Talk:Pulaski Skyway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two "References" sections

There seem to be two references section. That's a little bit odd. TheGrappler 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there were two citation methods used in the article. The top section dosen't really show what statements are being referenced. I'll go through the edit history and see if I can make sense of it. Cacophony 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The original reference section was added by SPUI all at once so it is hard to say which statements are being referenced. I'm not sure how they should be merged. Cacophony 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I can sort it out at some point. --SPUI (T - C) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Book arrived

Interlibrary loan was successful once again; I have a copy of "The Last Three Miles: Politics, Murder, and the Construction of America's First Superhighway". --NE2 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor warning to anyone else who might read the book: I'm sure the details of the politics are correct, but the highway details are a bit off. For instance, he calls the Long Island Motor Parkway a "twenty-mile circular road...that served as a racetrack and, during its off-hours, a connector road for some of the area's estates", and calls Route 25 the "confusing alternate designation" of the Route 1 Extension (it was actually changed in the 1927 renumbering). --NE2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing wordage

Torwards the end of the article, I came across this section:

"The skyway was a constraint in the building of the perpendicular New Jersey Turnpike near the west end in 1951. The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to clear the nearby Passaic River. Turnpike engineers could have built over the skyway (at a much higher cost) or built under the skyway's trusses; the latter option was chosen. As part of a 2005 seismic retrofit project, the Turnpike Authority lowered the bridge to increase vertical clearance and allow for full-width shoulders, which had been constrained by the location of the skyway supports. The Newark Bay Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike (I-78) opened in September 1956, finally allowing Holland Tunnel-bound trucks to bypass the old surface road."

...the jumping from 1951 to 2005 and then back to 1956 seems rather confusing, at least to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Update needed

The "Trucks and other safety issues" section is out of date, with the most recent information dating back to August 2007, making this section over 3 years old. I am sure that there have been more construction updates and future projects for the road scheduled, especially with the recent stimulus package in place. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New exit/junction table

I recently updated the junction/exit table and I want to explain my edits here just to make things clear. After looking at the SLD for US 1, it states that the Skyway begins at mile marker 49.00 (not at the Raymond Blvd interchange as previously listed). Therefore, I also had to add in the three interchanges between those points. For the eastern terminus, I removed the junction with US 1/9 Truck. It's a little confusing on the SLD but US 1/9 Truck doesn't intersect with US 1/9 until the end of the skyway at an at-grade junction. The "intersection" on the SLD is actually US 1/9 Truck passing underneath the Skyway but with no intersection. I confirmed this by comparing the SLD with a satellite image on Google Maps. Also, the Tonnele Circle itself is not part of the Skyway, but it is its eastern terminus, so the circle intersections were removed. The Skyway actually ends at both the Tonnele Circle exit (US 1/9 north) and at the western terminus of Route 139. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns here. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Highway with bridges, not a single bridge

This article is representing the Skyway as a series of bridges, when in fact it is a highway with one section that is made up of bridges. The Skyway is 5.6 miles long according to NJDOT and only about 3.5 miles of that is the bridge section, while the rest is just a highway, partially elevatd and partially at ground level. The road infobox needs to be restored and the correct length needs to be included. The NJDOT SLD was properly cite and now it has been changed back to its old length which was not cited to begin with. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Query: why does the article need three infoboxes? I get that the NRHP box is there, and because of its size, it's clearly secondary. I think though that between the bridge or road infobox, only one should be shown. Imzadi 1979 → 17:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Route 139

Is Route 139 officially part of the Skyway? If so, then the Skyway is longer than 5.6 miles. I didn't think it was (despite what Google Maps says), but then I saw this image. There is also an article in The Star-Ledger that says "The underside of the Skyway, where it splits to become Route 139, which takes traffic into the Holland Tunnel, is falling apart." I still can't tell exactly from this info. The sign could just mean "To Pulaski Skyway" and the article reference could mean that it splits to become Route 139 after the Skyway ends. I don't want to make any changes yet, but I was hoping for some feedback or info from other sources first. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While I am sure there are different definitions according to different sources, the NRHP designation uses the following defintion: "US 1 and 9 milepoint: 51.25-54.55, NJ 139 milepoint 0-4.5", but that is for the historic structure - the Route 1 Extension. I am not sure that the Extension and the Skyway are necessarily contiguous. As to whether this article should use a structural definition, the NHRP definition, or some other definition is probably dependant upon which editor you ask, Personally, I would think that the deinition accepted by the National Park Service would be pretty authoritative as to the historic portion, but not useful in determining which parts are actually the Skyway, and which parts are adjoining roadways. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While it difficult to determine the exact length of the the Skyway itself, the subject of the article as written is about the series of bridges of which it is comprised. While the Route One Extension included the Newark Viaduct and the Divided Highway, they are not part of the skyway.

The approach ramps from 1/9 and Raymond Boulevard on its western end, and the bridge which carries the roadway to the mouth of the cut at its eastern end seem to jibe with the 3.5 mile figure used in both the article's original info box and other sources. My math:54.55-51.25=3.30 plus the short distance from Tonnelle Circle to Kennedy Boulevard = 3.502. The road infobox map itself is close but misses the section beyond the circle. Djflem (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The extension and the skyway are not continuous. The skyway is part of the extension, which was a much larger project (13.2 miles to be exact).[1][2] –Dream out loud (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping on subject

US 1/9 is elevated through eastern Newark, but the skyway (background) rises higher to clear the rivers.

The underside of the Pulaski Skyway at Tonnele Circle, with the Tonnele Circle Viaduct (added in 1938) on the left.

As seen in the photographs to right, and 40.7322°N 74.0645°W / 40.7322; -74.0645 it would seem that the road info box added to replace the bridge info box is incorrect. While the NJDOT reference does indicate that Rte 1/9 approach as part of the skyway, its signage along that road indicates otherwise. While 1/9 ends at the Tonnelle Circle the skyway itself continues for another mile or so until reaching the dual level "State Highway" (aka Depressed Highway or covered highway) as that portion of Route 139 is known, making the actual mileage in the bridge info box correct for the subject of the article. Both the national and state register also seem to indicate that the Pulaski Skyway is the bridged section and not the western approach (which incidentally is also elevated). This fact also makes the removal of certain junction information, while incomplete, incorrect. Properly formatted, the table should include the following:

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
		US 1/9 north (Tonnele Avenue) – Lincoln Tunnel	Tonnele Circle; southbound exit, northbound entrance
		Route 139 east – Hoboken, Holland Tunnel	Designation change
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

and a corrected/expanded version of:

County	Location	mi	km	Destinations	Notes
		To CR 501 (Kennedy Boulevard) – Jersey City
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

While there may be other issues that affect featured status the recent changes distort facts and diminish quality, which does not add favorably to the piece. I would suggest eliminating the road info box completely (the map of which shows the skyway begining at Raymond Boulevard) and restoring the previous interchange/exit grid with necessary corrections and additions and keep the article on subject. Djflem (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so fix it if you have the reliable sources to do so. I'm in Michigan, I've never been to New Jersey, and I can only critique the quality of the article's presentation. I don't think this article needs 3 infoboxes, honestly the bridge box is fine, and if the NRHP box can be tagged into it that would be better. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It would be better to fix up the article now rather than let the article get delisted and have to someday get it relisted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop reverting changes to this article, especially changes that cited. The SLD from NJDOT (link) clearly states that the Skyway begins at mile marker 49.00, which would give a total length of 5.61 miles (see page #18 of the diagram). The 3.5 mile section is part of the historical designation, but that does not necessarily include the entire roadway. You can't base correct information from photos, especially if the official source says otherwise. I do agree that 3 infoboxes are unnecessary, and we should stick with the road infobox and the NRHP infobox and nothing more. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a preponderence of other references in the article, including NJDOT, which clearly state that the Pulaski Skyway is the bridged portion of the Route One Extension (and not the Newark Viaduct or the Divided Highway at either end of it). Though there may be some that include one or the other, there one none that includes both. A personal preference for one reference doesn't make it the best choice for the article. Djflem (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about personal preference. The SLD clearly shows the 5.61 mile length. I have seen other pages on NJDOT's site which state the bridge's length of 3.5 miles, but they don't clearly state that that is the entirety of the Skyway. This 1938 map of Newark shows the road labeled as the Skyway at the section just north of Newark Airport (north is the to the right on the map). The Newark – Jersey City Vidacut and the Divided Highway are not specific portions of the roadway, but rather they were the original names of the Skyway before it was officially named "Pulaski Skyway" in 1933.[3] Some sources even state its longer than 5.61 miles, like this one encyclopedia that lists a length of 6.2 miles.[4] –Dream out loud (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed that you preferred to use SLD source. Have you come to any other conclusions in light of the contradictory information?Djflem (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition 9/29/10

As seen above, there appears to be much contradictory information as to what constitutes the Pulaski Skyway, leaving editors to discern which is the best and most reliable definition. Since there is no purely technical concurrence on the length (though the most often quoted is 3.5 miles) or structures (most often referred as the series of bridges) encompassed in the term "Pulaski Skyway", I choose for structure between the end of Raymond Boulevard and underpass at Kennedy Boulevard. I would suggest that most would agree or be hard pressed to include the roadways that lead to it. The artice as now written encompasses only the steel structure and not the Newark viaduct or the Divided Highway (New Jersey Route 139, the article for which does not consider it the Pulaski Skyway). I do not think it is necessary to explain the definition in the article but would not object to a qualifying paragragh that mentions the conflicitng opinions (NJDOT, NRHS, and countless others) if someone is willing to write and reference it Djflem (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Route 1 Extension south of Raymond and east of Tonnele predates the Skyway and is not part of it. --NE2 09:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You just stated that this definition is "your choice". Like I said above, the Newark Viaduct and Diagonal Highway (not sure what the Divided Highway is) are simply historical names and do not refer to specific sections. The NJDOT SLD and the 1938 map both show that the road just north of Newark Airport is named Pulaski Skyway, about 2 miles before the bridges. This choice of yours seems more like original research. Yes, the Route 1 Extension below Raymond Blvd does predate it, but once the bridges were built, the entire portion was named the Pulaski Skyway according to the map. I'm basing all this off of sources, I'm not here to state any facts without citations. I'm sure there are other sources out there and I'll post them as soon as I find them. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/pulaski/ --NE2 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to be about the Historic Site, as well as the elevated road. Each definition should be used in an appropriate section, and the relatively minor detail should be omitted from the lead entirely as it is apparently not a defining characteristic. This piece [5], from the NJDOT, states that the Route 1 Extension is 13 miles long, and the Skyway itself is "a steel structure more than three miles long." Common sense says that anything that is not elevated isn't part of the Skyway itself, but an ajoining surface road - if it's not in the sky, it's not the Skyway. There is no need to determine a single defined length for the Pulaski Skyway since there are different legnths that can be sourced for the different descriptions and can be used in different sections of the article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another map and another map (3 maps total I found so far) that show the approach named Pulaski Skyway as well. Right where US 1/9 turns from purple to red above I-78 is the exact same spot where the Skyway begins according to the SLD. I'm not stating any opinions. I'm just providing sources and you can't argue with these facts. And I've looked at the Skyway's page on NJDOT's site and it does mention the bridge structure, but there's nothing explicitly stating that it begins at Raymond Blvd. I don't understand where the idea that it officially begins at Raymond Blvd has come from, and I haven't seen any sources that state that. I know the NRHP listing for the Route 1 Extension lists mile 51.25 as the beginning, but that is south of Raymond Blvd and only refers to the part that has been a registered historical place (not including the entire skyway or the entire 13 mile extension). It also lists NJ 139 which I believe we have all determined is not part of the Skyway. Here's my opinion (which you're welcome to argue with, since it's just an opinion), but it doesn't make sense that the Skyway begins at Raymond Blvd. Looking at this image on Google Street View, the view from Ferry St (which is south of Raymond Blvd) still shows the elevated bridge section of the Skyway. If one states that the Skyway begins at the Raymond Blvd interchange, then that means the Skyway begins well into the elevated portion of the bridge, which would actually be north/east of this part (to the right, in the image). –Dream out loud (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From my view, the Pulaski Skyway is the bridge that carries US 1/9 over the Passaic and Hackensack rivers from Raymond Boulevard in Newark to the Tonnele Circle in Jersey City. This does not include the part of road between Raymond Boulevard and I-78, despite the fact the SLD labels it as the "General Pulaski Skyway". The SLDs have a history of misnaming routes, so it should not be taken that the skyway begins at I-78 as the part from there north to Raymond Boulevard is a surface freeway. Dough4872 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why include the conflicting definitions and actually create a short section or a good paragraph describing the differences in the article? The infobox at the top of the article can list the longest and shortest lengths with footnotes. (Use <ref name="X" group="note">Between A and B, according to X</ref> after the each length and a {{reflist |group=note}} in a "Footnotes" section inserted just before the "References" section.) Then all of the various definitions can be listed and explained. It would actually increase the information covered in the article in a meaningful way. How's that sound? Imzadi 1979 → 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi1979. Take the length out of the lead paragraph altogether. The infobox, which states that NJDOT maintains the road, should use NJDOTs definition for the legnth of the road. Place one sentence as Imazdi suggested with the sourced lengths in the Route description and designation section. A new section on the historic designation should be written and that should include the length used in the NHRP determination to describe the historic portion of the roadway. There is no reason to try to settle on one signle definition when mulitiple reliable sources disagree. Just acknowledge the disagreement. "Verifiability, not truth." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the NJDOT SLD to be reliable (as Dough 4972 suggests), and is the weakest source since is the one that clearly contradicts itself. If one views the edit history and looks to work done 11 Dec 2004 when the original infobox was added it included the bridge ID number 0704150/0901150 as given by the National Bridge Inventory, and the very specific length used by them. Unfortunately the editor who did so did not (or was unable to) properly reference it, and it difficult to track (Any volunteers?). The article as now written discusses only the bridge (Diagonal Highway) part of the Route One Extension built after its other components were completed and given its name two years after the bridge was completed. Thus using the SLD in the infobox is misleading and dilutes the value of it. Is an entire paragragh discussing the contemporary diversity of opinion among sources (NJDOT, NRHP, the above mentioned NBI, NJCU, StarLedger, NY Times, etc, etc, etc.) that all satisfy verifiablility apropros? Don't believe anyone is served by re-writing the piece to include the the other portions of the roadway that are sometimes included under name of the iconographic bridge that is summoned in most when hearing it. (One may wish to call it OR when I dare to say to so, but, similarly, New York Harbor is not officially a placename according to the USGS though it does have the power to conjure strong images). Unfortunately, this article had passed its FA challenge, but that has now been retracted, so a cheap fix will unlikely satisfy at this point (Some are ready for a de-listing, but then what? B-class?). I would be prepared to write a new section called Definition beginning with something similar to first reference and draw the conclusion the the Skyway is the iconic structure designed by Sigvald Johannesson, keeping the infobox as it is. I hope that User talk:Imzadi1979 would be willing to help with reference formatting once supplied. Would be great to have feedback on this b4 doing the work. Djflem (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the SLD is wrong, but it is an official source and we would need to find another reliable source that says otherwise. Even though the 3 maps I referenced labled the entire roadway as the Skyway, most editors are convinced that it only includes the bridge. If that is the case, where exactly does the Skyway begin? As explained above, it has to begin somewhere south of Raymond Blvd because the Skyway is still elevated at that interchange. Maybe something can be found on USDOT's site? I do like the idea of the definition section, and I think we could mention the fact that the SLD states a different length than what is commonly accepted. We can also reference the fact that old maps have the entire roadway named. But then this brings me to ask, why are the SLD and those maps labeling the highway approach as the Skyway as well? Regardless, we need to find a reliable source that states this all this information. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple comments, but you can't totally disregard the SLD. It is a document by the agency in charge of the road. You will need to address that discrepancy somehow. (Interstate 275 (Michigan) has a similar issue. The FHWA doesn't consider it to extend concurrently north on I-96, but MDOT does. Most map makers follow MDOT's lead since the signs are that way. The article lists both lengths though.) That could be a paragraph on the differing definitions, it could be a sentence or two someplace, or just a well written explanatory footnote. Second point though, User:SPUI is long retired from Wikipedia, so don't expect him ever to come back. It's been over 3 years now at least. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with User:JimMillerJr above. Omit the length from the lead; discuss it at length in a section; probably the History section is best. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi, we cannot disregard the SLD. We should still include the length in the article that the SLD states, and doing it somewhere outside of the lead makes perfect sense. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case this muddies the waters further, I e-mailed NJDOT and asked them what they defined as the Pulaski Skyway. The reply I got was "Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) regarding the Pulaski Skyway. The Pulaski Skyway starts at mile post 51.17 on Route 1&9 in the City of Newark and ends at Tonnelle Avenue in Jersey City around milepost 54.60. Broadway, Kearny and Raymond exit ramps are also part of the Pulaski Skyway." How does that square up with the SLD? Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perserverence pursuing the confusing issue. My math makes that 54.60-51.17=3.33, which is close to the 3.5/3.6 cited in many other refs. I would quibble a bit more and still suggest that the bridged/elevated viaduct of 139 before entering the cut that makes up most of it are part of the original Diagonal Highway and thus the skyway, but there is no need to do so as the article definition is good. Shame they don't produce a ref that actually really states above info.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

As now written the serves its purpose and does exactly what it supposed to do: Introduce the subject and VERY briefly state salient facts and mention what topics are covered in article. Are there proposals for what should be included or eliminated, or how the informaation should be presented if the current form is unappealing?Djflem (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The namesake for the skyway needs to be restored to the lead. It's not a minor detail to be left out. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The name is mentioned. Do you mean the explanation of who the general was? It is a rather long-winded distraction from the subject of article in to have in the 2ns paragragh and is not about the bridge at all. Info is found in paragragh explaining how it was named. Djflem (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean a "a Polish general in the American Revolutionary War" is too much to add to the sentence in the lead, "It was named for General Kazimierz Pułaski in 1933."? I know how Pulaski is, and you know who Pulaski is, but for someone unfamiliar with the history who doesn't read more than the lead, this is a key little detail to restore to the lead. Change that sentence to something like: "It was named in 1933 for General Kazimierz Pułaski, an important figure in the American Revolution." or something similar. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No strong feelings here, just thought it was long-winded, because the above sentence doesn't clarify whether if that was on British or American side, etc, etc etc, and raises questions that need to be answered, but then not in lead. Buy if a description is indeed necessary, and there's no oppostion, then please do add above.Djflem (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any tips on what is needed in/which direction could be taken regarding the LEAD. It does seem to present a good synopsis of what is covered in article w/o going into details later discussed. Is it the prose? Is it the info? Is it the order? Not sure, and don't wanna go messin' w/o a focus. ThanksDjflem (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Guthrie name check

I think that, taken in context, it is likely that Woodie Guthrie was using a bit of poetic license when he sang "...I saw above me, that endless skyway", referring to the boundless open space of this country, and not, in fact, to a 3 mile long overpass. Perhaps he was in a truck, and therefore restricted to the surface road? Gimelgort (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible but either way it's just original research. I couldn't find any sources that explicitly state that the song references the Pulaski Skyway so I just removed the line altogether. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links

This article is disgracefully littered with tons of red links. I don't remember the last time that I've seen an article with so many red links, nevertheless a "featured" article. I don't know how this got by in last year's FAR, but this issue needs to be taken care of. I understand that red links can be acceptable at times, but I don't think articles for Theodore M. Brandle or Hugh L. Sloan are going to be written any time soon. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks are not a bad thing, in fact, the Featured Article criteria are silent on them. If the subjects are notable and worthy of receiving an article, even if that article is not started for five years, the links should be left alone. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Route description and designation

Eliminating length in lead, a properly referenced new paragragh under above header could read:

Different sources include different parts of the Route 1 Extension in the Pulaski Skyway. In some cases, the NJDOT includes the southern approach starting at milepost 49.00. The National Register of Historic Places includes the road starting at milepost 51.25 extending to the dual level highway at its northern end. Most though, refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5-mile (5.6 km) iconic bridge designed by Johannesson that was the third and last component of the new highway to be built.

I made a few copy edits above. You'll need to define by whom is "most". Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Will change it to "many" and include in references (just NJDOT and NRHP will be) such as those mentioned above: NY Times, Star Ledger, NJCU, and various books (for a total of five other sources at a minimum) Think mentioning two the two first examples is enough, without adding a list of who says waht. Let's dispatch this succintly and get over the red-herring Djflem (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Then change the line to something like "Other sources [6], including the New York Times [7]and the Star Ledger refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5-mile (5.6 km) iconic bridge...". There's no need to go overboard, but "Most" is a weasel word and won't help the cause to keep this article listed as a Featured Article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine.Let's see if other people can live with this.Djflem (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Many" is still a weasel word and is the same as saying "most". We need to be specific here as to who we're referring to. And NRHP doesn't state that the Skyway begins at 51.25. That milepost is for the beginning of the historical part of the Route 1 Extension. (The NRHP listing cannot be directly linked, but can be found by searching "Route 1 Extension" from this link.) Yes, I'm aware that that's where the Skyway bridge begins, but NRHP doesn't say that, so we'll have to find some reference that does. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As seen above the most/many issue is resolved. Please make a proposal for the the phrasing/wording of the qualifying paragragh and the references you would like use. Then we can move on with the rest of the article. ThanksDjflem (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the current wording is:

Different sources include different parts of the Route 1 Extension in the Pulaski Skyway. In some cases, the NJDOT includes the southern approach starting at milepost 49.00. The National Register of Historic Places includes the road starting at milepost 51.25 extending to the dual level highway at its northern end. Other sources such as the New York Times and the Newark Star-Ledger refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5-mile (5.6 km) iconic bridge designed by Johannesson that was the third and last component of the new highway to be built.

with the appropriate references inserted. Imzadi 1979 → 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't use the nycroads.com source because that's a self-published source, but I did insert the NRHP and NYT sources into the paragraph. We just need a Star-Ledger reference and a second NRHP-related reference. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the NRHP record, they have the Route 1 Extension as" "US 1 and 9 milepoint: 51.25-54.55, NJ 139 milepoint 0-4.5". Imzadi 1979 → 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-write and formatting. I'd like to hope that this could be a final version (though I prefer such as in place of like) and think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to include the nycroads.com which, while self published is up to date and accurate, in ex links.

It's fine as an external link, but not as a source. I swapped in "such as" for "like" in the paragraph, which, I agree, should take care of the conflicting definitions. I think though that we can list the shortest and longest lengths in the lead in a sentence like: "Various sources disagree on the length of the Pulaski Skyway; it ranges from either X or Y depending on the source in question." Like I did at Interstate 275 (Michigan) with the two official lengths, a short mention like that will make sure that what is an important piece of information is not left out of the lead. The body paragraph crafted above will cover the discrepancy in greater depth. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what length are we using for the infobox? And which infobox are we going to use? –Dream out loud (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As the Skyway is primarily known for its bridge, I say the bridge infobox. Honestly, it doesn't matter as much so long as we don't go overboard with 3 infoboxes, and duplicate information between all 3. We could even craft a hybrid of the two using {{infobox}}. As for the length see what I did with Interstate 275 (Michigan). The infobox uses both and cites both. If we stick with the bridge infobox, only the bridge length needs to be given. Imzadi 1979 → 21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think that's opening up the can of worms that we are trying to avoid. Let's not backtrack here, it's a brige article specifically written about the bridge. The other parts of the Route One Extension are discussed in their appropriate articles. Skip length in the lead, as at least two other editors suggested. Getting into this in the lede will lead to a need to re-write with words such as if taken as, if including, if defined as, if taken to be which is an invitation to more of the same as above. As an editor I would have made the choice you did to include the longer length in the exit list at Interstate 275 (Michigan), though that could be seen as POV w/o an addtional qualification. The story here is much less striaghtforward. I do not believe we should use entrances/exits on 1/9 (to accomodate NJDOT, the weakest and self-contradictory link which mentions nothing but the bridge in its Pulaski Skyway website presentation, thousands of words as opposed to one graph) or elaborate on the dual-level highway, its eastern portal and and eventual Route 78 concurrence in this article. It is confusion we trying to prevent. The paragragh as now written could be the first in the description and designation section, thus also defining scope of article: the bridge that is the middle part of the Route 1 extension opened in 1932, designed by Johanessen, given the name the Diagonal Highway, and renamed in 1934 as the Pulaski Skyway. (I have no wish to re-write other articles to make jibe with this one, which could also possibly be necessary) I would go far to as to re-name the section Definition, description, and designation And here's my OR as a person whose has ridden over, talked about, experienced, and knows like everyone else in the New York metropolitan area knows and four other editors have agreed:the Skyway is the skyway and only the skyway and not the last piece of road to the airport! Djflem (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And as a bridge article, it should use the bridge infobox with the bridge length. If, however, the road infobox is used for whatever reason, then the pair of lengths will need to be included. Now, I disagree that the heading title needs to be longer, as shorter, concise headings are better. I suggest that "Description" is the best heading title for that section. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Description would be fine, starting with newly written/ref'd paragragh? Do you think it's necessary to poll on this or can we now say a conclusion has reached on this issue and have ban removed?Djflem (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We have one day left with the article locked. We need to figure out a couple things still. First, we need some more consensus on which infobox to use. Second, we also need to discuss how we will be presenting the Skyway in the junction list. When was it established that the Skyway also encompasses the first 0.10 miles of Route 139? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As seen above, is clear that six people out of seven (not unanimous, but the significant majority saisfactory for purpose of article) people who expressed an opinion agree that the article about the bridge, which resolves the infobox issue. Since the bridge starts where it ascends just before Raymond Boulevard merges with the highway it should probably be shown as and entrance/exit. The designation change at the (middle, east side, west side?) of Tonnelle Circle does not necessarily signify the end of the Skyway, particularly since the bridge over it to the mouth of the western portal of the State Highway was built as part of the Divided Highway (and no reference specifically states it) how do you think the .10 miles to the JFK Boulevard exit and the next .10 miles to solid ground should be handled? As they are included in the Route 139 article they could be left out though qualifier (last exit before 139 western portal of tunnel/cut) could be mentioned. The ban should be allowed to lapse, and that change (if need be) be made later. There is plenty of other work to be done which has been held up. The insertion of the well-worked and well-referenced paragragh as agreed above in the sub-header Description should probably be the 3rd after other terms have been introduced (though that leaves the poorly written Route 25 paragragh hanging a bit, any suggestions?)Djflem (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure really about how to handle the eastern terminus. I looked at the road on Google Maps, and there is no intersection at JFK Blvd, just an underpass. So that part of the junction box needs to go. But as to how to list the eastern terminus, I really don't know. No sources explicitly state where it ends, but we can't just pick a spot and go with it as that would be original research, of course. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is no RS-based definition, remove the list. U.S. Route 1/9 already has the length of the skyway covered in its junction list. As for infobox, since this is primarily about a bridge, use the bridge box. That's been my opinion all along. Imzadi 1979 → 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Since it would be a confusing duplication of info better covered in highway articles, leaving the list out will in no way diminish the quality of the article.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

References

So what was the outcome? The article says it's "composed of connected bridges", yet "carrying the designation of U.S. Route 1/9 (US 1/9) for most of its length" (bold added). And the NRHP box says it includes Route 139. --NE2 06:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NRIS and NRHP references

There's been some discussion at wt:NRHP about what version of NRIS reference is okay to use (currently showing in this permalink to the NRHP talk page, in the bottom-most discussion section).

Also there was suggestion to directly cite the available-online NRHP nomination document, well actually it is a "Supplementary Listing", not an original nomination. I suggest doing so by the following reference.

Hope this helps. --doncram 22:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

However, in the current article, there is a passage attributed to NRIS which seems not to be sourced from NRIS. I.e. "The National Register of Historic Places includes the road starting at milepost 51.25 extending to the dual-level highway at its northern end." I am not sure that is actually supported by NRIS (though maybe it is, maybe there is cryptic assertion of that in a location field in NRIS). Either way, I believe that passage is probably better supported by the full NRHP nomination document, which provides expanded description, and which is actually the source for most information in the NRIS database entry. --doncram 22:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the NRIS database does itself include, for location of the Route 1 extension, "US 1 and 9 milepoint: 51.25-54.55, NJ 139 milepoint 0-4.5", in Newark, New Jersey. Again, I think citing the NRHP document is better. --doncram 18:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of Spans for Pulaski Skyway

There appears to be a discrepancy on the number of spans for the Pulaski Skyway. NJDOT, who has controlling authority over the Pulaski Skyway and will be doing the rehabilitation work on all of the spans for the Pulaski Skyway indicated there are 118 spans based on the 2 links below.

1. Previous link that was cited in the Pulaski Skyway article. It was the basis for citing 118 spans. Dee, Joe; Greeley, Tim (January 10, 2013). "Pulaski Skyway rehabilitation project to close northbound travel lanes commencing in 2014" (Press release). New Jersey Department of Transportation. Retrieved January 12, 2013. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

2. Presentation report from Parsons/Brinckerhoff for NJDOT about the rehabilitation work that is needed for all spans for the Pulaski Skyway. See p. 23. [8]

The revised link that was provided for indicating 108 spans was from the December 2003 submittal for nomination of the historical Route 1 Extension, which includes the current Pulaski Skyway and Route 139, with the National Register of Historic Places. The discrepancy is due to a difference on where NJDOT considers the beginning of the Pulaski Skyway in Jersey City and where authors, who prepared the document for NRHP nomination, considered the beginning. It should be noted that the authors were focused on the entire Route 1 Extension, which includes Pulaski Skyway and Route 139. So, if they were off by a couple of spans that were attributed to the Pulaski Skyway, there would be no repercussion to their submittal to the NRHP.

Report does mention 118. Diagram provided seems to indicate that there are more parapets, and hence spans, east of Tonnele Circle than the 108 which are numbered in it, though it does not show how many additional ones there are. One can suppose that it is ten, which would jibe with the 118. For the sake of verifiability, using the report is the best reference to use.

If NJDOT misses rehabilitating even one span, their repair work will need to be redone.

I would recommend that the number of spans be changed back to 118 with the previous NJDOT citation since they will be doing the work on all 118 spans. Let me know what you think. Wondering55 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Report does mention 118. Diagram provided seems to indicate that there are more parapets, and hence spans, east of Tonnele Circle than the 108 which are numbered in it, though it does not show how many additional ones there are. One can suppose that it is ten, which would jibe with the 118. For the sake of verifiability, since there are discrepancies, the report is the best reference to use.Djflem (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Parsons Brinkerhoff/PB Americas (August 19, 2010). "Pulaski Skyway Feasibility Assessment Study" (PDF). NJDOT. Retrieved 2013-03-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Citations in Lead

Citations are not included in leads which are an introduction,and mention salient points of of article's subject that are referenced elsewhere, especially in a feature articles.Djflem (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Citations for Bridge ID Numbers for Pulaski Skyway

I will provide the citation for the National Bridge Inventory database for the 2 bridge ID Nos. in the Pulaski Skyway article as soon as I get a response from them regarding conflicting info that is contained in their listing for these 2 ID Nos.Wondering55 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Elevation of Eastern Terminus of Pulaski Skyway

The Pulaski Skyway crosses over Tonnele Circle and then quickly descends by ramps to grade just west of John F. Kennedy Blvd. "NRHP Registration Application" (PDF). (see p. 50) shows the ramps coming down to grade in the cross section view. "Google Maps". shows the Pulaski Skyway coming down to grade if you zoom in just west of John F. Kennedy Blvd. and go to camera street view and look west at the eastern ramps of the Pulaski Skyway as they climb towards Tonnele Circle. The NJ DOT is including these ramps that go from grade to passing over the Tonnele Circle as part of the Pulaski Skyway rehabilitation project.

You just revised the Description to the Pulaski Skyway. Why do you think the Skyway does not descend down to grade? Can we change this revision back to the way it originally read?Wondering55 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The roadway remains level as the western slope of Bergen Hill rises to meet it before it enters a cut through the cliffs.Djflem (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the NRHP nominations (page 7) cites the number of parapets as 108, but the additional 10 in the count in the article are part of the support of the roadway to the mouth of cut at the variously named Divided Highway/Hoboken Avenue Viaduct/State Highway..Djflem (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to "Google Maps".. Zoom all the way in to the Pulaski Skyway eastern terminus just west of John F. Kennedy Blvd. Click on the pedestrian figure in the upper left and place it on the Pulaski Skyway just west of John F. Kennedy Blvd. and it will take you to camera street view. Look west at the eastern ramps of the Pulaski Skyway as they climb towards Tonnele Circle.

There is no elevated highway that goes from the Pulaski Skyway to the Bergen Hill. Let me know if you see anything else that proves your contention.Wondering55 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The view is the roadway of the Pulaski Skyway separated in the middle by an access/exit road descending to Tonnele Circle. To the north is a roadway descending from JFK Blvd to Tonnele Circle.

The Skyway itself travels over the circle and remains at the same elevation as it passes under JFK Blvd, over the Bergen Arches, and into the Bergen Hill/Divided Highway cut. The additional 10 parapets/span are what carries the skyway over the circle to what indeed becomes an embankment (created from the western slope of the Palisades) just west of the JFK underpass through which the above mentioned main highway and access roads pass.Djflem (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The roads that you reference are not descending to Tonnele Circle, which is just west of the ramps. The westbound camera view shows an eastbound and westbound roadway for 2 ramps that come down from the Pulaski Skyway to grade between Tonnele Circle and John F. Kennedy Blvd as the 2-way Route 139. This 2-way road with a concrete divider then passes at grade underneath the John F. Kennedy Blvd. The road in the middle of the 2 ramps is an eastbound road at grade from Tonnele Circle that joins the Route 139 eastbound road at grade. I also spoke with David Mudge, who had oversight over the Pulaski Skyway Feasibility Assessment Study. He confirmed that this information is correct.

The NHRP registration application also shows an elevation view of the ramps coming down to grade from the Tonnele Circle. This elevation view shows the 10 additional supports, which you keep referencing, are actually used to carry the ramps from the Pulaski Skyway at Tonnele Circle down to grade. There are NO supports carrying the Skyway from Tonnele Circle at an elevation to an embankment. There is nothing in the camera view or in the NRHP registration application, p. 50 that shows any elevated roadway passing underneath the John F. Kennedy Blvd.

I have 3 different sources, David Mudge of NJDOT, Google Maps camera view at this location, and p. 50 elevation view from NRHP registration application, that confirm the ramps from Pulaski Skyway come down to grade. I will revert your change. Thanks for your input.Wondering55 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of elavation, main highway roadway does not ascend or descend between Tonnele Circle and JFK underpass. Are you contending that ramps descending to Tonnelle Circle are part of the Skyway, while the viaduct carrying main roadway crossing over it is not? (I suggest this is where one will find the 10 parapets between the 118 and 108 mentioned in various, conflicting sources) A Google view of the circle itself will show that while the roadway approaching JFK underpass may be at grade, that is because the grade rises to the roadway as opposed to the roadway descending to it. Clearly there is an elevated structure over the traffic circle which carries the main highway to a cut in a hill and the JFK Blvd underpass. That main highway may change in elevation as the ground (embanked with concrete) rises to meet it, but the main highway itself does not ascend or descend.

The Google view you suggest is accurately described in the NRHP document: Item 10, page 5: All modifications to the original, pre-1933 configuration of the highway, which have been added to the outside limits of the original highway alignment and were built after the 1923-1932 period of significance, are excluded from the boundary. These exclusions include the eastbound and westbound ramps from Tonnele Circle, the retaining walls constructed in the late 1930s to accommodate communication between the Kennedy Boulevard ramp and the westbound highway,

The excerpt NRHP application: Item 8 pages 18,19 clearly states that in 1938 the at-grade interchange at the circle to which the roadway originally descended was transformed to entrance and exit lanes while a new viaduct was built over it:

"In order to facilitate the interchange between the elevated highway and the at-grade north-south street (Tonnele Avenue) to the bridge at Fort Lee, as well as local Jersey City streets, Tonnele Avenue was improved with a traffic circle with separate radial approaches connecting the roads and ramps of the complicated intersection that included a ramp to the tunnel approach road. That center ramp served as the terminus of the east section of Route 1 Extension until the Skyway was completed in 1932, and it accommodated eastbound traffic entering and westbound traffic exiting to Tonnele Circle. The circle/interchange was almost immediately determined to be inadequate for the volume of traffic, due in part to existing conditions that limited the diameter of the circle and thus traffic flow through it, and the ramp from JFK Boulevard, which decreased the weaving distance for efficient use of the circle. Long outside ramps to accommodate both eastbound and westbound traffic were added as was a viaduct to directly link the westbound highway traffic with Route 1 & 9.46 That 1938 viaduct, which crosses the circle, eliminated the at-grade westbound interchange between the two major highways. Once the outside ramps were in place, the original, two-way center ramp was converted to entering eastbound traffic from the circle only. An exit for westbound traffic to the circle was added by merging that ramp into the original ramp from JFK Boulevard to the circle. 47 All features communicating with the circle that are not part of the original design are considered as non-contributing because they are not part of the original highway and do not reflect the principles and theories that guided the original design."

Thanks for your input. I think we can both agree that Route 139 continues at grade from the skyway. I would propose to add the bold highlighted insert below.

The skyway ends as Route 139 exits to grade just west of John F. Kennedy Boulevard and enters the lower part of the dual-level "divided highway" through Bergen Hill to the Holland Tunnel approach.

This is similar to a preceding sentence in the article that states:

The east end is just beyond Tonnele Circle, where US 1/9 exits to grade and follows Tonnele Avenue northWondering55 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of words "exit" and "to grade" are misleading. Below is more accurate:

The skyway becomes the four-lane Route 139 as it travels over the circle and soon ends upon entering a cut in Bergen Hill just west of John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The road continues on the lower part of the dual-level Depressed Highway through the Hudson Palisades to the Holland Tunnel approach. Djflem (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! I would suggest a minor tweak, which I bold highlighted:

The skyway becomes the four-lane Route 139 as it travels over the circle and soon ends upon entering a cut in Bergen Hill just west of John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The road continues, as the Depressed Highway, on the lower part of the dual-level Route 139 highway through the Hudson Palisades to the Holland Tunnel approach.Wondering55 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Less wordy and more specific:

The skyway becomes the four-lane Route 139 as it travels over the circle and soon ends upon entering a cut in Bergen Hill just west of John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The road continues to the lower part of the dual-level section of Route 139 known as the Depressed Highway through the Hudson Palisades to the Holland Tunnel approach. (Djflem (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Even less wordy (by one word) and more specific:

The skyway becomes the four-lane Route 139 as it travels over the circle and soon ends upon entering a cut in Bergen Hill just west of John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The road continues to the lower part, known as the "Depressed Highway", of the dual-level Route 139 through the Hudson Palisades to the Holland Tunnel approach.

I will take care of making the revision to the article. Thanks for all of your assistance, guidance, and input. I learned a lot. I believe our efforts can be used as a shining example of open collaboration, compromise, patience, hard work, and listening & trying to understand another's point of view through the Wikipedia process that leads to something even better than what was originally proposed.Wondering55 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

But incorrect, since Rpute 139 is not dual-level in its entirety as the sentence implies, but only in the section passing through the Palisades. I will make the correction.Djflem (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You say bunch of tomatoes, I say tomahtos. I don't believe the sentence I proposed is incorrect or implies it is dual level in its entirety. Otherwise, the sentence that you proposed could equally imply it is also dual level in its entirety. Let's consider this case closed as you have made the updated revision. Thanks.Wondering55 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Important Artifact Photo with Historically Significant Info From External Links

The external link below was removed by Imzadi, even though it displays a one-of-a-kind historically significant artifact, which is a Jersey City Chamber of Commerce cachet with historically significant info, including design and traffic capacity details, about the skyway from its historical day of dedication as the General Casimir Pulaski Memorial Skyway on October 11, 1933.

General Casimir Pulaski Memorial Skyway Dedication Cachet: Letter postmarked October 11, 1933, Jersey City, NJ from the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce

This external link meets the exact criteria cited by Imzadi for inclusion as an external link, which is "ELs should provide additional resources for information usually to sites we can't cite"

This historically significant artifact, which was issued by Jersey City as one of the original champions of the skyway, contains additional, historically significant info from the very day of the Pulaski Skyway naming and dedication ceremony and should not be cheapened by referring to it as a simple souvenir.

This external link should be reconsidered for reinstatement based on the reasons that I outlined.Wondering55 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "artifact"; it's a replica available for sale. Wikipedia isn't a commercial enterprise, and we shouldn't be encouraging traffic to webpages selling merchandise. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please also see the guidelines for external links at WP:EL. --Rschen7754 02:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The letter cachet is an original artifact from October 11, 1933 with valuable historical info that is not included in the article and it is not a replica. If you click on the "Add to Cart" button, it does not allow you to buy it.

Based on WP:EL, I would still recommend it since the link meets all of the cited criteria:

• The cited info "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic"
• "Is the cited site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual)?" Yes it is.
• The cited info "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject"
• "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The artifact contains info about Pulaski Skyway from Jersey City Chamber of Commerce, a knowledgeable source.

Only cited reason for "Links normally to be avoided" is noted below. Remember that it states "normally" and NOT "always". I believe all of the reasons above overwhelmingly outweigh the one reason below.

• "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"Wondering55 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it clearly is promotional material, and may be added to the spam blacklist if you continue inserting it into the article. --Rschen7754 03:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specifically how does the link add value or understanding of the subject? The claim it makes/supports ("the longest and highest viaduct for motor vehicles in the world") should be cited to a better source than a tourist souvenir. Surely an article in The New York Times or another newspaper would repeat that claim, if accurate at that time, and then that fact should be incorporated into the article itself. The commercial nature of the link, IMHO, disqualifies it from inclusion. The link itself serves to sell this item, not to just display it. Sorry, you haven't convinced me of the appropriateness of including the link. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand where Rschen is coming from. No one, including myself, has any plans to continue to insert this item into the article. That is why I opened up this Talk page to find out what others thought of this artifact from the October 11, 1933 opening ceremony that has historical and design information that goes well beyond promotional and souvenir material.

Falsely demeaning comments about this item as a tourist souvenir or promotional material does not take away from the fact that it is a real historical artifact prepared by the Jersey City Chamber Commerce, who were intimately involved with all aspects of the Pulaski Skyway from its original proposal through its design, construction, opening, renaming, and oversight, with unmatched knowledge about the Pulaski Skyway. If you think that the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce, who I consider to be an unimpeachable source, is going to put out false information into an official cachet stamp on the day of one of the most important events in the history of the Pulaski Skyway, there is nothing I can do.

The importance of this item goes well beyond accurately indicating it as the longest and highest viaduct of its time since it represents a unique reliable source that provides other important historical and design info about this iconic Pulaski Skyway:

• Expected Annual Traffic Capacity - 20,000,000 vehicles. This turned out be very accurate prediction that has become true over 90 years since it was first made, even though there was nowhere near that traffic capacity back in 1933.
• Overall Height of Roadway - 100 to 147 ft.
• Length of Roadway - 3.5 miles
• Deepest Pneumatic Caisson Foundation - 147 ft.
• Pulaski Skyway Cost - $19,000,000
• County Locations - Hudson and Essex County
• Official Full Name - General Casimir Pulaski Memorial Skyway
• Date of Official Renaming of the Skyway - October 11, 1933

Sorry, your arguments have not convinced me that this is not an historical artifact with value-added historical and design info related to the iconic Pulaski Skyway that would be worthy of inclusion as an External Link based on multiple criteria outlined in Wikipedia policy. However, I will defer to your decision.

One last item, if this item were really for sale on the site, I would have bought it, scanned it, and offered for it for reference to this article. Then, all of the demeaning, subservient claims about promotional websites would fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, I can not buy it since the site does NOT allow anyone to buy it.Wondering55 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality of writing

This is a Featured Article. As such, the quality of the writing needs to comply with the FA criteria, which under criterion 1a says that an article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Repetition of technical terms, when the substitution of synonyms would not impair comprehension, is bad writing style. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd even go as far as saying the edits that have been taking place over the last two months have brought down the quality of this article. I don't think it's bad enough yet to take to FAR, but if we continue down this path, it will be inevitable. –Fredddie™ 04:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of us at the U.S. Roads WikiProject have become sufficiently concerned with the recent edits to the article. Please make sure that all edits to this article meet the Featured Article criteria (WP:WIAFA). Otherwise, this article could lose Featured Article status very quickly. --Rschen7754 07:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Djflem and Wondering55 should be editing in a sandboxed version of the article so that changes can be refined and copy edited before being taken "live". There's no deadline around here, but by the same token, I wouldn't want to see this article end back at FAR and possibly get delisted this time on prose concerns. Using a sandbox to refine proposed changes will make it easier to keep the quality of the live article up to specs. Imzadi 1979 → 10:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The updates to overall quality, accuracy, research, citation sourcing, and comprehensive coverage of the topic has greatly improved the attributes of this article based on Featured Article status. There is no question that the text has been professionally edited for more creative prose, concise descriptions, and better flow of the presentation, along with significant removal of superfluous, inaccurate, and repetitive items. The content, prose, and manner of presentation included in recent updates have exceeded all measures of Featured Article criteria.

It would be nice if there was some positive recognitions for Djflem and myself in terms of the value of our significant content contributions and our response to issues raised about the quality and accuracy of the article presentation, which was suffering long before the recent updates and improvements by Djflem and myself.

I have also communicated and had a dialogue with Djflem on a variety of issues for resolutions related to this article prior to going live. Let's all give credit where credit is deserved.Wondering55 (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Stability is also one of the FA criteria, and with the volume of changes lately, since this article is not undergoing a formal review of its FA status, that means the article has gotten unstable; it changes significantly day to day. Revising it in a sandbox, and posting the changes once would alleviate these stability concerns. Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have completed my extensive review of the accuracy and presentation of this very comprehensive article and all sources and currently do not expect to make any changes, except possibly for one old source, which no longer has an active Internet link. I also thought there was some benefit to making changes in small focused updates so that changes could be more easily addressed rather than making major revisions to the entire article since it would be much more difficult for others to rapidly review and make any needed edits or improvements to the changes. I would be more than happy to check out drafts of proposed contributions prior to going live if needed.

I would expect that most significant changes have already been made and this article will go back to being much more stable. Thanks for your feedback.Wondering55 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Let's all give credit where credit is deserved" definitely not. I've had to flat out revert massive copyedits to this article because they have proceeded to introduce grammatical errors into the article. I have very little confidence in the researching of this article as well, and believe that it needs a thorough review by editors who have a known track record with reliable sourcing. --Rschen7754 03:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not expect any credit from Rschen since Rschen has consistently shown a negative bias towards me and continually makes denigrating and false accusations against me in a variety of different forums.

I have very little confidence in the substance or accuracy of Rschen statements based on past history. In the past 2 months, Rschen has made two updates to this article. The first was to remove accurate researched information based on reliable sources that Google maps identified the Route 139 Depressed Highway as part of Pulaski Skyway that Rschen mistakenly indicated was original research. Rschen replaced it with wrong unsubstantiated info that Google maps includes the Holland approach (which is actually on grade in the vicinity of Boyle Plaza near the Holland Tunnel) as part of the Pulaski Skyway. Rschen's mistakes were reversed.

The second mistake by Rschen was to completely undo a legitimate well-made revision by Djflem with very good prose that improved the presentation of the referenced information. Rschen made an overblown false accusation that the "copyedit made the prose worse" because it had incorrect apostrophes and commas, when the appropriate thing would have been to simply correct the very minor mistakes, which also included a spelling mistake and repetition of "the".

Where was Rschen when this article contained multiple mistakes and unsourced items, which have now been corrected?

This article is now very well researched and sourced with correct citations from very reliable sources with a good quality presentation. If Rschen has any legitimate concerns, please cite specific details.Wondering55 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate Wikipedia Links for Pulaski Skyway

DELETED. Reference post aboveWondering55 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the post right above yours. --Rschen7754 21:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Links

Lest I be reverted again, let me explain why I removed two links recently introduced into the article.

• A few years ago, Tony1 (talk · contribs), who is pretty well regarded in terms of writing ability, noted that we should minimize excess links in "our finest work". Judicious linking steers readers to appropriate articles for further explanation. One of the links he removed was to U.S. state when used in the phrasing, "U.S. state of New Jersey" and the like. This steers readers toward our article on the state, not on the concept of what a state is; if they need further explanation, "U.S. state" should be linked in the lead of the article on New Jersey.
• Linking to the citation information for the book, The Last Three Miles is mildly misleading. Readers will click that link expecting to be taken to an article on the book, not our footnote/citation. Such a link is appropriate in a shortened footnote of the form "Hart, p. 163." but I don't think it's appropriate in the body of the article itself.

Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the two current article items below also being Wikilinked. Please advise if this can or cannot be done and why.

U.S. state in Pulaski Skyway#Preview

The Last Three Miles in Pulaski Skyway#In popular culture

Many Featured Articles (See below) and Good Articles (See Interstate 280 (New Jersey) contain U.S. state Wikilinks in their Preview, along with the Wikilink to the corresponding state, while other Featured/Good articles do not.

Featured Articles - Interstate 68, New York State Route 308, New York State Route 32, New York State Route 343

Apparently, it was OK to allow it in these articles.

Just because other Featured Articles did not Wikilink an item should not mean it cannot be done.

I also thought the general policy was to try to provide a Wikilink to any item within an article that also had a corresponding article with more details about the item for any readers with an interest. Are we now allowing people to pick and choose and overrule which items should be Wikilinked if there already is a corresponding Wikipedia article? This is a very bad slippery slope.

In addition, this article is already overwhelmed with Wikipedia links to existing and non-existing Wikipedia articles. How did this simple link to U.S. states, which other equally talented editors in their Featured and Good articles decided was OK, all of a sudden become totally not acceptable.

It would seem that The Last Three Miles would be an appropriate link that provides more details for the interested readers about this book at the end of the article if they wanted to get it. It would seem to be an appropriate link with more information that would be of use to interested readers.

Readers are also provided with a Wikilink to the details of this book at the end of the article when they click on any "Hart" source item in Pulaski Skyway#Footnotes. Readers are not troubled that they are not taken by this Wikipedia link to a Wikipedia article about "Hart" the author.Wondering55 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I can list 15 Featured Articles that don't link to the term in their lead sections. (I assume what you're calling a "preview" we call a "lead"; #Preview as a link doesn't really work because there isn't a section or anchor with that name, so the page defaults to the top.) Maybe the editors behind other Featured Articles haven't had the same wisdom imparted to them as Tony1 imparted to me when he copy edited Capitol Loop; Tony is a professional writer and copy editor in his day job, and his writing guides, including User:Tony1/Build your linking skills, are not to be discounted because some editors haven't learned or applied the same advanced writing skills. (You're also comparing to articles that were promoted as FAs back in 2008–09, which is a short eternity in Wikipedia-time.)

We've always allowed editors to pick and choose what terms to link, and in fact we have a guideline that encourages such editorial discretion: WP:OVERLINK. The guideline talks about diluting the value of other links, and in this case, let's not call what is validly an exercise in editorial discretion a "slippery slope".

You've also confused the purpose of a wikilink in the body of the text with the purpose of the wikilink in a footnote. The "Hart" links in the footnotes highlight the full citation in much the same way that superscripted linked numbers highlight the footnote. The Hart footnotes are shortened to save space and alleviate repeating the same citation information constantly. As a courtesy, the shortened footnotes link and highlight the full citation. Using such a link in the body of the article, when a reader would reasonably expect to be taken to an article on the book is quite odd. I've never seen such linking behavior in articles, and I can't say I will endorse it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen linking to a footnote in that manner. Ever. If I saw it in an article, I would remove it without thinking twice about it. –Fredddie™ 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Pulaski, it seems that you'd rather the reader divert to US state than to the article on an actual state. Why? And presumably US state is linked to prominently from the state article, which is probably more reasonable. It was agreed by many editors long ago that links such as [[List of countries|Country]] and [[US state]] hinder rather than help the readers, by peppering the text with both lower- and higher-value links. Tony (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As previously stated, just because other Featured Articles do not do something does not mean it is wrong in the context of another article. I do not even want to get into differences I saw in linking or not linking for many other exact same terms in different Featured Articles or linking for items of relatively low relevancy. Apparently, there is a wide latitude in what different highly qualified editors allow in Featured and Good articles.

We are also faced with not knowing which of these articles have employed the latest best practices, even though they are rated Featured or Good articles. If we can't rely on finding useful practices or items in other reviewed articles, then Wikipedia is in trouble. If anyone has advice on how to figure out this conundrum, beyond referencing Wikipedia general guidelines that give wide latitude, let me know. Would the road projects page give any more guidance or are these issues resolved on a case by case basis?

I will work within the Wikipedia parameters that Imzadi has outlined. I appreciate Imzadi elaborating on reasons since there is always something to be learned.

Whatever criteria is being used for the current article, it can be construed to be excessively overlinked. However, I do not feel it takes away from reading the article. If someone is interested in knowing more, even if they think they know everything about the linked item, they will click on the link. There is always something more to learn about something, particularly in Wikipedia. If not, they will simply ignore a link. Better to allow the door to be opened by the reader, then not provide any door. That is the beauty of an electronic library vs. the old hard copy library.

There must be some way that readers of the article can find out more about the details of The Last Three Miles within Wikipedia so they can get the hard copy book. Based on the current set-up, they first click on the sourced link and do not find what they they need to get the book. Then they have do an Internet Search on "Steven Hart 2007 The Last Three Miles" and wade through various web links when the complete information is right under them hidden away at the very end of this article. They would not expect that book info to be there, except if they were given an easily highlighted link.

If anyone has a solution to this book citation conundrum, let me know. I still like my solution.Wondering55 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We should strip the fake wikilink and leave it be. We've provided the ISBN. It's not our job to urge people to buy a book. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink was previously removed. A general reader of the article will not know there is an available ISBN. Providing the book link has absolutely nothing to do with urging anyone to buy the book. People can find this book thru their library if they would be provided a link to full book title details and ISBN. I hope you are not thinking providing wikilinks to movies, books, and video games is urging people to buy these items. Otherwise, we should be deleting any links, including in this article, to such items. There is educational value in these items and making this educational and reference info easily accessible is what Wikipedia should be about.Wondering55 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution, if the book is notable, is to create an article on it. I dispute your claim of "A general reader of the article will not know there is an available ISBN" as the book is listed, with ISBN, in the Works cited section, already. We normally do not link to ISBNs inline in the prose of an article except for articles on books or authors. Again, as I restate below, it's about providing the best value in context, knowing that if a reader still needs information, we provide a search box at the top of every page on the website.

As for best practices, we have no further list of criteria for Featured Articles than the Featured Article Criteria. Some active editors keep going back and updating their older FAs to prevent an article from going through a Featured Article Review (FAR). That way those editors can avoid the potential for an article to lose its FA status. The Good Article criteria are less stringent, so GAs should not be used as a normal point of comparison for best practices on FAs. The talk page for each FA has an article history box that lists the dates of key milestones like GA nominations, FA candidacies or reviews on either level. That will give you an idea of where to look for more recent promotions. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see where Ohconfucious started the process of culling the overlinking in this article. Perhaps, someone can continue this important endeavor. I would definitely be interested in seeing an updated version that would be helpful as a leading example for other editors. Any guidance or culling by Tony would also be welcomed.Wondering55 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a few terms that his edit unlinked that I'd re-link as applicable in the context of this article (like "freeway"). Again, it's a matter of prioritizing links to terms of the most value; if an editor needs to look up something that isn't linked, it isn't as though the Wikipedia search box is not available at the top of the page. Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored primary reference regarding The Last Three Miles as a reader should be able to click on inline citation ref# and follow it to information about the book being mentioned Seems appropriate per Wikipedia:These are not original research#Works of fiction as well as useful to reader who should not have to search for it elsewhere. Djflem (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what's being discussed here, and does that sentence need two footnotes, when the second is already implied by the content of the sentence? We don't footnote plot summaries of fictional works as the source, the work itself, is implied. Imzadi 1979 → 10:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Djflem is right on target in this discussion. I think his solution to this issue and supporting reasons are valid. The supporting citation to a NON-FICTION book that is already cited multiple times in this article is good for the article and beneficial for the interested reader. It avoids the wikilink confusion, which I only used as a possible alternative since this supporting citation was previously removed. Leave that citation to an already cited source in the article.

I see where Imzadi reinstated a previously deleted link by Ohconfucious for relevant reasons. This is where the slippery slope starts. One person's relevancy is another person's "no one could care less" about finding out any more info. We can now get into the overlinking wars. I would also question why embankments and breakdown lane, which were also removed as wikilinks by Ohconfucious were also not reinstated. I believe that further explanations are directly relevant to the story and not everyone knows what these terms entail or mean. As previously stated, I believe there are still too many other wikilinks that are not needed for additional explanations or have no further relevancy to this article beyond being mentioned.Wondering55 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How to properly reference a book that mentioned in an article and also used as reference has been a discussion in this thread. An inline citation of that book is a superior reference (primary) in this case since provides the most pertinent information, including the year which is not mentioned in the other (secondary).Djflem (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of nowrap template

Seriously, the location in the infobox has a line break in the middle of "New Jersey", and even if on other screens it would break in the middle of "United States", it should. Lines should break at the space between words. It's only an issue on things like measurements where the number should not be separated form the unit. I'm at a point where I'm tired of trying to maintain the quality of this article against those that don't seem to have a clue how to format and write high-quality articles worthy of the FA label. If trends continue and the writing and formatting quality is allowed to degrade, don't be surprised if this article is shipped back to FAR(C) and delisted because those who would improve the article have left. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with your reasoning. Have you ever been on this bridge? Ever been on any highways in NJ? You never answered when I asked a while ago. I'm only curious since you edit several NJ related pages, yet it says you're from MI. Tinton5 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My geographic location doesn't matter: I have all FAs from USRD on my watchlist, and that's in an attempt to help keep them as FAs. Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Still avoided the question. So you haven't been here before. Okay good enough. Tinton5 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked everywhere in the article. I didn't see a note that says "IF YOU'RE NOT FROM NEW JERSEY KEEP OUT". Even if you're going somewhere with this, I suggest apologizing for being an ass. –Fredddie™ 19:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proper measurement formatting

I'm finding recent edits are introducing grammatical and formatting errors that need to be reversed. When using {{convert}}, there are two basic cases (the second has a variant):

1. The road is 13 miles (21 km) long.
2. The 13-mile (21 km) road is in Foo.

   The 13-mile-long (21 km) road is in Foo.

In the first case, the measurement is not preceding the subject as an adjective, so no |adj= parameter is needed. In the second case, the measurement does precede the subject as an adjective, so that parameter is needed. In the variant, "-long" is part of the adjective phrase so |adj=mid|-long is used. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I may be in the minority in thinking this, but 99% of the time when you would want to use the "13-mile" style, you should use the 13-mile-long variant. –Fredddie™ 02:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest trying to avoid the triple hyphenated unit. Not always possible, but "A road 13 miles long ..." is possible, but not with "The". Possibly "The road—13 miles long—is in Foo." There are other ways too. Or you go with triple-bunger. Tony (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem lies with the conversion template. It does not output "13 miles long (21 km)" at all. We in the US have had it beaten into us that we need to provide conversions from miles to kilograms or whatever the metric unit is. We could always do it manually, but that defeats the purpose of having the template. –Fredddie™ 02:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the conversion template could be updated in order to avoid the English units from being separated from the numeral at the end of the line. When manually entering it, it would be accomplished by inserting "&" followed by "nbsp;" between 75 and "feet". However, the current template allows the 75 and "feet" to be separated at the end of the line. The template does allows the metric conversion units and number to stay together when going over the cliff at the end of a line. Inserting the adj=on command prevents this problem, which is the reason that I originally included it for the relevant article text. Please let me know if/when this is corrected. Thanks for your help.Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but the last time I asked about it, I was told that the MOS doesn't require such a thing so they won't insert the non-breaking space by default. *shrugs* Imzadi 1979 → 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Team Convert finally came up with a long awaited solution today to this problem after this persistent issue was raised again at Template Talk:Convert#Problems with separation of Number from Units of Measurement at End of a Text Line. Hallelujah. Adding command "adj=j" will now allow a number and the first word of the spelled-out unit of measurements to stay together and avoid text wrap. As an example, items that I highlighted in quotes would stay on one line, i.e "75 miles" or "75 square" miles followed by the abbreviated conversion units. I will add this command to the applicable units of measurement in this article in the prose section.Wondering55 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive footnotes

Honestly, it looks really bad to have single sentences with four (or more) citations. Can someone look into culling some of them if they are redundant? Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, we should be using third-party sources as much as possible over first-party ones. In this case, that means preferring news articles over NJDOT press releases. Even if a newspaper repeats the information, they presumably are confirming and fact-checking it, and they should be adding additional content/context. Even if they just reprint the information verbatim, it is still better to use a third-party source. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The rehabilitation section still has several places with three or four footnotes at the end of a sentence. In one place, there are five. Can we pare back those numbers? Are there cases where two cited sources say the same thing, so that if we dropped one, nothing would be uncited? Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Where there were excessive citations for specific statements in the Rehabilitation section, I reduced the number of citations since other citations for that item covered the same information with more comprehensive details or I deleted the citation for that statement since it is also used elsewhere to verify other items. At most, there are now three citations for each statement in this section. Wondering55 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's better, but two maximum would look better. It's a perception thing, but excessive footnotes look bad for a few reasons.

• Novice editors will seize on a controversial point by adding multiple footnotes to "prove" that point, a "see how many people agree!" type thing.
• Articles with disputed notability will typically get excessive footnotes to prove the notability of a subject. Usually this happens when the article is still short and developing, and the editors involved don't realize they could add a Further reading section to hold the extra citations until they can be spread out in an expanded article.
• In other cases, editors have inappropriately synthesized information together and needed multiple citations at the end of a sentence to back the puzzle pieces.

This isn't to say that every sentence with more than two citations is a problem. Take as an example from M-185 (Michigan highway), another FA. "M-185 has been recognized in the press for its unique role as the only state highway without car traffic in the United States by such publications as The Kansas City Star,^[11] the Chicago Tribune,^[12] the Toronto Star,^[13] and The Saturday Evening Post.^[10]" That sentence has four citations, but they were distributed into the sentence to link the publication titles to the appropriate footnotes, and the first half of the sentence is a non-controversial generalization of those four articles. Had I left them clustered at the end of the sentence, the string of footnotes would have attracted negative attention based on the perceptions more experienced editors have dealing with the bullet points above, even though it would have been a proper use. Imzadi 1979 → 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the questionable situations that you cited are applicable for this very reputable article. This article has existed for a very long time without anyone questioning 2 or 3 citations for specific statements. I would suggest leaving it alone for now. Wondering55 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the rest of the article, the rehabilitation section is in a state of flux because that is an on-going situation. The reputation you ascribe to the rest of the article doesn't exactly translate to that section because people are constantly editing it to provide updates on the project. Also, the standards for Featured Articles have risen significantly since this article was promoted in 2005. Back then, inline citations were not even required, and now we scrutinize the articles to make sure sources used actually back the statements, that citations are consistently formatted and that we aren't giving unwarranted perceptions about the sourcing. No article is ever "done", and even FAs need to be improved to retain their bronze star. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

YUpdated Rehabilitation section to avoid more than 2 adjacent citations. Updated outdated URL's and citation details. Deleted outdated URL's covered by remaining citations. Reduced citations for statements when subsequent skyway project historical developments, already in the article, are more up-to-date and relevant. Relocated some citations to line up with a referenced item rather than group them with other citations at the end of a statement. Hopefully, this helps. Wondering55 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

older entries

I don't want to edit this because I'm really not sure... but the table is titled "Pulaski Skywaye" and I am assuming the 'e' is extra but I'd rather a normal editor of this article fix it and not myself. -gren

Fuck; my bad. --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the March 1, 1930 date for the start of construction; the date of opening on nycroads.com proved incorrect (checked against NY Times articles). --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A NY Times article from April 13 says that bids will be received April 29. BUSTED. --SPUI 11:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has a good view of the Skyway from the side, please add it. That's the one view that's missing. --SPUI 13:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eeep. Are you sure that many pictures are needed? Wikipedia is not a photo album or a satellite database. As nice as some of these are, putting images to both the left and right makes the intro text almost unreadable. It might be tough, but maybe you should look carefully if one or the other shouldn't go. Some of these don't add much, for example: we all have a general idea of what highways look like, so is a picture of (for example) one of the left-side ramps really informative to the reader? I don't know if we already have a solution for this problem, e.g. whether creating a separate picture page is OK or something like WikiAlbum should be created; maybe you should ask the Village Pump.

I realize you put in the hard work, that it's tough to kill your darlings, and that I didn't write it so what am I talking about, but remember that the article should be judged on its merits to the readers, not the writers. Just my $0.02. JRM 00:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Update: Moverton fixed the main layout problem. It's not half as bad now. As long as you're not planning on, say, adding half a dozen more pictures, I think we're in the clear. :-) JRM 00:46, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

How about we remove the out-of-focus pictures and alter the left over photo to incress the constrast? ^_^ 138.89.177.98

traffic data:

• opening 20800 per day weekdays 23800 saturdays 38700 sundays (23786 average)
• early 1934 30000/35000/45000 (32857 average)
• 1987 43650 per day
• 2000 62390 per day

Bridge?

the Pulasky Skyway is a "structure" and not a bridge? It fits the definition of a bridge: A bridge is a structure built to span a gorge, valley, road, railroad track, river or other body of water, or any other physical obstacle. Sure looks like a cantilever bridge to me.

It's not a bridge. It contains two bridges, but most of it is just an elevated road over the meadowlands – flamurai^TM 19:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't "meadowlands" -- they're dock yards and urban areas. The NJ "Meadowlands" are somewhat northwest.

My mistake... I should've said "meadows". That doesn't change that the skyway travels mostly over land, though. – flamurai^TM 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Are you really implying that a bridge cannot span land? "An elevated road" falls within the definition of a bridge. Webster tells me Bridge: a structure carrying a pathway or roadway over a depression or obstacle. A highway overpass is a bridge. A "structure" that spans a valley is a bridge. Cacophony 04:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bridge, but with subbridges. It's easier to refer to the whole thing as a structure, and the four separate subbridges (two rivers and two railroads) as bridges.--SPUI 04:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not just refer to the subbridges as segments of the bridge. After all, if the segments weren't connected to form a whole bridge, it wouldn't be bridging anything, would it? --brian0918™ 06:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being overly technical and pedantic. Encyclopedias are meant for the average reader. The average person thinks of a bridge as something that spans two points, while the Pulaski Skyway has numerous on- and off-ramps. The average person would not call the Skyway a bridge. I agree with SPUI's reasoning, as well. – flamurai^TM 08:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

If the "average reader" has a misunderstanding about what is or is not a bridge, the job of the encyclopedia is to correct this misunderstanding, not perpetuate it. The Pulsaki Skyway is cited in the bridge article as an outstanding example of a bridge bridge#Outstanding bridges. Cacophony 18:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mabye the article should read "Pulaski Skyway, is a series of cantilever truss bridges in New Jersey"? I'll just throw that out there as an idea. I just can't get behind calling it a structure when it is refered to as a good example of a bridge, in Category:Bridges in New Jersey, and well within the definition of a bridge. Cacophony 18:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

That sits better with me. For example, the Triborough Bridge also consists of multiple bridges, and the article is worded similarly. – flamurai^TM 19:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pedestrian and bicycle access information is missing.

I'd like to see every wikipedia article about bridges specifically mention the status of pedestrian and bicycle access ie if there is a sidewalk on the bridge (or if there isn't) and where the access points to the sidewalk are located.

– Dennis _{(talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)}[[]] 16:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Good point; I'm in agreement. This specific one bans them, being a freeway. I added that to the article. --SPUI 16:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New aerial photo

Pulaski Skyway at NJ TPK, Newark

Since I don't know which is which, I'll let the regulars here sort that out. Nice photo, courtesy of Doc Searls.

You may prefer this one, or have a look through the whole set. All free-licensed.

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC), uploader

---

Railroad yards in Kearney, New Jersey

As requested. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Pete Tillman and Doc Searls for making all of these beautiful pictures available. The two Wikipedia uploaded images are now in the article. Wondering55 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Doc Searls weblog is often interesting reading; 50,000 Photos as a Blog is pertinent to here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ACR prelude to FAR

I'm opening this talk page section to inform interested editors that in 2 weeks this article will be sent to WP:FAR should the issues discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway not be resolved.

1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

Hopefully there are editors who are interested and capable of handling these issues. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive2 Djflem (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ACR prelude to FAR

I'm opening this talk page section to inform interested editors that in 2 weeks this article will be sent to WP:FAR should the issues discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway not be resolved.

1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

Hopefully there are editors who are interested and capable of handling these issues. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring previously archived entry with connection which links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway and the discussion which took place about the Pulaski Skyway article, but without concerns brought to its talk page.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. 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/20121209223522/http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/history.htm to http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/history.htm

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) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. 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/20101001030230/http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm to http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/pages/p_pages/pulaski_skyway.htm

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) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pulaski Skyway. 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/20101001030230/http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm to http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013072736/http://www.northjersey.com/news/032911_Port_Authority_to_redirect_18B_in_tunnel_funds_to_North_Jersey_road_repairs.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/032911_Port_Authority_to_redirect_18B_in_tunnel_funds_to_North_Jersey_road_repairs.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) 08:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pulaski Skyway. 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/20150516104106/http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702130013/http://www.northjersey.com/news/port-authority-acknowledges-sec-investigation-1.1034632 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/port-authority-acknowledges-sec-investigation-1.1034632

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) 07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. 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/20160304093204/http://www.northjersey.com/news/united-airlines-complains-to-faa-about-use-of-port-authority-fees-to-fix-pulaski-skyway-1.1151204?page=all to http://www.northjersey.com/news/united-airlines-complains-to-faa-about-use-of-port-authority-fees-to-fix-pulaski-skyway-1.1151204?page=all

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) 08:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

opening description

It currently reads: "The Pulaski Skyway is a four-lane bridge-causeway in the northeastern part of the U.S. state of New Jersey, carrying an expressway designated U.S. Route 1/9 (US 1/9) for most of its length. The structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." A couple problems exist: First, a causeway is a roadway on an embankment (as described at the link it connects to), and generally speaking, the skyway is entirely an elevated structure, not on an embankment, so this portion of the description should be revised. Second, its technically one long bridge, not several bridges, since the entire structure is, again elevated. The portion about "longest bridge" should be revised to say "longest span".Famartin (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

car accident on pulaski bridge with deaths

I lost my older brother in a very bad car accident on this bridge. I was a younger person at the time and I'm just looking for some answers, thank you 2600:1700:1992:3D00:D1AF:6AF4:A50F:5376 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)