Talk:Interstate 195 (New Jersey)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Topics |  Interstate Highways  New Jersey State and County Routes |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. |
where is exit 22 (Jackson Mills/Georgia?. it appears to not be listed Can someone please update????. 167.115.127.20 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)xmxf
Would the County Route 537 be ok on the Interstate 195 (New Jersey) site with Great Adventure just off there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs)
Where does Route 195 West end, at Route 295? I thought at Route 29, there's an end sign approaching Route 29 in Trenton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- It ends at the interchange at I-295, where it continues as Route 29. -- NORTH talk 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thanx
--24.228.70.72 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC) nextbarker
PS sorry for asking some many questions.
Contents |
[edit] NJ shields
Is it ok for me to add all the shields in the exit list section?
Nextbarker 03:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Dan
[edit] GSP and I-195 locations
Alright, I can see something about to happen, so let's quell this right now. According to the NJDOT, I-195 does indeed end at NJ 34 and not the GSP. While there is still suggestions of extending I-195 out to NJ 35 and upgrading NJ 138 to allow that, until that happens, I-195 will end just shy of the most vital highway down the Shore. Now can't we all just get along? ;-) Jimbo 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about we add something like "(near GSP)" at the eastern terminus line? Or a second line like "(freeway continues as NJ 138 to GSP)"? --Polaron | Talk 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good plan, something like what you've done on Interstate 287. -- NORTH talk 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I-95M?
Referring to the roadway north of Trenton in this article (i.e. [1]) isn't quite appropriate for our context here. While I understand that it's the official designation, it's not signed as such, and anyone who hasn't read NJDOT documentation is completely unaware that it is the official designation. This is the only article apart from Interstate 95 in New Jersey that makes any reference to the number 95M – all it really needs is a brief mention in the I-95 article.
Furthermore, it's particularly inappropriate in the sentence it was used here, as most of the I-195 extension would be in Pennsylvania, which is not 95M. -- NORTH talk 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exit #'s
Why does everyone keep deleting what I have to say about the Exit renumbering. I posted something that wasn't my opinion but pure logistics that once the highway is placed on I-295 and I-95 it's mileage will go up, and stated what the exit numbers would be changed to. Because let's face it, they aren't going to keep the current exit numbers if they change the route designation. So Please stop deleting it, it's relevant for people to know Route 82 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The way you word it, with "drastic", "should", and "confusion" are weasel words that push forth your views and how you think NJDOT "should" do things. It's not your place, nor is it appropriate on Wikipedia, to have opinions listed. This is not a commentary site and the only things that belong on here is facts. So, please keep them to a bare minimal, if at all possible. EaglesFanInTampa 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Speculation??? are you kidding me? do you honestly believe that when AASHTO approves the number change of I-195 for I-295 and I-95 that it's going to allow them to keep Exit 60-67 and Exit 1-8 on each of the highway segments??? This is not speculation, I don't agree with their choice to make it I-195, but it is plainly obvious that if they do go through with the idea then they will have to renumber the exits for the entire new and existing stretch of I-195... those are just the highway rules... Route 82 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right, I understand your point, but at the same time, you don't know the exact exit numbers, unless you've seen documentation from either NJDOT, PennDOT, FHWA, or anyone else about it. Yeah, I agree that making the extension I-195 isn't the smartest thing and there are many better options, but like I said before, this is no place for an opinion. And until you have some sort of paperwork proving that they'll call those exit numbers what you're saying, it must be (not by me, but by Wikipedia policy) considered original research and therefore not valid here. EaglesFanInTampa 13:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My source is that I-95 in Mercer County is 8.93 miles long, and I-295 from Exit 60-67 is about 6.7 miles... and I simply added them together and added that number to the mileage of the existing I-195, since it would likely still go from west to east in numbers. I have been trying to gather any info I can about this extension of I-195 but there is very little if anything about it available... but one thing is for certain is that the renumbering would follow in that standard fashion... and I don't think a citation is needed for that because it is purely common sense based on every other standard highway project in the country... Route 82 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense is something that can't be assumed with Wikipedia. Just as you pointed out in your last edit, you "miscalculated," and while since a simple human error (I've been known to make a million), all exact numbers need to be cited, whether it be mileage, percentages, or any other type of stat. Since it hasn't even approved by the AASHTO yet, any exit numbers for the "future" I-195 are purely speculative and without proper sourcing, must be removed. I know your intentions are good, but Wikipedia can't become a clearing house for dreams and ideas; it's a listing of facts. Sorry.... EaglesFanInTampa 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
So tell me where the cited source for this proposed routing map comes from?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Interstate_73_Future_map.png
or this person's fictional recreation of a SPUI interchange for the new proposed Turnpike Exit 8? I see no mention of a SPUI in the article cited...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Proposed_int._8_copy.jpg
There is no citing for this proposal...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-310
I have found plenty more... I think the mention of extended miles is relevant and not an opinion on my part, because when approved it will happen... plain and simple... also, why is it that NJ's highway pages are watched with such heightened security and scrutiny, but so many other pages get off scott-free... Route 82 16:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- See your talk page. EaglesFanInTampa 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's a couple flaws in your logic here. First, AASHTO has not approved the extension of the I-195 designation (or, at least, none of us have seen a source that says they have). It's entirely possible they could reject the proposal and recommend an even-numbered designation, in which case it would likely become Interstate 695. Remember that a couple years ago the theory coming from the PTC, PennDOT and NJDOT was that the 295 designation would be extended around Trenton to the new Turnpike/I-95 interchange. That never happened, the plan changed. It could change again.
- Secondly, even if the Interstate 195 designation were approved today, we still need a verifiable, reliable source listing the actual exit numbers to be used. Saying "source A says this is the route number, and source B says this is the distance, therefore the exit numbers must be list C" is WP:SYN and not proper sourcing. I understand the desire to be first to add new facts, but we need to be sure we have verifiable facts and not speculation.
- Third, the argument that other articles are not well-sourced is a non-starter. We all know there's plenty of material in Wikipedia. The solution is proper fact-checking. As responsible editors it's important that we choose to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. As to the specific example you cited, it's well-supported on the Talk:Interstate 73. The laws defining the routing are linked and the text of those laws even pasted in. The map is a graphical representation of those laws.. I've tagged Interstate 310 with {{unsourced-section}}. New Jersey Turnpike cites a newspaper article that is no longer online, so I can't speak to the quality of the citation, but I share your concerns about the interchange drawings and have brought them up on the Talk page.--Clubjuggle 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
