Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old discussion

Copyright question -- this seems to be adapted from http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ . Gpietsch, do you have permission to use this material? If not, we will have to remove it. --Brion 21:23 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

The copyrighted text has been removed from the database. --Brion 19:09 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

Bruce Springsteen also made a reference to the New Jersey Turnpike in "Jungleland", from the "Born to Run" LP:

Man there's an opera out on the Turnpike
There's a ballet being fought out in the alley
Until the local cops, Cherry Tops, rips this holy night

[17:45, 12 December 2005 80.74.167.118]

Not really. Per the Dave Marsh books, the "opera" was meant as a reference to the Garden State Arts Center, near where Springsteen was living at the time, and the Arts Center is actually on the Garden State Parkway. So Bruce was either confused or taking artistic license; either way, the reference is not about the NJT. Wasted Time R 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

New images

Turnpike's unusual VMS
Passing southbound under the Pulaski skyway (Routes 1 and 9)

Here are two images that might be good — Omegatron 21:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The first is good to illustrate the Turnpike's unique changeable speed limit signs and warning signs, which are very different from most variable message displays. The second was taken below the Pulaski Skyway if I am not mistaken, is that true? --Chris 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that second is definitely under the Skyway, and based on the decline to the right and the Turnpike Extension (exits 14x) bridge in the background, headed south.
Atlant 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


North end

The north end of the original Turnpike is at US 46. The extension to the GWB is just that - an extension. We don't list junctions on the other extensions, so why list them on the north extension? --SPUI (T - C) 11:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the extension to the GWB is an extension of the mainline; the other "extensions" are more spurs off the mainline than actual extensions. -- NORTH talk 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Eh - how about now? Note that I have corrected several mileages - for instance you seem to have used the state line rather than the change of maintenance at the GWB. --SPUI (T - C) 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I apologize for that inaccuracy. -- NORTH talk 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my assumption about the north end. [1] includes the text "the Turnpike’s 122-mile mainline roadway" and "the 122 miles of the New Jersey Turnpike mainline". --SPUI (T - C) 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page about Giants Stadium would have you believe that the Western Spur of the Turnpike wasn't created until plans for the Stadium were approved. I don't believe this is true. Njradiohistorian (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)NJRadioHistorian

Exits by mileage?

Has there ever been any serious discussion of renumbering the exits to use the approximate position (by mileage) rather than the sequential numbering used today?

If there has, I think it would be interesting to discuss this in the article as most of the major highways (at least in the Eastern U.S.) use this method of numbering exits. Dharris 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no, there has not been any discussion about renumbering the exits. In the unlikely event any discussion were to happen, it would probably not be until after the completion of the interchange between I-95 and I-276 in Pennsylvania -- but as I said, even that is unlikely.
And actually, most highways--at least in the case of toll roads--in the northeast number their exits sequentially. The Garden State Parkway is an exception. The Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes used to. -- NORTH talk 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there has been discussion. When Pennsylvania switched all of their roads and when Exit 15X was being planned, it was discussed in NJ. A Turnpike spokesman claimed (paraphrase) 'The NJTPK is a thinking man's roadway. We'll never switch to mileage-based exit numbers'. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything to link to about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.0.88.181 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would Route 3 be considerwed major at the NJTP or Route 495, since it's going to and from the Lincoln Tunnel or with the Meadowlands?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And why wouldn't Route 278 be considered major at exit 13 with the Goethals Bridge at that exit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Because in addition to determining whether or not a junction is major, we should also be careful not to list too many junctions. The junction list should be at most 10-12 junctions that are relatively evenly spaced along the length of the route. What I'd like to do is remove the I-280 and NJ 3 junctions you've added, and replace them with NJ 495 to the Lincoln Tunnel. -- NORTH talk 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The advantage to this is that it's nicely evenly spaced; we have Exits 3, 6, 7A, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 listed in the infobox. -- NORTH talk 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Route 1 be acceptable in the info box next to Route 18 that's pretty major? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, US 1 should have been listed. Please keep in mind that the proper format for U.S. Routes is US 1, not Route 1. -- NORTH talk 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
US 1 doesn't actually intersect the Turnpike there; it's just signed at the exit. There should be a TO between the 18 and 1 shields on the sign (and I think there is at the junction with Route 18 after the toll booth). All of the exits from 9 to 18 provide easy access to US 1. --SPUI (T - C) 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should US 9 be acceptable to put next to the GSP shield in Woodbridge in the NJTP info box, that gets pretty jammed other then the usage for the GSP.

Sure, they don't have direct ramps to the NJTP but they can create big back ups especially US Route 1 at Route 18

Nextbarker 15:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

If the NJTPA has plans to renumber its exits, it would most likely be on the mainline Turnpike between I-295 and I-80 and on the Newark Bay Extension. In my opinion, I would replace those dopey signs (which does not meet FHWA standards), replace them with the type of signs used on N.J. Interstate Highways, and for exit numbering, use the Delaware/Maryland State Line (on the Delaware Memorial Bridge) as the 0.0 milepost, with the highest milepost (and exit number) being the last northbound exit prior to the George Washington Bridge. Rwboa22 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Route 1

I know there no drect ramps from the NJTP to Route 1 in New Brunswick, but I think it should be added next to the NJ 18 shield because the NJTP does creat a backup just getting to NJ 18 + getting into US 1.

Nextbarker 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Nextbarker 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

to the last one

I added a NJ 440 shield next to the I-287 shield since, there is a ramp to NJ 440 as well as 287.

Nextbarker 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

I also added a US 1 shield next to NJ 18 because well there might not be ramp to US 1 from the NJTP, the NJTP can get very jammed up trying to get to 1.

Nextbarker 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

I added a NJ 440 shield next to I-287 in the major junction box was that smart?

Nextbarker 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

And can't you access Route 514 from the NJTP exit 10?

Nextbarker 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

You can, but that doesn't make it a major junction.
US 1 was removed because even though there might be major back-ups, that doesn't change the fact that there's no junction between the two there. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the NJ 440 shield wasn't smart either.

Nextbarker 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Route 440

Was the Route 440 shield appropriate to add next to the Interstate 287 shield on the NJTP infobox?

Nextbarker 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Yes. -- NORTH talk 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, its listed on the exit sign Jgcarter 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 9 - NJ Turnpike

US Route 9 wouldn't be acceptable next to the GSP shield, since there are no direct ramps to US 9 from the NJTP at Exitt

Nextbarker 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Sure, there is. The ramp from the Turnpike and the ramp from the Parkway merge together; both have direct access -- even if the access to/from the Parkway is shorter. -- NORTH talk 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think US Route 9 would be acceptable to put next to the GSP shield at exit 11, because there's no direct access ramp to and from the NJTP - Route 9, only merges with the GSP.

Nextbarker 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

As I said above, yes, there is, although it's not a complete interchange. US 9 Northbound has direct access both to and from the Turnpike, US 9 Southbound only has direct access from the Turnpike. To clarify -- take for example US 9 heading northbound. There's a left exit on US 9 northbound at about the same point Exit 129 exits from the right of the GSP northbound. Those two exit ramps merge together right before the Turnpike toll plaza. (Southbound to southbound movements are exactly the same, opposite direction movements are the hairy ones.) That's very different from the case at Exit 9 where you have to exit from the Turnpike and merge completely into Route 18 for a mile before you get to US 1.
I do understand the confusion though, since in that area US 9 essentially acts as a C-D road for the Parkway. The two are completely separate highways though. (The parkway is maintained by the Turnpike Authority, US 9 by NJDOT.) You'd have to say that either both the Parkway and US 9 have direct access (although not in all directions for US 9), or neither do. It's obviously both. -- NORTH talk 07:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

US 9 South has a direct access from the NJ Turnpike?

I've seen the NJTP ramp and if you say to the left getting off the NJTP you hit the GSP so if you go straight then you hit US 9 South but where does US 9 North come in, do you have to take Route 184 East? I don't live in Woodbridge

Nextbarker 04:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

If you stay

Nextbarker 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Cause I noticed on the NJTP/GSP cd road, there's a mentioning of Route 1 that point before US 9 South merges in.

Nextbarker 04:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

My apologies, I was incorrect. There is direct access from US 9 Northbound to the Turnpike, and from the Turnpike to US 9 Southbound. (Not from the Turnpike to US 9 Northbound as I originally said.) Traffic can use Route 184 and King Georges Road to U-turn and make the missing movements. Regardless, US 9 should be listed in the junction list. -- NORTH talk 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dont forget, though; US 9 'IS' Listed on the exit 11 Sign. It has a US 9 shield and below it reads "Garden State PARKWAY". So I agree that US 9 should be included. Jgcarter 14:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Junction?

Ummm, guys? I dont really think NJ 168 is really a major junction per se. May I give my recommended list?

South of exit 9 when the turnpike gets more rual, the exits arent all that major though I could remotely understand NJ 168 but when we say "major" I am thinking of a higher capacity interchange. Anyone agree? Jgcarter 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, somebody added NJ 32 to the major junction list. Wikipedia says there should be no more than 10 major junctions in the infobox. Sure, NJ 32 may service 20k vehicles but is that close to the number of vehicles that use exit 7A? I dont think so. Please see the wikipedia Interstate project for more on the major junction criteria. I dont mean to be rude, but I am undoing this edit until we come to a conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgcarter (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Oops! I forgot to sign my post! =P Thanks, Hagerman Bot! Jgcarter 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the list proposed above as I fail to see how any state highway that is not limited-access can be considered a major junction for a limited-access highway. Additionally, I can't remember where it was written or who wrote it, but someone once commented that major junctions are intended to give the reader a sense of where the route goes at a glance. State highways do not if the reader lives outside of New Jersey, IMO. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The list currently used (Jgcarter was right to remove NJ 32) is the same as the one listed above with two additions. NJ 18 (Exit 9) is included – NJ 18 is a limited access highway just north of the Turnpike junction, and also for much of the route south of the junction, and provides access to New Brunswick, a major city. (Also, the exit is also signed as being for US 1.) NJ 168 is included because it is just north of where the turnpike passes over I-76/NJ 42 with no interchange, and is the most direct route for traffic trying to access I-295, I-76, or the ACE, or the cities of Camden and Philadelphia.
Unless I've counted incorrectly (which is entirely possible), the current list uses 10, which most people agreed was the perfect number. -- NORTH talk 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, apparently I didn't do any research into the state routes used before I posted my comment. <eats slice of humble pie> But for the NJ 168 junction, maybe some additional info could be added to the line (something like I-76/I-295/ACE via NJ 168). My two, hopefully this time relevant and informed, cents. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No embarassment necessary, it was an honest question. As for the NJ 168 junction, would perhaps changing it to read "near Camden" (as it originally read) be enough to solve the problem – indicating it's major because it serves that major city? -- NORTH talk 09:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, dont be embarrased, I make a LOT of mistakes on WP. Anyways, why dont we put NJ 42, I-76, and the ACE in parenthesees? Like this
TO (). I think that'll be fine...what do you think? Jgcarter 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The two problems I see with that (both relatively minor) is (a) including all those extra shields would force the junction to take up a lot of extra space and (b) it borders on original research since the exit is only signed as NJ 168 to Camden/Woodbury. -- NORTH talk 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Do you know how to add footnotes? That way we can justify the interchange? I mean, it looks no different. If we do footnotes, then it could say why its listed...this will also avoid any edit wars (I was recently in one, but not on this page). Jgcarter 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's probably better to use a hidden comment: <!--this is the main Camden exit--> --NE2 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we change the line to read "near Camden", then that wouldn't be necessary, but we could use the comment to list the extra routes for justification if necessary. -- NORTH talk 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. BTW, refresh my memormy...isnt there a sign that says
TO Atlantic City USE
Im pretty sure I saw this somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgcarter (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure, but it is a possibility. When I made my comment, I was only referring to the main Exit 3 signage, which you can see on Steve Alpert's site. I'm going to go ahead and change it to "near Camden" now. -- NORTH talk 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been 10 months since I drove through this part of the Turnpike but I do remember seeing signage in text only (no logos/symbols) for Walt Whitman Bridge and Atlantic City Expressway on secondary signs (not the main exit sign). --Polaron | Talk 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was on there this past December. I think we can add TO ACE just to justify it some, though. But also, some people contend NJ 168 is also a major junction due to its connection with Philly. I think we can just say NJ 168 to ACE since there is a sign on the Turnpike saying that. If not, Im not married to the idea...its only an infobox. Jgcarter 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

National Network

"Due to an executive order signed by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman, truck travel is limited to the "National Network," of which the Turnpike is a part. Trucks cannot use at-grade portions of U.S. 1-9 except while making local deliveries, and are banned on the Pulaski Skyway."

A Federal court recently overturned this policy. Not sure if the truck ban on US 1/9 was affected (the case was more about some central Jersey roads). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.0.88.181 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything online relating to the lifting of the ban, and very little on the imposing of the ban of the first place (apart from the I-95 page on nycroads.com -- which is notorious for out-of-date information). It's really a moot point though, since I don't really see how it's relevant to this page in the first place, not to mention whether the shunpiking information is verifiable and not original research. I'll rewrite that section to minimize the roadgeeky speculation, and probably take out the reference to surface US 1/9 entirely. (Would anyone in their right mind really shunpike using 1/9 other than between Exit 11 and 14?) -- NORTH talk 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Trivia sections are largely frowned upon, and this one was entirely uncited. I've moved it here so that some of it might be salvaged. -- NORTH talk 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Turnpike in popular culture and media

  • The Turnpike, along with the Garden State Parkway, are such heavily travelled through-roads and connect with so many other highways in the state, that upon learning a person is from New Jersey, a common joke response is "What exit?"
  • In the Chuck Berry song You Can't Catch Me (1956), the singer outruns the cops in his Cadillac on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
They've all come to look for America.
  • The 1970 song "Holland Tunnel" by John Phillips included the line: "Pick up a ticket for the New Jersey Turnpike and drive, baby, drive."
  • Bill Cosby references the eating of the New Jersey Turnpike by The Chicken Heart in his comedy album Wonderfulness.
  • Bruce Springsteen's album Nebraska (1982) contains the song "State Trooper", in which a traveller on the Turnpike, a desperate man who has committed unspecified crimes, prays that he won't be pulled over by the police. Another song from the same Springsteen album, the hallucinatory "Open All Night," also contains Turnpike images.
  • The Belgian band dEUS, in their 1996 song "Theme from Turnpike", also referenced the New Jersey Turnpike as an homage to Springsteen, repeating the first line from "State Trooper".
  • Bif Naked's song "Sophia" (1999) begins with the lyric "I picked you up on a grey day, the New Jersey Turnpike."
  • In the 1991 movie Nothing But Trouble, Chevy Chase, Demi Moore, and company, en route to Atlantic City from New York City, exit the Turnpike in hoping to view the countryside and subsequently wind up lost in a backwoods section of New Jersey. Passenger Bertila Damas suggests the unplanned exit because "this road is such a dull place." This route in itself is a mistake in the film's logic, as New York travelers wishing to go to Atlantic City would naturally transfer to the Garden State Parkway (which is closer to the coast than the Turnpike) long before reaching rural areas of New Jersey.
  • In the film Being John Malkovich (1999), after one becomes John Malkovich and then eventually leaves him, one falls out of the sky next to the New Jersey Turnpike. Scenes were filmed on the Holland Tunnel extension at Interchange 14C in Jersey City.
  • The opening to each episode of the HBO television series The Sopranos features main character Tony Soprano driving on the Turnpike.
  • The 1989 book Looking For America On The New Jersey Turnpike (ISBN 978-0-8135-1955-5), itself taking its title from the Simon and Garfunkel song, chronicles the history of "America's Main Road" and analyzes its place in American culture.
  • The New Jersey Turnpike drink was created as a joke about the highway. It consists of squeezing a rag that previously had been used to soak up spilled alcohol on the bar into a shot glass.
  • In the videogame, Earthbound, for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, when you search the desk inside the house for sale in Onett town, you can find a joke story about a man making excuses to a police officer after being pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike.
  • Alan Jackson's song "Where I Come From" makes reference to "Rollin' wheels and shifting gears 'round that Jersey Turnpike"

Error regarding I-95

As a NJ native who lives within three miles of Exit 2, and who commutes North on the NJTPK frequently, I'm sorry to report there is an error in this article. I-95 does not begin (yet) at northbound Exit 6. Perhaps it will after the I-95/PATPK interchange is complete in a few years. Presently, however, the Turnpike becomes I-95 only at Exit 10 in Edison. Between Exits 7A (I-195) and 10, there are numerous signs northbound stating "To I-95", but they don't change to simply "I-95" until Exit 10.

Officially, therefore, I-95 is disconnected from the US1 interchange in Lawrenceville, NJ (where the highway becomes I-295 South) to the NJTPK/I-287 interchange in Edison, NJ. Northbound travelers who wish to remain on limited access highways must take I-295 South 8 miles south to I-195 East, then I-195 7 miles East to the NJTPK interchange, and finally the NJTPK 28 miles North to Exit 10. Southbound travelers take this route in reverse. (Yes, it's faster and shorter to take the PATPK connector at Exit 6, making your way briefly through the streets of Bristol, PA to jump from the PATPK to I-95.) 71.125.129.29 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the I-95 straight line diagram (3rd one down in "External links"), as well as this page. Officially, I-95 does end at the Pennsylvania state line on the Pennsylvania extension.
That being said, you may be correct that the statements in the article regarding signage are incorrect, as I've never seen any sources to confirm this. -- NORTH talk 23:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I-95 reassurance markers (without "To") are found on the Turnpike mainline according to this site. (See the 2nd, 7th, and 14th pictures on the left column). There is also supposedly one on the Pennsylvania extension. See also the left column near the bottom of this. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much. -- NORTH talk 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg

Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Exit 8 Diagram

I wanted to bring up a concern about Image:Proposed int. 8 copy.jpg.I noticed that the drawing shows the interchange as a SPUI but all sources I can find say the interchange geometry has not yet been determined. Is there a source that confirms this as a SPUI? If not, perhaps it would be best to drop that image until the interchange geometry is finalized? --Clubjuggle 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out this pdf file...

http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/NJTA_PIC_Brochure_091307.pdf

Page 7

Route 82 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Rest areas

One question that I often have about a rest areas: which exit is this rest area between. Could that info be added? Separating rest areas into 2 lists, "southbound" and "northbound", could also be useful. Even though the introduction talks about "The New Jersey Turnpike is noted for naming its rest areas after people who lived or worked in New Jersey", it could be confusing that these links go to pages about the individuals. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Exit list still needs attention?

Looks fine to me, from what I can see. Is there a reason I'm missing as to why it needs attention? --Dbm11085 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of inconsistencies with formatting. Some route names were spelled out, some weren't. Sometimes it was a hyphen before the cities, sometimes an en-dash. Sometimes a comma between routes, sometimes a slash. It has been fixed and untagged now. -- Kéiryn talk 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Check image captions against MOS; sentences shouldn't end in periods, I believe. Check to see what the current policy on bolding in the Route description is. "aforementioned Alfred Joyce Kilmer" -- shorten to "Kilmer". Dates should be wikified accordingly. Prose needs some help; capitalization issues, nonencyclopedic phrases and instances of addressing the second person (you) are some of the problems. Remove the external link in the text. Don't bold text in the prose. (six) Any reason relocated is italicized?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The Route description is almost entirely uncited. "Contemporary New Jersey writers such as Calvin Trillin and Philip Roth have ruefully commented that they hope they do not get a rest stop named after them once they die." -- funny, but uncited. The History section is almost completely uncited. Every single bullet point in a Future section must be referenced to merit inclusion. The exit list is uncited, specifically opening dates. Is nycroads.com a reliable source?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Define IBTTA. The History section doesn't read like one - it's way too broad with not enough dates as "anchor points" for the reader. If these dates are not available, this does not apply. History section needs more planning info - I can't imagine that they planned and then built a mile, and then took a look around, asking "Well, now what?" The History tends to read that way. "Pop culture references" is structured like a trivia section... it needs to be cited and perhaps rewritten into paragraph form.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "Perhaps surprisingly, the Looking for America book describes the Edison, Lombardi, and Kilmer rest stops as possible hot spots for heterosexual, homosexual, and prostitution activities respectively." -- somewhat trivial, not cited, irrelevant and not measurable. "Even long-time local motorists frequently do not know who some of these people were, or in the case of Kilmer, even what gender they were. (Kilmer's full name is Alfred Joyce Kilmer.)" -- subjective, would remove. "A weird cloverleaf interchange would be built in lieu of a diamond interchange." -- weird is definitely POV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Check Image:NJTP_Exit_8A.JPG. Image:NJTP_VMS.JPG - they have a message. Image:New_Jersey_Turnpike_Construction_1951_LOC.jpg may not be in the public domain; provide fair use rationale if it isn't. There are too many images... the interchange ones in particular interrupt the flow of the text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Article has some issues that need to be worked through. Good luck! —Rob (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Junctions

Before I added another junction, I wanted some input on this thought... I was thinking that Interstate 280 should be added since it is an interstate. What are peoples thoughts on this? I know that we should only have a maximum of 10 major JCT, but I'm wondering if 280 is left for a reason.
9:15 ET 30 October 2008 Mlaurenti

Actually, I'm not sure why it wasn't on there to begin with. Before we start adding NJ routes, shouldn't we follow the hierarchy of roads: 1.) Major Interstates (0's or 5's), 2.) 2-digit Interstates, 3.) All other interstates, 4.) Major US Routes (0's and 1's), 5.) 2-digit US Routes, 6.) All other US Routes, 7.) State Route Freeways, 8.) 2-digit state routes, 9.) All other state routes, 10.) anything left (county routes, trunk routes, etc.)? So, IMO, NJ 168, NJ 18, and NJ 495 should be canned in lieu of I-280, US 206, and US 322. Thoughts? EaglesFanInTampa 14:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure why NJ 168 is there. If I recall correctly, that exit isn't that heavily used (although I could be wrong). NJ 18 is important because it is one of the busiest exits on the turnpike. US 206 isn't that heavily traveled, as well as US 322.
I think the most heavily used interchanges and interstates (regardless of usage) should be in the JCT box. Routes 18 and 495 should really be there because a) there heavily used and b) they both lead to major points (18 to US 1 & New Brunswick - 495 to Lincoln Tunnel).
10:09 ET 03 November 2008 Mlaurenti

wide load on turn pike is it possible

there does not seem to be a lot of room between the toll booths can i get a 12 foot wide machine though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.40.119 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What movie?

In the Pop Culture section, one of the entries is: "In the movie Harold and Kumar go to White Castle ...." What is the name of the movie? Eagle4000 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The name of the movie is Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. I've italicized the name in the article. Good catch! -Sme3 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You know your movies better than I do! Eagle4000 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

link with no info

The following item under "External Links" takes you to a State of NJ webpage that says "no access": "An expanded view of road jurisdiction near the confluence of US 46, I-95 / NJTurnpike, I 280, NJ 7 and CR 508 in Kearny". Should the entry be removed? Eagle4000 (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think so. From that description, I can't figure out what the page should be telling me anyway. There are plenty of online and offline maps of the NJ Turnpike (and nearly everywhere else in the world), and I don't think one needs to be listed as an external link. -Sme3 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Renumbering the exits on the New Jersey Turnpike

The exits will probably be renumbered on the New Jersey Turnpike. The reason that the exits would probably be renumbered are:

  • The MUTCD will require that exit numbers be mileage-based.
  • I-95 will be rerouted over the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the I-95 interchange with I-276 to the New Jersey state line, the Pennsylvania Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike, and the New Jersey Turnpike mainline north of the Pennsylvania Extension interchange.
  • Some of the interchanges were added after the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike, and currently carry suffixed exit numbers. With the change to mileage-based exit numbering, the exits would carry mileage-based numbers. With mileage-based numbering, almost all of the exits on the turnpike would receive new exit numbers. There would be no suffixed exit numbers with the switchover to mileage-based numbering, because most of the exits are more than one mile away from each other, and only one exit appears between each milepost (with exits on I-95 being numbered based on mileage along the future I-95 alignment).

Table of what the exit numbering might look like:

County Location Current Exit number Future Exit number Mile[1][2] Destinations Notes
Salem Pennsville Twp 0.00 I-295 / US 40 – Delaware Memorial Bridge Opened November 5, 1951
Carneys Point Township 1 1.12 US 40 / Route 140 / CR 540 – Penns Grove, Deepwater, Atlantic City
1 2 2.4 Exit 1 Toll Plaza (Delaware Memorial Bridge)
Gloucester Woolwich Township 2 12 12.8 US 322 / CR 536 – Swedesboro, Chester, Pennsylvania, Commodore Barry Bridge Opened November 5, 1951
Camden Boro of Runnemede 3 26 26.1
Route 168 to A.C. Expressway – Camden, Philadelphia, Woodbury 		Opened November 5, 1951
Burlington Mount Laurel Township 4 34 34.5 Route 73 – Camden, Philadelphia, Berlin Opened November 5, 1951
Westampton Township 5 44 44.1 CR 541 – Burlington, Mount Holly, Willingboro Opened November 5, 1951
Mansfield Township 6 51 51.0
P5.6 		I-276 / US 130 – Florence, Pennsylvania Turnpike Opened May 25, 1956. Eastern terminus of Pennsylvania Extension.

Unsigned Interstate 95 south. Will be signed once upgrade work is completed. Turnpike will divide northbound, and merge southbound when reconstruction of turnpike is complete. The exit from I-95 northbound to southbound New Jersey Turnpike would be renumbered as exit 5.
(Inner roadway for cars only, outer roadway for cars-trucks-buses.)

Florence Twp (6A) 2 P2.6 US 130 – Burlington, Bordentown, Florence Opened May 25, 1956; partial exit was converted to a full exit in 1998-99. Toll plaza located at milepost P3.17 using Express EZ-Pass.
Bordentown Twp 7 7 53.3 US 206 – Bordentown, Trenton, Fort Dix, Hammonton Originally opened November 30, 1951; current ramps opened in 1990[3]
Mercer Robbinsville Township 7A 15 60.5 I-195 – Trenton, Shore Points, Six Flags Great Adventure Opened in the 1970s
East Windsor Township 8 22 67.6
Route 33 to Route 133 – Hightstown, Freehold, East Windsor 		Opened November 30, 1951
Middlesex Cranbury Twp 72.8 Turnpike divides northbound, merges southbound until reconstruction is complete.
(Inner roadway for cars only, outer roadway for cars-trucks-buses.)
Monroe Township 8A 28 73.9 Route 32 / CR 535 / CR 612 – Jamesburg, South Brunswick, Cranbury, Princeton Opened 1968
East Brunswick Township 9 38 83.4 Route 18 / US 1 / CR 527 – New Brunswick, East Brunswick, South River Opened November 30, 1951
Edison Township 10 42 88.1 I-287 / Route 440 / CR 514 – Perth Amboy, Metuchen, Edison, Outerbridge Crossing Originally opened November 30, 1951 to connect with the Garden State Parkway, rebuilt in 1966 to connect with Interstate 287 and Route 440
Woodbridge Township 11 45 91.0 US 9 / G.S. Parkway – Woodbridge, Shore Points Originally opened November 30, 1951 to connect with U.S. Route 9, rebuilt in 1966 to connect with the Garden State Parkway; No trucks allowed on Garden State Parkway
Boro of Carteret 12 50 95.9 CR 602 – Carteret, Rahway Opened December 12, 1951
Union City of Elizabeth 13 54 99.4 I-278 / Route 439 – Elizabeth, Goethals Bridge, Verrazano Bridge Opened December 12, 1951
13A 56 101.6 Route 81 – Elizabeth, Newark Airport, Elizabeth Seaport Opened in 1982
Essex City of Newark 14 59 104.7 I-78 / US 1-9 / US 22 – Newark Airport Opened December 12, 1951; western terminus of the Newark Bay Extension
Hudson City of Jersey City 14A 62 N3.5 Route 440 – Bayonne Opened April 4, 1956; on the Newark Bay Extension
14B 64A N5.5 Jersey City, Liberty State Park, Garfield Avenue, LSP Park and Ride Opened September 15, 1956; on the Newark Bay Extension
14C 64B N5.9 Holland Tunnel, Columbus Drive, Downtown Jersey City, Journal Square Opened September 15, 1956; on the Newark Bay Extension
Essex City of Newark 105.6 Car/truck lanes merge northbound, split southbound.
Eastern and western spurs split northbound, merge southbound.
15E 61 E106.9
US 1-9 Truck – Newark, Jersey City 		Opened December 12, 1951; full interchange on the Eastern Spur, southbound exit and northbound entrance on the Western Spur
Hudson Town of Kearny 15W 63 E108.5
W108.8 		I-280 – Newark, Kearny, The Oranges Opened January 1970; full interchange on the Western Spur, southbound exit and northbound entrance on the Eastern Spur
Town of Secaucus 15X 64 E110.8 Secaucus Junction, Secaucus Opened December 1, 2005; on the Eastern Spur
16E
18E 		66 E112.3 Exit 16E/18E Toll Plaza (Lincoln Tunnel/George Washington Bridge)
17 67 E112.7 Route 3 / Route 495 – Lincoln Tunnel, Secaucus Opened January 15, 1952 as four ramps at Route 3. Southbound exit and northbound entrance only; exit tolled only for motorists going from Turnpike southbound to Route 495 eastbound. Route 495 westbound to Turnpike northbound is free
Bergen Boro of East Rutherford 16W 67 W112.7 Route 3 – Secaucus, Rutherford, Lincoln Tunnel, Meadowlands Sports Complex Opened January 1970; on the Western Spur
Boro of Carlstadt 18W 68 W113.8 Exit 18W Toll Plaza (George Washington Bridge)
Village of Ridgefield Park E117.2
W116.8 		Eastern and Western Spurs merge northbound and split southbound.
Express and local lanes split northbound and merge southbound.
Interstate 95 continues north to the George Washington Bridge, maintained by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.

Notice the following about the new exit numbers:

  • The new exit numbers would be mileage-based.
  • The exit numbers on the Newark Bay extension would be a continuation of the exit numbers along I-78. This is because the Newark Bay extension is part of I-78, and the exit numbers along this section should be based on I-78 mileage.
  • The exit numbers on the Pennsylvania Extension and the mainline north of the Pennsylvania Extension interchange would be mileage-based, from the Pennsylvania state line, based on I-95 mileage along the future I-95 alignment. The reasons for numbering the exits in this manner are:
    • This part of the New Jersey Turnpike currently is part of or will be part of I-95.
    • According to the MUTCD, exit numbers should be calculated based on I-95 mileage along the Pennsylvania Extension and the mainline north of the Pennsylvania Extension interchange.
    • There is an exit on the Pennsylvania Extension between the Pennsylvania state line and the New Jersey Turnpike mainline.
  • The exit numbers on the mainline south of the Pennsylvania Extension interchange, and the exit from the mainline to the Pennsylvania extension would receive mileage-based exit numbers relative to the southern terminus of the New Jersey Turnpike.
  • The exit from I-95 northbound to the southbound New Jersey Turnpike mainline at the Pennsylvania Extension would be numbered Exit 5.
  • The list shown here is based on the MUTCD standard mileage-based numbering scheme, and is not the official list published by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. The actual mileage-based exit numbers used might be different, especially if the New Jersey Turnpike Authority decides to use a different numbering scheme from the one illustrated here.

Jplatts (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Suggest we wait on an official announcement though. It strikes me that the numbering system is so much a part of New Jersey culture (so to speak) that the state might seek a waiver.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That's some mighty fine OR, with no sources whatsoever. Not only doesn't it belong in the article, it doesn't belong here per WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, it also over-emphasizes the I-95 issue and ignores the fact that the Turnpike is the Turnpike for its entire length and predates anything about I-95's very existence, not just the re-routing. TheTurnpike is numbered as it is because it's one road, and numbering will always follow the mainline, not the extensions. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Turnpike" name

It would help to know why it is called a "turnpike". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See Turnpike; it's a classic term for a toll road. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Done by Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The New Jersey Routes 100, 101, S101 and 300 article contains some info from predecessors to the Turnpike, and it would kill a stub. --Admrboltz (talk)

  • Seems like a good call to me. Support. – TMF 15:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Help to detail Turnpike history. Perhaps eventually we can have a sub article on history. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merging 100, 101, and 300 to the New Jersey Turnpike article. S101, which is also covered in the article, should be merged into the Garden State Parkway article however as what was planned as S101 eventually became part of the Parkway. Dough4872 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Description for the Turnpike

After looking over the "Route description" of the road, I'm wondering if maybe the Turnpike should have a thorough Route Description from the southern end in Pennsville all the way up to Fort Lee. When looking at other expressway pages (such as I-195, the Parkway, I-80, etc). I've drafted an entire description, but before doing anything, I'd like to get peoples input as to whether or not it would be appropriate.

But that would also mean that a lot of info that's currently there would either have to be moved or deleted. Any thoughts? Mlaurenti (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've actually never liked those route descriptions, as the tone of them always reads as more appropriate for a travel guide than an encyclopedia. Too informal, and, though not as bad as they used to be (when they included "you"s), they read as though they are addressing the reader directly and individually, which is off. I think this article is fine as it is. oknazevad (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the input. Mlaurenti (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

exit 10 location

OK, the table has reference to old exit 10 (connection from N-bound turnpike to N-bound GS Parkway and from S-bound GS Parkway to S-bound turnpike; any other turnpike-parkway connections had to be done via exit 11). But it has occurred to me that old exit 10 was further north. Consider putting a new entry in the table using the milepost where the GS Parkway crosses the turnpike, with emphasis that this is now closed and the exit number re-used. This would pick up the notes for old exit 10 which currently are included in those for new exit 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Finances or Fanzine?

Where is the discussion of the finances of the Turnpike and the Authority? This looks like a fanzine article. DCDuring (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, the Authority should be a separate article, and that information would be there, not here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Before I get into the full review, there are two dab links that need to be fixed: John Fenwick and Mansfield Township, New Jersey. There are also five external link issues (use the tool in the toolbox to see them).

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Some of this content should be spun off into a separate New Jersey Turnpike Authority article. Since the authority also maintains the GSP, trying to add everything needed about the authority here isn't very focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks fine
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No evidence of edit warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    See below.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article just needs too much work, and I don't think it can be done in the usual seven-day hold period. The article can be renominated after the issues are fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 1 comments
  • The bulleted lists should go and get converted into prose in the "Recent developments" and "Future developments" sections.
  • The lead is too short for an article of this size; it should be about three good-size paragraphs in length and summarize every section of the article. Some sections will have more content in the lead, which is fine, but every section needs to be in there somehow, and the overall length needs expansion
  • I'll break down the prose comments by section below, but this article needs work.
Criterion 2 comments
  • "New Jersey Turnpike in popular culture" needs citations for each item, especially that direct quotation. The simplest solution would be to add footnotes to the movies and songs. The Sopranos item should be cited to some production notes about the show.
  • Beyond that section, there are whole parts of the article missing citations. Please make sure that all statistics, quotations, opinions and and counter-intuitive statements are cited.
  • Footnote 22 is to a self-published source, and it needs to be removed and replaced with another source for that information.
Criterion 6 comments
  • I have questions about whether or not File:NewJerseyTurnpike.jpg is properly licensed. I would feel better if the original uploader were contacted and an OTRS ticket submitted to verify this work.
  • The captions need to be fixed; only captions that are full sentences should have terminal punctuation. As a side note, I wouldn't force image size unless you're enlarging over the default of 240px... many of these photos are just too small.
Non-GA criteria comments
  • The section ordering needs to be improved. There are suggested sections at WP:USRD/STDS that would apply here, that would improve the organization of the article
    • The "Rest areas" and "Emergency assistance" would be better as a "Services" section after the RD section
    • The HQ section should be removed to the authority article.
    • "Toll collection" should just be "Tolls" since it also covers the rates.
    • "Recent developments" should be part of the "History" section.
    • "Future developments" can be simplified to just "Future", and the content there should be simplified and condensed a bit. There's extraneous information that just doesn't need to be there (like the full details of all of the various options considered in the widening project; Why not summarize the key points of the rejected plans and go into detail on the one chosen?)
    • "Minimum speed" should be in the RD section
    • "Further reading" goes after "References" per MOS:LAYOUT.
    • "New Jersey Turnpike in popular culture" should not repeat the subject of the article (MOS:HEAD), and it would be better placed after the History and Future sections and ahead of the exit list.
  • The boldface terms in the RD should be incorporated into the lead and boldfaced there. (The ones for the service plaza names are the exception, and correct per MOS:BOLD.)
  • The cutout shields in the browser of the infobox should be replaced with text; they already appear in the body of the article (although using {{infobox road small}} might be better for them).
  • The "See also" section needs to be removed; both links are already in the body of the article.
See also section has portal boxes now. Tinton5 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Lead
  • "12-foot (3.7 m)–wide lanes, 10-foot (3.0 m)–wide shoulders" should be "12-foot–wide (3.7 m) lanes, 10-foot–wide (3.0 m) shoulders". Using {{convert}} with the |adj=mid|-wide coding would solve that for you.
    • Not quite sure how to do this. Tinton5 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't mention what highway designations the NJTP carries, which is an omission from the lead.
RD
  • This is maybe a bit more of a personal preference, but in a sense, it's necessary. The first time a highway designation of a "class" is used, the abbreviation should follow the full name in parentheses. This article doesn't use the abbreviations in the prose, but they are in use in the infobox and exit list, so the abbreviation conventions do need to be introduced. (Since state routes are using "Route 700", there's no need to use this convention.)
  • Once a highway of each type is introduced that way, I personally only use the abbreviations after that point. So if I-295 is the first Interstate mentioned, and I-95 comes second, then I would just abbreviate I-95. Ditto US Highways and county routes.
  • Personally, I don't consider exit numbers to be proper nouns, so they shouldn't be capitalized. They should have a non-breaking space between the word and the number so that they can't fall on opposite sides of a line break. (In other words, type out "exit&nbsp;11" so that "exit" doesn't appear at the end of a line and "11" at the start of the next one.
  • Outside of the lead sentence, "turnpike" when used alone is not a proper now and should not be capitalized unless it is used in the form "New Jersey Turnpike" or similar.
  • "6:00-9:00 northbound, and 16:00-19:00 (4pm-7pm) " two things: use an en dash in ranges like this, and second, either make both sets of time a.m./p.m or using the 24-hour clock. Also note, a.m. and p.m. are abbreviations for ante meridian and post meridian and have periods in them (so a.m. isn't confused for "am", the verb).
  • " HOV lanes exist .. " spell out high-occupancy vehicle and include the abbreviation in parentheses
  • "might "suspend" the" why the scare quotes? They're unnecessary and need to be removed.
  • "The Turnpike also has two extensions: The first .." drop the cap on the "the" after the colon and change the colon to a semicolon or change the colon to a period.
  • " A 6-mile (10 km) long six-lane highway," has to issues. First, it should be "six-mile-long (10 km)" and there should be a comma after the metric conversion to separate the two adjectives: "six-mile-long" and "six-lane" since both equally describe the highway. Round measurements like this with a number under ten should be spelled out and any "-mile-long" constructions need the "long" hyphenated to the "mile".
  • "the NJDOT "sold" the road" the definitive article ("the") isn't needed in front of an acronym that can be pronounced, and once again, square quotes are not appropriate here.
Bridges
  • "Interchange 12" should be exit 12 for consistency with the rest of the article.
Rest areas
  • "Prior to Exit 13A opening in 1982, there used to be a service area on the northbound side where Exit 13A is located. The service area usage did overlap the existence of Exit 13A (northbound drivers who took Exit 13A missed the service area, and vice versa) but is no longer in existence. Today, one can notice it when exiting at 13A from the northbound car lanes since there is a 'temporary' concrete barrier that's blocking an open asphalt lot."—the whole thing needs a good copy edit.

From here on out, I won't comment further on the prose. The article needs a good copy edit to satisfy criterion 1a. There are many of the same issues that I noted above throughout the remainder of the prose, and they all need to be corrected.

Exit list
  • "Boro of Runnemede" is a misspelling; you need "Borough" there.
  • "Boro of Runnemede/Boro of Bellmawr" is the exit on the line between the two? If so, that should be a spaced en dash, not an unspaced slash there.
  • The note below the table would be better above it.
Post-review comments

I have removed all of your cute check marks. Please don't mark things as done yourself; that is normally done by the reviewer. I'd be happy to revisit your progress if you like, but adding those check marks like that is akin to me saying the issues are addressed. Based on the renomination's quick-fail, it's clear they aren't, or aren't done appropriately. You can insert comments after anything above (please do so on a separate line, indented below the comment using **) and I'll come back. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent GAN quick-failed

Having read the issues in the previous GA nomination on this article and looking at what there is now, the issues of the previous GAN have not sufficiently been addressed for this to warrant a GA review. This includes the following:

  • There are significant verifiability gaps all over the article; entire paragraphs and portions of the article remain unreferenced from the previous GAN.
  • The prose has not significantly improved from the previous GAN; paragraphing is sorely inconsistent, and there are other significant grammar and syntax errors that remain, especially in the second half of the article.

The article still needs a significant cleanup, and as such, I am quick-failing this GA nomination and removing this from the list of current GANs (i.e. I will not bother creating another subpage for this). –MuZemike 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ticketing by entry/exit time?

I was told that the turnpike used to give speeding tickets based on the entry/exit time and the known number of miles in between. They stopped because of a legal challenge. I expected something like that would be mentioned here (but currently it is not). Any sources that it actually happened? Yakatz (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Flow of article is like a steady stream of cars down the turnpike ( that is good). ✓ Pass
    (b) (MoS) The articles passes regarding this criteria ✓ Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References are factual and accurate ✓ Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass in this category ✓ Pass
    (c) (original research) All information in the article passes ✓ Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Covers entirely all vital areas of the article. ✓ Pass
    (b) (focused) Clearly written and to the point ✓ Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Pass here as well ✓ Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No edit wars or feuds. ✓ Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Many, many relevant images, fair use as well ✓ Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images and captions are relevant and appropriate ✓ Pass

Result

Result Notes
✓ Pass All-around a stellar article, and up to GA form!

Oakley77 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Please feel free to comment! Oakley77 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is far from meeting the GA criteria and needs to have a second look taken. Here are my reasons why:
  1. There are numerous unreferenced statements throughout the article.
  2. There is poor formatting with embedded tables ans bulleted lists.
  3. There are quite a few dead links in the article.
  4. Reference 21 is a WP:SPS and is therefore not reliable.
  5. There are some poorly constructed one-sentence paragraphs in the article.
  6. The Headquarters and operations facilities section should have a summary of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority article. Dough4872 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fully endorse comments above; this article is far from the GA standard. --Rschen7754 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I also endorse the comments, with some of my own:

  1. Most of the RD section isn't sourced, which is a shame, because that's the easiest thing to source in a highway article! Plot the driving directions from one terminus to the other in the online mapping service of your choice. Switch that map's display to the version that includes the satellite/aerial imagery (or the hybrid if needed to retain the labels). Then export the link to that and paste it into {{google maps}}, {{bing maps}} or {{yahoo maps}} for an instant reference. Add a citation to a reputable paper map, and cite the two items in pairs at the end of each paragraph as needed. I recommend the state DOT's map, or if the NJTA has one, use that; other cartography company's products are good, so a recent Rand McNally atlas or Universal Map folding map works too.
  2. The Bridges subsection doesn't need to exist. Just note where the bridges are along the prose description of the route. If you need to source details in your description of the routing of the highway, just add the additional footnotes inline if they aren't noted on the maps used for the rest of the RD section. Segregating them like this means that we don't have a continuous flow of the description of the highway from one end of the other to the overall RD section, which is poor writing style.
  3. I see a handful of instances where words are used as proper nouns when they are not.
    1. "When traveling from the North" in this case, "north" is not a proper noun, but a direction.
    2. "which parallels the Turnpike" in this case, "turnpike", without any modifiers, is not a proper noun, regardless of the local idiomatic usages. It is a colloquialism in the capitalized format, and that's not proper for an encyclopedic work outside of direct quotations.
    3. "the Southern Terminus " is not a proper noun. Please audit the entire article for misuse of capitalization and correct it.
  4. If we're going to include a "Headquarters and operations facilities", then per WP:SUMMARY, we need a summary of the other article here. Honestly, I'd can it as a section. You have ample links to the authority in the article. If the HQ building is along the turnpike, just make a note of it in the RD like any other landmark.
  5. Ok, pet peeve time: in the bottom of the infobox and at the top of the history section, you have the icon graphics for the old New Jersey Highway 100 and 300 designations.
    1. In the infobox, switch them out for text, because at the 20px size, they're illegible. Do it just like the Route 700 designation in the first line, but add "Route" to all three.
    2. In the history, please use {{infobox road small}} to not only show the older markers for the now unused designations, but provide a little context. U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, off the top of my head, has the M-16 designation shown in its history section that way. The other option is to make them a proper thumbnail, maybe like I did with M-5 (Michigan highway) with a caption that explains why you're showing us those graphics.
  6. Do we really need the whole Kathleen Troast Pitney quote? Can it be paraphrased without losing the information you're trying to impart? If so, paraphrase and summarize.
  7. The history section is kinda long, so you might consider adding some subsections if there are logical breaks in the chronology. The US 16 article I linked above has divided the history up into a few eras so that the section isn't a massive wall of text and photos. That's also a good technique for long RD sections, like U.S. Route 131.
    1. Note, in this case, I would leave "Services" elevated to a main section per WP:USRD/STDS instead of demoting it to a subsection of the RD like in the US 131 case.
    2. I would also promote Tolls to a main section instead of leaving it in the RD as a subsection per USRD/STDS.
  8. Popular culture sections are general somewhat despised, but I would keep it.
    1. I wouldn't format it as a list though since you could put it into a nice prose summary. Either way, can we at least have a short introduction into the subject like, "The New Jersey Turnpike has been featured in several/some/a few times in the media. These depictions include the Bruce Springsteen song..." That way you're segueing into the topic. Remember, each item listed will require a citation, and even if the prose already lists the name of the article, song and album, I would toss in a footnote for that source for consistency with the other items.
    2. The only thing is that it shouldn't separate the History section from the Future section, since both are dealing with the chronology of the subject.
  9. A good section order might instead be:
    1. RD, with geographic subsections and the speed limits subsection if that can't be integrated into the rest better
    2. Tolls, or Services
    3. Services, or Tolls
    4. Popular culture
    5. History
    6. Future
    7. Exit list
    8. See also
    9. References
    10. Further reading
    11. External links
  10. As for the future section. you might be better served by trimming and condensing content here. At some point, it needs to be summarized (per WP:UNDUE) and merged into the history. Try not to go too overboard now, or the s-merging will be harder after the events are done. If you can, kill the entire table there in favor of a simple text description of the project.
  11. In the exist list, the mileage column should be on the left, and the exit column should be on the right. The major bridges can be listed here as well, like in the Interstate 75 in Michigan exit list.
  12. The citations aren't formatting consistently.
    1. Some press releases are using {{cite press release}}, and therefore have "(Press release)." in the citation, and some aren't and have a manually formatted "NJDOT News Release."
    2. Others are using inconsistent italics (fn 27) for the title of a report by formatting it as the title of a book apparently.
    3. Many of the rest are incomplete, like fn 28 that lacks author, work/publisher, publisher location (where appropriate), date and other attribution information.
  13. Last comment, but I'm personally opposed to lengthy quotations in references. They bulk up the footnotes section. I do one of three things when the information may be needed for future verification and there are concerns with losing it to a dead link:
    1. Pre-emptively archive the source using webcitation.org like I did to the online news articles on County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan)
    2. Enclose the quotation in <!-- --> tags after the citation template, but inside the <ref> </ref> tags.
    3. Paste the quoted material on the talk page of the article, like was done with the text of the Memorandum of Understanding contracts for M-108 (Michigan highway) or M-168 (Michigan highway).

Because of these comments, and the others, I have to respectfully disagree with the opinion of the review in terms of criteria 1a, 2b and 3a/b. There is plenty of work to be done to bring this up to the expectations of a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Review failed as an improper review. The normal course of action would be to delete the review and try for another reviewer, but as others have opined against promotion, I've gone ahead and failed the review. --Rschen7754 00:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Would any of you be willing to help improve this page with all of the suggestions listed? It seems like more work than I thought. I will start finding more citations and such. Tinton5 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Exit list

Bravo, Dough4872, for applying Template:Jctint.

I noticed that the entries under the Destinations column, while informative, are far in excess of those actually posted on exit signs along the Turnpike. Is there a standard practice for distinguishing between actual vs. posted destinations in exit lists? Martindelaware (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's MOS:RJL, which says the Destinations column should have "locations and roads as presented on guide signs for the junction. Other locations should not be listed unless that location is extremely notable and well known." –TCN7JM 03:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The exist list needs more work; the notes should be simplified. The opening dates may be overkill, and a lot of the content should be pared back. Exit 10, for example, has a small paragraph there. These details should be present in the text of the article, and the notes should be short, punchy statements like photo captions. Also, the exit list should be using cardinal directions, not "start", "begin" or "end" because the table can be read from the bottom up for the southbound direction. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Exit" versus "exit"

Someone may have already touched on this, but I'm wondering why when the article refers to Exit 7A (for example) that it's written "exit 7A." It looks rather awkward, and most articles (and newspapers) capitalize the "E." Why shouldn't it be "Exit 7A?" Mlaurenti (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Turnipike to NJ 49

SLDIAG shows NJ Turnpike maintenance to NJ 49. Thus, for the very same reason you have exit 72 listed, you must keep NJ 49 listed. Famartin (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I should note that the ramps for the US 130/Route 49 interchange are technically along I-295 and are maintained by the NJDOT, with DRBA maintenance beginning to the west of the interchange. The New Jersey Turnpike merges into the median of I-295 within this interchange, so the US 130/Route 49 interchange is not considered to be along the New Jersey Turnpike but rather I-295. Dough4872 03:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The main roadway is NJTA jurisdiction up to the overpass in the middle of the interchange. Plus, it was built as part of the original turnpike in 1952 (as opposed to I-95 north of US 46, which was built separately many years later and only forced upon NJTA in 1990). Its more legitimately part of the turnpike than I-95 north of US 46 is, that's for sure. Famartin (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
However the ramps for US 130/Route 49 do not intersect with the New Jersey Turnpike but rather the lanes belonging to I-295. According to the SLD for I-295, maintenance changes from DRBA to NJDOT at the US 130/Route 49 interchange which would put maintenance of that interchange with those agencies. The beginning of the northbound New Jersey Turnpike splits from the left side of northbound I-295 within the interchange while the southbound New Jersey Turnpike merges into I-295 well before the Route 49 exit. Therefore, the NJTA doesn't maintain the interchange with US 130/Route 49 as the ramps do not intersect the mainline proper and the interchange is not considered to be along the New Jersey Turnpike but rather I-295. Dough4872 04:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Length

Shouldn't the introduction have a piece of information as basic as the approximate length (or lengths, given the variants) of the Turnpike? JKeck (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox map

The current map in the info box at the top is too large and shows the roadway not standing out with the other roads. A better, clearer map should be added, with no logos, just like the one for the PA Turnpike main infobox. Tinton5 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Map of proposals and extensions

The History section could use a map showing the locations of the various pieces that were never built. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not all of this road is tolled

I made a change recently which seems to have been undone by someone else. Not all of the road you describe is tolled. Only the part from US 40/NJ 140 in the south to US 46 in the north is tolled. The Turnpike authority also took over the short free stretch between US 130 and US 40/NJ 140 in the south (i.e., starting where DRBA jurisdiction ends, coming off Delaware Memorial Bridge), and the free part of I-95 from US 46 to the George Washington Bridge.

Notice that in New York State the Thruway authority took over some non-toll stretches.

It was unnecessary and inappropriate to place the information where you did. There is a section called "tolls" within the article where your information would be useful (in fact, I notice now it says "tolls are located at all exits and entrances" which clearly isn't the case). I would suggest placing that information there (and perhaps making additional edits to clarify the extent of the toll sections).Famartin (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Should the "detailed map" stay?

I was wondering if the detailed map showing interchange locations should be removed bcause:
1. It's not a standard addition to road articles
2. It has an obsolete I-95 shield on present I-295 (more so this reason) Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want, but I see no harm in the map staying there (could always update the shields though). Dough4872 13:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello @Tinton5:, I believe we have met. I will take on this mammoth of an article and will ensure a premium and thorough review. I apologize for the almost ONE YEAR wait, but we have a lot of work ahead of us. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Major issues

  • Tags:I see an "Update tag", plenty of "Full citation needed" tags, some "Dead link" tags, an "unreliable source" tag, and a "trivia" tag. This could become an immediate failure if not addressed per the criteria. Please address these.
  • Copy violations: [2] and [3]. The first one may be copying the article, but the second one is from a SPS.
  • Dead links: References number 33 and 34 are dead.

Major reference issues

  • Reference number 40 is a Self Published Source and has a tag on it.
  • Reference number 15 is also self published, but could possibly work if you give a rationale.

Issues

  • Some refs have a {!} template for the ref titles.
  • Second half of "tolls" section has no citations.
  • Some WP:WEASELWORDS such as "is considered"
  • An entire trivia section
More to come

Impressions

@Tinton5: We have a lot of work cut out for this article. There are numerous issues that could currently qualify this for a immediate failure. However, knowing your edits and your dedication, I will give you a chance. I do not believe in quick fails unless they are absolutely needed or the editor does not show any dedication. Tinton, I believe in you, but it is going to be a ton of work. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tinton5: You coming back? Its been 3 days and we have a ton of work to do. If you don't respond on time. I will fail this as a result of the major issues and your absence. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi American Air yes I have been rather busy lately but when I get home I will work on this. Tinton5 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tinton5: Thank you. Any update? Failing will occur if the review does not get attention as a result of the surplus of issues. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tinton5: Final alert. Today is your last day before I fail the GAN. The amount of work needed to be done is a lot. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

@Tinton5: I apologize. but the lack of interest and the several issues have been present during this review. You said you would do it and I gave you another week. I am going to have to ✗ Fail this nomination. Feel free to nominate this again once the issues are fixed and you are present. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Major Junction List

Happy New Year to you all. I was looking at the major junction list, and I was thinking about replacing some junctions with others that I think are more major than others. For example, I don't necessarily see US 322 and US 46 in Ridgefield Park as being major. I was thinking of at least replacing US 322 with Route 495.

Before getting into an editing spat, I'd like to get input on what makes a particular junction "major." I do know that interstates are number one. But after that, then what?
Do we go by Road type (ie. US Route, State Route, etc.) or traffic volume? Mlaurenti (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine US 322 was listed as to give regional balance and have a South Jersey junction in the infobox, although I would say Route 73 is a more important junction in the South Jersey area. US 46 is probably listed since it was the traditional north end of the New Jersey Turnpike prior to the I-95 Extension to the George Washington Bridge. I would be okay with replacing US 322 with Route 73 as to represent what is the most important interchange in South Jersey south of where I-95 splits from the turnpike. I would also be okay with replacing US 46 with Route 495 since the latter is a major connection to the Lincoln Tunnel, although I would also be okay with leaving US 46 since it marks the traditional north end of the turnpike. Dough4872 18:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, so we also have to give deference to geographic location? I hadn't even considered that before. Well in that case, I guess I could accept switching US 322 with Route 73, and US 46 with Route 495. (As you mentioned, US 46 is already listed as the Turnpike's current northern terminus in Fort Lee.) Mlaurenti (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"New Jersey Route NJTP" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect New Jersey Route NJTP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 11#New Jersey Route NJTP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue with map

It looks as if there is a glitch with the map in the infobox. I noticed this occur on many highway pages. Tinton5 (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The end of the New Jersey Turnpike is actually I95/US 1-9/US 46

You mention I-95 and US 46 is the end. It actually intersects I-80 in Teaneck, NJ you forgot to mention that. Not only that, but it actually ends at Exit 72A for US 46 and US 1-9. So it actually ends in Ft Lee, NJ, and intersects I-80. Technically, it goes all the way to the George Washington Bridge, adding in US 9W, but you do not need to do that. And yes, I-80 is a major intersection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.11 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The mainline of the New Jersey Turnpike ends at the US 46 interchange in Ridgefield Park. The section of I-95 between US 46 in Ridgefield Park and the George Washington Bridge is considered an extension of the mainline turnpike called the "I-95 Extension". Dough4872 16:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the infobox a while back to make US 46 the northern end, since I always thought the infobox is only about the mainline, but @Oknazevad: changed it to say the GWB is the northern end. I'd like to see it go back to US 46, but I'd rather not start an edit war. Needforspeed888 (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

given the multiple extensions, should the info box even list termini? A thought... Famartin (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not including the termini would be odd. While there are a couple of branches, and there's the spurs that split and rejoin, there are definitely termini to the main line of the turnpike. And the northern one is the approach to the GWB now. Yes, the northernmost part is a later addition. But it is still part of the turnpike and removing it from infobox leaves it incomplete. The turnpike does not end at the junction with US 46 anymore. The signs saying "turnpike ends" at that junction (which were always something we laughed at as kids) no longer exist. Those signs are now in Fort Lee. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that even though the part past I-80 to the GW is considered an extension of the mainline, not an extension that’s non-mainline, it’d be weird that the state doesn’t consider it mainline. I agree with the idea that the mainline ends at the palistades parkway, just before the bridge, but I’m not the expert, if it’s proven otherwise, I’d find it weird but I’ll go along with it. That’s my opinion, I think this part to the bridge should be mainline, not an extension like the Newark or PA TP extensions. Lemme know what you think. Jason Ingtonn (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference sld 0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference sld 1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference anderson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Turnpike/Archive_1&oldid=1171416297"