to US 46. There's no signage on NJ 495 that contains "Lincoln Tunnel Expressway" or "Dyer Avenue". As with common practice across USRD, NY 495 is in parentheses since it is not signed. So, "Lincoln Tunnel" and "New York City", which are both on signage, stay on the list. — c16sh (speak up) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no signage at that mile point in the tunnel, there is a state line marker. Given the situation, an accurate detailed description of state route ending in tunnel and the tunnel continuing beyond the state line to roads at its tunnel's terminus provide readers with information that is otherwise unclearly presented, inviting potential confusion by giving the impression that the tunnel begins at that point.Djflem (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Route 495. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012/2017 discussion New Jersey Route 495 exits[edit]

  • For reference on consensus 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 19#New Jersey Route 495.
  • All of NJ 495 is located in Hudson County, New Jersey all of which is incorporated. The road numbering stops at the border between Weehawken, New Jersey and Manhattan, New York. That is clear.Djflem (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're splitting hairs. Nobody is disputing that the incorporation boundary is at the state line in the middle of the river. We're simply suggesting that the fact that you're in a tunnel under a river is more notable. Edits similar to this have been happening all across the project without incident. –Fredddie™ 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Hudson River should be used as the location for the Lincon Tunnel rather than Weehawken because the tunnel itself is under the river and we should use the river as the location for a bridge or tunnel as that what it serves to span. Sure, the tunnel may be in Weehawken corporate limits while it is under the New Jersey half of the river but I think it's more important to convey the location being the Hudson River as not many motorists are gonna think they're in Weehawken while in the tunnel. Dough487210th 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all of the above comments in reply. Just because something was discussed five years ago (which is a long time around around) doesn't mean consensus can't change. Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course consensus can change (the exit list format was adopted in 2006, btw). So let's address the real issue: Good articles should be accurate. In 1834 New York and New Jersey signed an agreement which was confirmed by Congress establishing the border between the states as the midpoint of the river.That has not changed and should not be changed in an encyclopedia which strives to be factual, accurate, and precise.The exit list should conform to the facts and be NOT manipulated by interpretations of notability of them or conjecture as to what a reader may or not read. That is a disservice and in contradiction to Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. The the lead/body of the article clearly states that NJ 495 connects the New Jersey Turnpike (Interstate 95, I-95) at exits 16E and 17 in Secaucus to New York State Route 495 inside the Lincoln Tunnel in Weehawken, (incidentally, the inaccuracy of the NY 495 link would be a real correction to make). The information provided in the first sentence of the article is precise and the exit list should reflect that. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability and the presentation used in the main source for the article (New Jersey Department of Transportation. "Route 495 Straight Line Diagram" (PDF). Trenton: New Jersey Department of Transportation.). Adding an additional location is misguided hair-splitting and is actually obfuscation. Djflem (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The SLD very clearly says "Under Hudson River, Entrance to Lincoln Tunnel". The SLD verifies both sides of this argument. –Fredddie™ 14:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not format it like the Highway 402 example on MOS:RJL? Also, is there a relevant MOS guide for including the toll amount in the exit list? I find it very clunky and would prefer if it were in the prose instead. "Pepper" @ 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Djflem (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea, though I don't know what topic we'd fall under. –Fredddie™ 14:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to jump to an RfC. It's just a discussion among those interested so far, but that's always an option later. Imzadi 1979 → 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Route_495&oldid=1201458626"