Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 GA 2 Newsletter 3 Shunpiking gone awry

GA

You know, we seem to have a low GA Turnout here. I finally got my street to GA-Status, but I think that is the only one. I think we need more output from members.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter

I have started a newsletter service for the wikiproject. I will send it to all members.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Was I supposed to get one? My name's on the list... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As there is an error in it, I have to resend a special second issue.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Shunpiking gone awry

OK, here's the schpiel. It appears that there's an edit war going on in all the NJ toll roads about the legitamacy of "shunpiking" in the articles. Shouldn't we be discussing this before we go back and forth about it? Personally, I see no need for it, other than a quick one or two sentence blurb to acknowledge that it happens, but no need for a play-by-play of how to do it. This would constitute original research and needs to be cited if it should stay. But, that's my opinion. Why not work it out right now here before this turns into an all-day event.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; Alansohn disagrees, and we've been going back and forth on our talk pages. If a route is a popular shunpiking one, and a reliable source like a newspaper article can be found that says so, it makes sense to mention that, but I would not add detailed directions; we never include "how-to guides". --NE2 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2's most recent comment on Alansohn's talk page which seems like a good compromise on the matter. There's always been some level of controversy with shunpiking on Wikipedia, and I wholeheartedly agree that most of it violates WP:OR and other Wikipedia policies. However, it is undeniable fact that there are toll-free alternatives to these highways, and they are probably worthy of mention outside the context of shunpiking. -- NORTH ^talk 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, all freeway articles, toll or not, should probably mention the older parallel surface roads that they supplanted. --NE2 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur; it helps establish the history as to why it was built in the first place. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I too concur. However, it's important to point out that not all of the toll-free "shunpiking" alternatives are surface roads. (Ex. I-295 to the Turnpike south of 7A, US 1/9 to the Turnpike between 13A and 15E or 14C -- I-287 was also mentioned as an alternative to the Parkway, but IMHO, that's horsehockey.) -- NORTH ^talk 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I-295 was even built after the Turnpike; in that case it might fit best in a discussion of the Turnpike's relation to the Interstate Highway System, focusing on the history of the Interstate designations and New Jersey's wish to build a new corridor all (?) the way. --NE2 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The turnpike was built in 1951; portions of I-295 were completed as part of US 130 in the 1940s. But yes, as a through route, I-295 definitely came later.

I'm having a bit of trouble following the second part of your comment. I-295 has very little to do with any sort of direct relationship between the Turnpike and the Interstate system, nor does it have to do with the I-95 gap (is that what you meant by a new corridor?) other than the fact that it would have fit a little more nicely in the numbering system had I-95 been completed.

All I'm really looking for is some sort of mention of the parallel routes. In New Jersey Turnpike, this was kept, since there the "shunpiking" section was severely truncated rather than blanked, whereas in the GSP and ACE articles the section was simply blanked. -- NORTH ^talk 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the idea of a sentence or two acknowledging its existance is appropriate, so I think the blanking is a little much, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedic with cites, not just, "This is how I recommend you screw the NJTA out of money:..." which is how it appeared until this morning.

Living in Pedricktown most of my life, you find ways to avoid the tollways as much as feasible, but just b/c it's my way doesn't make it noteworthy. Honestly, no one cares how I do it; all they care about is that it's done. Let people find out for themselves how to do it. That's the adventure in it, and isn't that what roadgeeking all about? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that New Jersey or the federal government decided to build new routes - I-295 and I-95 - paralleling the Turnpike from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Perth Amboy (or further north? [1] only includes the I-78 section), rather than incorporating the Turnpike into the system, but the parallel route north of Trenton was not built. --NE2 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we say "In the Philadelphia area the Turnpike is closely paralleled by I-295 which primarily serves local traffic but is sometimes used to shunpike" Something similar. I do like the idea for it to be included but it needn't be a whole thesis. Thats my 2 cents :) Jgcarter 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)