Talk:Interstate 78

Bridge dates

West of I-78, US 22 is mostly 1946, including 72 interchange

• 380078007417110/380078007518710 over 22 west 1969
• 381011017012750 under 1011 1969
• 060078009002330 over Crosskill Creek 1929
• 064003006019310 under 4003 1958
• 060078010010960 over Crosskill Creek 1972
• 060645007000000 under 645 1959
• 060501012000000 under 501 1958
• 060078014022650 under 4039 Airport Rd 1959
• 060078015405890 under 4041 Midway Rd 1959
• 060419021200000 under 419 1958
• 060078015415560 over Little Swatara Creek 1950
• 060183038000000 under 183 1958
• 060078020400000 under 4043 Power Dr 1959
• 060078022001750 under 4045 Northkill Rd 1959
• 060078022005430 over Northkill Creek Rd 1954
• 064011014000000 under 4011 1958
• 060078023416510 over School House Rd 1955
• 060078024417160 under 4047 Mill Rd 1961
• 060078026010980 over Tilden Rd 1962
• 060078026011830 over branch of Mill Creek 1956
• 060078027416880 over Academy Rd 1962
• 060078028401530 over Pine Rd 1962
• 060061037400000 under 61 1954
• 060078029411710 over railroad 1955
• 060078029431190 over Port Clinton Ave 1957
• 064035003014050 under 4035 4th St 1957
• 060078030400000 under 4049 5th St 1957
• 060078032400000 over Reservoir Rd 1957
• 060078033008590 over 4044 Monument Rd 1957
• 060078034409400 over Furnace Creek 1957
• 060078034423520 over Furnace Creek 1957
• 060078035400000 over 143 and Maiden Creek 1955
• 060078036018090 over branch of Maiden Creek 1956
• 060078036023970 under 1053 Saddle Rd 1956
• 061015008000000 under 1015 Donat Rd 1956
• 060078038419970 over Hausman Rd 1957
• 060078039405280 over old 22 1957
• 060737011003460 under 737 1958
• 060078041014700 over 1024 1958
• 060078042012700 over Gensinger Rd 1958
• 060078043006420 over branch of Mill Creek 1958
• 060078043009660 over Stump Rd 1958
• 390078044000000 over old 22 1958
• 390078044004000 over Mill Creek 1958
• 390078044006570 over 3013 1958
• 390863007000000 under 863 1958
• 394003005006290 under 4003 Kecks Rd 1958
• 390078047002700 over old 22 1958
• 393015004000880 under 3015 Adams Rd 1958
• 390078048000470 over Iron Run 1958
• 390078049412810 over 100 1958
• 390078050422000 over railroad 1958
• 390078050424250 over 3009 Ruppsville Rd 1988

1957 map has the freeway east of Kuhnsville and added at the last minute west to New Smithville, then under construction west to the edge

1956 map has nothing from west of New Smithville west to near Hamburg, but under construction at Hamburg, including Schuylkill River bridge

1956 map has new 4LD surface US 22 from 72 (off the map) west to west of 39 (off the map)

1956 map has new 4LD surface US 22 from off the map into Harrisburg

1960 map (PDF) has US 22 freeway where I-78 is now

Would Route 24 be considered major on the 78 info page? That's pretty major

Would Route 22 be acceptable on the Route 78 page since they merge and split in Clinton?

Was I correct to add the NJ 24 shield to the Interstate 78 infobox?

Nextbarker 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Please refer to WP:IH for the infobox questions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As of November 2006, the express lanes between Springfield and Hillside are open again; can we remove that sentence that says they're closed now? --12.42.50.52 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Interstate 78 in Pennsylvania

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Twinkle wouldn't let me tag all three state-detail articles at once, so I linked to this discussion manually. –Fredddie™

Per the informal WP:USRD "three state rule," I'd like to propose that the three state-detail articles for Interstate 78 be merged into one article. The result would be very similar to Interstate 24. –Fredddie™ 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - Usually I would apply the three-state rule and keep separate articles, but since the NY section is so short I see the sense of covering I-78 in one article. At 143 miles total I don't see a problem with a single article. Dough4872 15:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The NY section of I-78 might be physically short, but it has a long and pretty detailed history (the Lower Manhattan and Cross-Brooklyn Expressways) and just passed GAN. However, that is probably the only reason why I oppose this merger. I do agree that I-78 in NY is pretty short, and that in itself may merit a merge. It's just that the NJ and PA sections may also need to be improved to at least B-class standards. Otherwise we get something like Interstate 94 in Indiana, where the former Good Article Borman Expressway is still choppily integrated into the article. epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the history section was pretty lengthy and thought that we would probably want to split that off somehow. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I was thinking that if this merger is enacted, we can split the Lower Manhattan Expressway article again, as well as create the Cross Brooklyn Expressway article. Turns out that I originally merged the LOMEX article into the I-78 (NY) article because there wasn't enough justification at the time to maintain two articles about different aspects of the same topic. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think articles about the two unbuilt expressways in New York City is a good idea, as not to give undue historical weight in the I-78 article. However, the historical backgrounds of the two unbuilt expressways should still be summarized in the history of I-78. Dough4872 01:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this because there are too many (sub)articles about shorter pieces of short Interstate Highways! There is no need for one about I-78 in New Jersey, either.24.121.195.165 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Support For all the obove reasons. User:WG HighwayNd4 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The highway goes into 3 states, and they all have a lot of history. Putting them altogether makes the new article overwhelming and I suggest keeping the current format the same way for the future. ActivBowser9177 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to oppose the merger of the NJ and PA articles. The former has a long history that might unbalance the article when written.Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 18:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.