Talk:Interstate 287/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image/text placement

Is there anything that can be done so that text justifies properly against the template and the photo here? I played with moving the photo down a section or so, but that still leaves an intolerable amount of white space. But what exists now is even worse. I didn't save the change, figuring someone here might have a better idea. CharlieZeb 04:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried using {{-}} but it didn't work. Hmm... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mwanner, for moving the photo. Looks a lot better now. CharlieZeb 03:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Major junctions

Exit 45 is at Wootton St. Boonton (not "Woonton") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.2.244 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At the Hamburg Tpke Exit marked as 'ALT 511', why can't I add a County 694 shield? It is part of the exit gantry, but there seems to be no image available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.180.10 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't NJ Route 17 there, that's pretty big heading up to the NY State line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added NJ 17 back to the infobox for a couple of reasons. I do agree with much of the stalking that's been going on regarding this user, and have to some extent done the same myself. But much of the reverting is being done blindly, and as a reward for actually discussing changes on the talk page, I think that we ought to give this a chance. One of the reverts made removing 17 from the infobox was done with the summary that only interstates belong in the infobox. This is wholly untrue -- a great many 3dis include other routes, and to quote WP:IH: "3dis have more lenient rules because of their shorter nature. Junctions with state roads may be added, within reason."

NJ 17 is definitely within reason for this route. -- NORTH ^talk 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There should definitely be some guidelines as to what can and can't be listed. The junction with NJ 24 is probably more major than NJ 17. As long as the infobox isn't too large, I'm with it as is. --Polaron | Talk 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Route 287 be considered major at US Route 1 , it gets pretty jammed up going southbound on US 1?

nextbarker

As an outside observer to all of this, I'd like to add my $.02 regarding the issue as a whole. My interpretation of a major junction (that is, one that would be listed as such in the infobox) is either an expressway/parkway, an Interstate, or a U.S. Route. As an example, see NY 104. Here, state routes 390 and 590 are listed only because they are expressways at that point, making them major IMHO. That's my view on state roads as major junctions and when they should be included in regards to state highways and three-digit interstates. For two-digit interstates and U.S. Routes, there should never be a case where a state road is listed.

As for including US 1 in the I-287 infobox, I have no problems with that. As stated before, I believe that all U.S. Routes are major junctions for three-digit Interstates and state roads. For two-digit interstates and U.S. Routes, the U.S. Routes that are considered major vary by the length of the 2di Interstate/U.S. Road in question. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent, but I dislike the idea of making any junction list policy a hard and fast rule. As you've said yourself, for 2di's and 2dus's, the routes included vary by the length of the road. IMHO, that's the way it is with all roads and all junctions. Whether or not a junction is major needs to be determined by the scope of the specific road itself.

For example, County Route 537, which wouldn't even come close to making the cut by your standards, is undoubtedly major on the Interstate 195 list because of the access to Six Flags Great Adventure. However, CR 537 is not included on the Route 33 junction list because it's superfluous to the other Freehold junctions. I think it's necessary to just take everything on a case by case basis. If that means lots of discussion on talk pages, that's great. Discussion is a good thing.

As for the issues at hand. I would hesitate to add US 1 to the list simply because it's only one mile from the southern terminus and has little purpose there other than as the surface road paralleling the turnpike. For the same reason, I'd hesitate to add US 202/206 because of the proximity to the I-78 junction, and how it parallels I-287. US 9 in Tarrytown, however, would be a most welcome addition. (I would, of course, begrudgingly accept all three.) -- NORTH ^talk 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Route 22 be considered major at Route 287 in Bridgewater? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not likely, considering that it's only role throughout the state of New Jersey is paralleling I-78 as a surface road. -- NORTH ^talk 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Route 27 wouldn't be necessary big to put on a 287 info box cause it goes the same way as Route 1, right?

I guess US 1 and NJTP parallel each other that's why there gone.

That's why US Route 1 shield is gone

Would Route 46 be acceptable in the I-287 info box, or Route 24?

US 46 closely parallels and is in the same place as I-80 so should not be included. NJ 24 might be ok considering that NJ 17 is there but my preference is to exclude both 17 and 24 (especially since NJ 17 is close enough to Hillburn NY). --Polaron | Talk 01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, NJ 24 is not major because it serves little purpose other than as a shortcut from I-287 to I-78. NJ 17 is major because it is "the mighty 17" (I've seen it called that on at least one roadgeek site), at least until I-86 is complete, and is a controlled access route that serves local traffic for many large towns, as well as connecting traffic.

Just one man's opinion though. -- NORTH ^talk 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Route 10 be considered major in the Route 287 info box?

My preference would be to remove all state routes in the infobox. The exit list gives all other junctions anyway. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Listing every two-digit state route that I-287 meets is overkill. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 287 at Exit 9 is now County Route 622 no CR 514 SPUR the River Road exit in Piscataway

Map

This article really needs a map. It would help better demonstrate how it's a horseshoe beltway around New York City. --myselfalso 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging Cross-Westchester Expressway

I am planning on expanding the Interstate 287 article and in doing so, I looked at the sub-article Cross-Westchester Expressway and saw it was nothing more than an exit list, some history, and a two-sentence route description. I feel the information about the Cross-Westchester Expressway can easily be incorporated into the I-287 article as the entire expressway is part of that interstate. ---Dough4872 04:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to WT:USRD. ---Dough4872 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

NYSDOT maintenance?

The infobox says that 287 is maintained by NJDOT, NYSDOT, and NYSTA. It was to my understanding that all of 287 in New York was maintained by NYSTA. What segment(s) are owned by NYSDOT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy1995 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed upon realizing that the NYSTA in fact maintains all of I-287 in NY. Dough4872 00:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 287. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111104309/http://www.nysthruway.gov/travelers/interchanges/index.html to http://www.nysthruway.gov/travelers/interchanges/index.html

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)