Jump to content

Talk:Massachusetts Turnpike/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Explanation of "turnpike"

Perhaps you could include an explanation of the term "Turnpike". I had never heard the term before, and when visiting Boston I asked some locals what a "Turnpike" actually meant and no one seemed to know.

  • Here's what Wiki's turnpike article says about the etymology of the term:
    • The term turnpike refers to a gate on which sharp pikes would be fixed as a defense against cavalry. Most English gates were not built to this standard; of the first three gates two were found to be easily avoided.

Extension rumor

However, a recently discovered covered "End I-90" sign hints that I-90 may be extended farther north along Route 1A.

Er? This seems like an unfounded rumor. -- Beland 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Interstate 90 article states this rumor as well. Chaz 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NYS Thruway relevance

This note is confusing and it doesn't provide any value to someone who isn't familiar with the NYS Thruway.

What value does it bring to the Massachusetts Turnpike page?


Notes

  • Interchange 14/15 is similar to New York State Thruway interchange 16 (including toll barrier 15), in that it has three toll components. Unlike in New York, two distinct exit numbers are used. The largest is the toll barrier, ending the ticket system. (#15 on the ticket). This is used by traffic headed inbound from the Turnpike and traffic headed outbound to the Turnpike. There is also another ticketed toll, #14, which is cheaper than #15, for traffic not travelling to or from Boston. Finally, there is a flat-rate toll for outbound traffic exiting and inbound traffic entering.

Minor finds

With Exits 14/15/55...I am striking the reference to "55," as that is on Route 128.

Next - Governor Romney will not be running for governor. So while the governor's position is up for election, he is not up re-election, as he is not running. --Raj Fra 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

We should make this article similar to New Jersey Turnpike as follows:

  1. Include a picture of the toll ticket. I have a Fast Lane tag, but I can take it down next time I'm through and take a picture of a toll ticket. I'll be traveling on the Mass Pike next weekend. If someone's going to be on the Pike before then, maybe you can take a photo of your ticket for me?
  2. Include a section on Shunpiking, using the text from relevant section of the article.

-- Tckma 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Do you folks want to include that the voters were promised that the tolls would be removed once the project was completed? (My dad still complains about that one)
  1. The western-ma tolls are returning in October | http://wbsm.com/mass-turnpike-tolls/

-- Limbodog 16:40, 13 August 2013 (EST)

Litigation

The summary of the Levy/Mihos/Swift litigation is erroneous. If appropriate, I would revise it. I participated in the litigation as well as much else. GarrickCole 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be bold and help improve the article, but don't forget to include citations where you can; even direct personal experience still needs external citations.
Atlant 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

History

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was created in 1952. The citation to its original enabling act is Chapter 354 of the Acts of 1952 or St. 1952, c. 354. As far as I'm aware, the Authority was never known by any other name. One of the bills introduced in the Legislature in 1952 would have created a "Boston-Springfield Highway Authority" (House 874), but the bill was not enacted. I have corrected the entry accordingly. GarrickCole 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tunnel Collapse

The Tunnel that collapsed was not the Ted Williams Tunnel. It was the I-90 extention tunnel that connected I-90 to the Ted Williams.

--192.44.136.113 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Entry fixed; subsection title and discussion of tunnel collapse now correctly place the incident in the I-90 eastbound connector tunnel. Sswonk (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fast Lane

E-Z Pass is not used "throughout the United States", as the previous version asserted; I have corrected it. Dasubergeek (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that entry but it isn't all that incorrect E-Z Pass works throughout the Northeastern United States... See the main-E-Z Pass website or the Masspike FAQ on where New Jersey's E-Z Pass technology can be used.

" Where can I use E-ZPass?

Wherever the E-ZPass logo is displayed in states including:

In New Jersey, this includes the toll roads of the NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, the Atlantic City Expressway, and all Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Delaware crossings. On MTA Bridges and Tunnels, the entire New York State Thruway, the NYS Bridge Authority bridges crossing the Hudson River, Interstate 95 and State Road 1 in Delaware. Please reference the E-ZPass Participating Toll Facilities for more details."

CaribDigita (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessments

I assessed this article as a B for Boston and Massachusetts WikiProjects. It is well written, has adequate sources and confirms to the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:Cite Guidelines. - Jeremy (Jerem43 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Is there any info on how much it will cost to switch the Pike from self-sufficientcy over-to the state's budget?

Is there any information that anyone has seen that has looked at how much it will cost the state to switch the Turnpike over to the overall state's budget??? CaribDigita (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay they had it on the news tonight. The government of MA wants to add six more cents (US$0.06) to the state's Gas tax in order to pay for the removal of the tolls. Otherwise the state will need to double current tolls charged in order to pay for the authority....

It is gearing up to be another Eastern Mass. Vs. Western Mass. issue. Western Mass. people may favour the gas tax-hike statewide because everyone state-wide will bear the cost instead of the Western Mass. people paying double the tolls... Persons in other parts of Eastern Mass. may think Western Mass. should pay the increase because they use the most road and thus may not want to pay higher gas taxes. The state went through the same thing over whether the state should fund the MBTA to keep from having fare increases on the T. Some in Eastern Mass. say they don't ride the Turnpike so they are not in favour of the gas hike. This is going to get interesting when they hold a meeting at the statehouse in the next couple of days. Like the MBTA this continuing to be another Eastern MA. Vs. Western MA issue. CaribDigita (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There are other articles on the general subject of Massachusetts turnpikes, for example 19th-century turnpikes in Massachusetts. There should be at least a reference to this and perhaps similar pages, or preferably a disambiguation clause at the top of the page. Beowulf (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Massachusetts Turnpike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Exit lists

Is it really necessary to add the "new exit" section now? Why don't you add the section when the new exits are actually assigned to the Pike? Otherwise, it will confuse people and it seems unnecessary at this time. Griffin324 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Current exit numbers restored per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive_22#Massachusetts exit lists. Chinissai (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of the Massachusetts Turnpike

It's been more than nine months since anyone commented on this. I'm boldly closing a no consensus to merge, because there isn't one. Calidum T|C 04:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

There is no reason the history of the Massachusetts Turnpike needs to be covered in a separate article. It has been long precedent for the history of roads to be covered as a section of the main article, regardless of how long or detailed the history is. For example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a long history section but it is still covered in the main article. Dough4872 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support—the purport WP:SIZE reason for maintaining a separate article is a non-starter. As mocked up at User:Imzadi1979/MassPike, a merger of the current content of the subarticle into the parent by replacing the existing history section would mean that the total readable prose is 24 kB (4071 words), which is well under the upper cutoff in WP:SIZE. Note: WP:SIZE uses readable prose, not total size in its guidelines. Looking at WP:SIZERULE, the specific section giving the guidelines says "< 40 kB [readable prose] Length alone does not justify division". Unless there is going to be another 16 kB of prose added to the article, which I find unlikely, the two can be safely merged together. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Your argument is based on the argument WP:I don't like it and WP:Other stuff exists. Did you ever think maybe those articles should be split? On some of these roadway articles are beginning to bump into the WP:Readability and WP:Article size guidelines. The "We don't have other roadway history articles" can be countered with "We do have other 'History of'" articles whether it is the History of Burger King article or the History of Boston article, so that negates you basic argument. Since I created the article, all people have done is argued that we don't need that/do that/there aren't other articles like that. Please provide me some sort of argument other than the aforementioned ones that says we can't have a History of Xxx roadway. I given legitimate reasons why such an article should exist, you need to step up and say why it shouldn't without falling upon the tropes you are using. Sometimes there needs to be a first.
Finally, I want to say one thing:
Let. Me. Finish. The. Article. Lets put aside the drama and let me finish the article. When I am done we can argue the merits of having such an article, but first I need to complete it. And please stop accusing me of ownership, I just want a chance to complete something that I have spent a good deal of time working on without being hounded.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Even with a finished product, the history of the MassPike will still not be long enough to justify its own article. As Imzadi1979 mentioned and displayed in his sandbox, the expanded history in the current MassPike article will not result in the main article becoming too big to need to be split per WP:SIZE. As I mentioned, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which is over three times the size of Imzadi1979's sandbox of the MassPike article with the history article merged in, has all the history covered in the main article without causing it to burst at the seams. We have thousands of other road articles out there that are not split into multiple articles. We have several Featured Articles on roads that are not split into subarticles for the route description, history, junction list, etc. Other subjects on Wikipedia, as you mentioned above, may have enough details to warrant subarticles but roads are able to be covered in one article. I should also note glancing at the history article that it seems to be heavily skewed toward the construction and development of the highway in Boston and barely focuses on the route west of there. You should make sure the history covers the construction and development of the entire route. Also there is some information in the history article that is barely related to the route and should be removed, such as the section about The Prudential Company. Dough4872 04:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. The Boston section of the Turnpike was the most contentious piece of construction and had the most coverage. the most major piece of news regarding the western section of the roadway was the destruction of several bridges when a hurricane passed through the region. However, as I said to Imzadi, this based upon a research paper I did on the Boston Extension which I am adapting to be the basis of this article; the books I used when I wrote that paper will be used to fill the rest of the article in.
  2. Try reading that section again, the Prudential Company was most assuredly part of the Boston Extension of the Mass Turnpike. If it was not for their political and financial intervention, the Pike may never have made its way into the city. Along with the BRA, the Prudential Company helped strong-arm opposition from Newton and the Legislature regarding the construction of the Turnpike along the B&A right of way. It also set up the construction of one of the most important air right projects along the Turnpike, the Prudential Center.
  3. Regarding the size issue, your comments are based upon what is here, not what will be here. Imzadi's mockup is based upon an incomplete picture. The final article will be three-four times the current size, about 90-120k.
As I asked before, please stop trying to prevent me from writing the article - This busybody behavior can wait until that point, and once I am finished you two can start this whole thing up again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, your size argument is still invalid, even if all the details about the road in Boston are kept. The Pennsylvania Turnpike article is 172K and is not split into subarticles. Dough4872 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

8:::::By the standards and recommendations of Wikipedia (WP:Article size and WP:Readability), it should be. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't be. Your point is invalid because it relies on the argument "Other stuff exists/doesn't exist so we should/shouldn't do that". The policy on article size is rather straight forward, and I am adhering to that. The recommendations of readability also provide help in guiding how articles should be structured. So I ask (again) what can you say that doesn't rely on the OSE/DE argument? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Whatever is in the History of the Massachusetts Turnpike article can be merged to replace the existing history section on this article, but I don't think it should be wholesale merged; you only need to merge a couple pieces that aren't already duplicated in this article. Mostly though, it's all unencyclopedic, too-detailed info. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Jeremy, I skimmed through your history article. You did a great job. I also looked through the parent article briefly and found that your article could be used in the parent article. Good road articles tend to have large history sections. I would hate to see your work go to waste, so if possible, I would like to use some of this information in the parent article (assuming this merger passes of course). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger with History of the Massachusetts Turnpike

MERGED
There is a consensus to merge the article. A {{merging}} will be placed while the merger happens. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

While the history article is very detailed, there are many important topics that it doesn't mention, such as the Big Dig and conversion to all-electronic tolling. Since the article appears to be "finished", I think we can discuss this again. Needforspeed888 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support—as noted, one of the objections five years ago was that the work on the history sub article was incomplete. Well, enough time has gone by that either it is complete, or if not, no further work is forthcoming, meaning that editor's work is likely "complete" for now. There isn't a WP:SIZE-based reason to keep the two separate. There's also the issue that the two articles give different historical accounts, so a good selective merger to combine the best of Massachusetts Turnpike#History with the best of History of the Massachusetts Turnpike so that readers can come away with a single, detailed account. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support New to editing here, but I see no reason why the history of the Massachusetts Turnpike should be a separate article. It's short enough that WP:SIZE is not a reason to keep them separate, and precedence seems to be that the history is kept with the main article. JLynch122094 (talk) 14 May 2019
  • Support for the reasons mentioned above. — C16SH (speak up) 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massachusetts_Turnpike/Archive_1&oldid=1155862040"