Jump to content

Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article split

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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The article should not be split at this time. --hmich176 12:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, is it just me, or has the article over time gotten too long? For a page that currently has 366 sources, including 30 alone for the service plaza section (admittedly, I had started that section some time ago, though not to that extent), it is definitely way too long to keep it as is. The "Tolls" and "History" section can easily be split off into its own separate pages. Any proposals to shorten the page by splitting it up? Jgera5 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd kill off a lot of the Tolls section as superfluous. I would tighten that section down to two paragraphs about how the tolls are currently assessed and collected. A third paragraph summarizing the key highlights in the history of toll rates would be the end of the section for me. The Services section also should be greatly trimmed of content. There's room to further summarize some parts of the History section. For example, the subsection on the Interstate 95 interchange project should be a single paragraph only; readers can follow the link to the other article if they want more detailed information. Let's do that first before we talk about splitting. Imzadi 1979 → 11:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
If you wanted to keep the toll information, it may be better suited for a table, which would really neuter the section. –Fredddie™ 11:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to start summarizing some of the stuff where I can. At some point a History article should be split off, so I'm going to move the split tag to that section. Jgera5 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with that statement, and many other highways have not had history sections split out. There's extraneous details that can be removed, and content that can be summarized to reduce the overall length without splitting the section into a separate article. Imzadi 1979 → 16:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from. I just got done shortening the tolls and service plaza section, moving much of their content to the history section (in case it does get split off), since much of the material from their sections are more appropriate in the history section. (I did leave the portion in about the PTC implementing all-electronic tolling, since that's a current event.) I also eliminated the construction schedule of the rebuilding of the service plazas, since that was unnecessary to begin with. We'll see where this goes. Jgera5 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It was extremely premature to perform the split already. Four days of discussion with only tow other participants, one of whom has opposed the suggestion so far does not equal a consensus.for that reason, I have reverted the split. You were bold, but it's been reverted, so back to discussion (WP:BRD). Imzadi 1979 → 10:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As for many other highways, this one isn't just another highway; it was the first of its type in the United States and as such merits extensive coverage about its history. I think the split should be restored. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and that's why I am leaning towards splitting the article. However, we should not simply cut and paste the content out. We need to summarize the history section (2 or 3 paragraphs), leave that here, and THEN split off the history. I would not necessarily be against doing the same for the RD, but that's another discussion. –Fredddie™ 16:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Merging makes me horny. --NE2 12:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see a compelling reason to split out the History section other than "it's too big." WP:LENGTH suggests that we consider splitting an article beyond a prose size of 60 KB. This article exceeds that (72 KB), but I do not think that is large enough to split the article without other compelling reasons. I would like to see more reorganization and reduction (make stuff more concise, not simple deletion unless it is trivial) before we decide to split. What other concerns are there besides the sheer size?  VC  23:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A well-reasoned argument always works to sway my opinion. @Dough4872: had a big hand in the current state of this article, so we should get his opinion. –Fredddie™ 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The history section may seem bigger than most articles, but remember the Pennsylvania Turnpike has existed for nearly 75 years (longer than most limited-access highways) and has a lot of historical events to cover over that time period, from planning to construction to improvements. I really do not see any reason for a split of the history as the article is broad in coverage. Dough4872 13:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just want to let everyone know that while I am still in support of splitting the history section into its own article, I'm just going to let this current discussion play out on its own right now. The Turnpike is still evolving, as just this year the final two service plazas that need rebuilt will start construction, the St. John's steps will likely finally be removed (the PTC is currently building a new bridge in New Baltimore on the other side of the existing bridge from the St. John's steps), the fate of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel will be decided, and just announced this week by the PTC will be the installation of charging stations for electric cars at all of the service plazas. With that said, I'm currently working on other projects right now--both on Wikipedia and in reality--so I'm letting this project play out on its own. Imzadi1979 and I don't always see eye-to-eye on transportation projects (this isn't the first time we've disagreed on what to do with an article, although there are other times we have agreed), but he does do what's best for the Wikipedia community for all the roadgeeks out there. I trust he will do the same here. Jgera5 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to split the article. I think the discussion should be closed at this point, with consensus not in support of the article split. the result being no consensus. --hmich176 14:33, 8 June 2014 (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.

The PA Turnpike embraces much more than just the Philadelphia-to-SNPJ mainline — see the system map from its official website. Why aren't other parts mentioned here? I note the hatnote about I-476, but I don't see any substantial coverage or notes about I-576 (a connector near the Pittsburgh airport), the tolled section of I-376 to New Castle, or the Mon-Fayette Expressway, PA43 from West Virginia through Uniontown and Brownsville north to Pittsburgh. I'm not adding anything because I'm not sure whether you've consciously excluded them because they're not part of the mainline, or whether they just got omitted, but either way you ought to add more — either more hatnotes saying that they've been excluded, like you already have for I-476, or encyclopedic content on them. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Pennsylvania Turnpike" article is intended to focus on the east-west mainline. The Northeast Extension is covered in Interstate 476, the Mon-Fayette Expressway has its own article, the Beaver Valley Expressway is covered in Interstate 376, the Amos K. Hutchinson Bypass is covered in Pennsylvania Route 66, and the Southern Beltway is covered in Pennsylvania Route 576. The east-west mainline and the Northeast Extension are the only two of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission roads often referred to as the "Pennsylvania Turnpike" or "the turnpike" and use the Pennsylvania Turnpike shield as well as share a common ticket system and formerly exit numbers. The other four extensions in western Pennsylvania are often referred to by their names and route numbers and are rarely referred to as the "Pennsylvania Turnpike" despite being maintained by the PTC. {{Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission}} is intended to link together the roads and structures maintained by the PTC. Dough4872 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So why aren't all of the extensions even mentioned? For example, someone might come here looking for information on the Mon-Fayette Expressway and conclude that it wasn't actually part of the turnpike system because it's not mentioned here. We ought to mention (with links) the other chunks, both to obviate confusion and to permit someone at least to find the relevant articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Added a sentence about the other roads maintained by the PTC. Dough4872 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Northeast(ern?) Extension

Is it the 'Northeast Extension' or 'Northeastern Extension'? This article uses both terms. 184.209.10.175 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked around the Pennsylvania Turnpike website and it appears they use both terms. Dough4872 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pennsylvania Turnpike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pennsylvania Turnpike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I-95

With the openings of the first 2 ramps of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project, I guess we might add I-95 as part of Penn Turnpike. --Sd-100 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Turnpike name cut back to I-95

All signage (with the exceptions of the not-long-for-this-world giant keystones at US 13 and a few odd "PA Turnpike X miles ahead" trailblazers left) east of the new I-95 interchange indicates that stretch of road as just I-95, and not as the Turnpike itself. It will, however, still be owned by the PTC. See the following images of signs:

Note the lack of Turnpike shield with I-95 NB in the first image, the grouping of the Turnpike shield with the "To" in the second, and the Turnpike westbound being signed and striped (both main lanes feed onto the SB I-95 flyover) as a left exit. You can drive from Philadelphia to the NJ Turnpike and never see any indication you were ever on the PA Turnpike, and vice versa. This includes the lack of Turnpike tolls (the electronic toll gantry is marked as a bridge toll).

I do certainly find it strange how unclear the PTC and their information has been on this, but the signage is consistent.

Roadsguy (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

All these signs prove is that the turnpike is not signed into New Jersey. There are hundreds of numbered highways in the country that do not have a clear endpoint signed, so this is not uncommon at all. Until there is any official report that the turnpike ends before going into New Jersey, I would be cautious before making a bold statement like you have. –Fredddie™ 15:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Until PennDOT or the PTC say otherwise, I'd tread cautiously and assume that that section of highway is still part of the turnpike. Imzadi 1979 → 16:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think it should bare minimum be noted that the Turnpike name is not directly signed here. I do now agree, though, with keeping reference to this section as still part of the Turnpike system. Roadsguy (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The PennDOT map of Bucks County shows the Pennsylvania Turnpike still continuing east of the interchange, though there is no toll besides the Delaware River Bridge. Dough4872 22:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mileposts east of I-95 interchange

I restored the mileposts between the interchange and the Delaware River to the posted I-95 mileage. My first attempt at this was reverted because "the article is about the turnpike," but "turnpike mileposts" is a meaningless term. Mileposts are based on whatever the mile markers indicate, and all mile markers along this stretch were replaced with I-95 mile markers. This is certainly a first for the turnpike, which conveniently was always able to have continuous mileposts, but precedent for this already exists. Do the mileposts for Harrisburg's beltway follow "beltway mileage," or the mileposts for I-495 follow "Capital Beltway mileage?" Roadsguy (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roadsguy: the norm on an article is to display the cumulative mileage numbers in that column when possible, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the posted mileages. US 41 in Michigan has mile markers posted where it overlaps US 2 or M-28, but those markers use US 2 or M-28's mileage. The article still uses what US 41's mileage would be at each location.
Iff the I-95 mileages are going to be displayed, the equivalent turnpike mileage still needs to be displayed at the transition point, akin to how we show two numbers at a state line reset, like on US 8. Otherwise, readers have no way to manually calculate the equivalent turnpike mileage if desired. As a side note, I-495 has continuous mileage in use on its exit list column, the opposite of what you're advocating above. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I would use the Pennsylvania Turnpike mileposts as this is the article about the Pennsylvania Turnpike, not Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania. The latter article can show the I-95 mileposts along that section of the turnpike. Dough4872 13:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Major bridges and tunnels

Do you think it would make sense to merge this section in with the rest of the route description? Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I had originally added this section to highlight the bridges and tunnels together in one section. However, I wouldn't be opposed to integrating this information elsewhere in the route description. Dough4872 02:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

E-ZPass only exits

Are the slip ramps still E-ZPass-only, now that the road is cashless? Needforspeed888 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

According to this, the turnpike accepts E-ZPass and toll-by-plate at all exits. The toll calculator also no longer lists the slip ramps as E-ZPass only and lists the toll-by-plate rate if entering or exiting at them. Dough4872 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

update the number of miles

Current text in first paragraph -- A controlled-access highway, it runs for 360 miles (580 km) across the state. Corrected version -- A controlled-access highway, it runs for 564 miles (907 km) across the state. 73.218.118.193 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current text. The mainline Pennsylvania Turnpike, which is what this article is about, is 360 miles. The 564 miles is the figure that includes the mainline, the Northeast Extension, and the extensions in western Pennsylvania. Dough4872 16:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Photo and image formatting needs to be reviewed and improved

More and more photos and icons have been added to this article over the last several years, giving it an increasingly cluttered look that makes it difficult to read, particularly for people with visual impairments. Several of these image additions appear to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility standards which urge editors to "Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left hand margin makes reading easier" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, using fixed image sizes." At this point, one or more images need to be removed or repositioned in an image gallery in order to bring the article back into compliance with the MOS and make it more accessible for Wikipedia users with visual impairments. - 47thPennVols (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I went through and removed some photos that were contributing to the clutter. Dough4872 12:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much. It is an improvement, and I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, there are still sandwiched text problems. (The "Valley Forge to New Jersey" section will still be difficult for many readers with visual impairments with the sandwiched text in the first paragraph.) Repositioning the "Eastbound past the Mid-County interchange with I-476 in Plymouth Meeting" photo to the right-hand side would resolve the issue. - 47thPennVols (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. Dough4872 23:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks better. Thank you. - 47thPennVols (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

History section

The history section needs improvements. 72.240.47.27 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979, discuss? 72.240.47.27 (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
What needs improvements? You could start with a listing of what you think needs to be done. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
excess detail about slip ramps and the I-95 project, repeating info, and stuff in the wrong section. I have gone and tried to fix some of this, but I'm not great at copyediting. 72.240.47.27 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you respond User:Imzadi1979? 72.240.47.27 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don't be so impatient. I was asleep when you posted, and then I was working on something else over on Wikisource. I will reply with something in due course when I have something further to add to this conversation.
Additionally, I'm not the only editor who has this article on a watch list. Perhaps we should let others join in the discussion at some point, which could take a few days, or *gasp* weeks, to happen. If that's not fast enough for you, perhaps editing in a collaborative environment full of volunteers is not for you. Please remember this in the future that we all donate our time here and work on a wide variety of availabilities and interests. Imzadi 1979 → 13:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Exit list

Since other users don't like me removing the old Morgantown Interchange, should there be other replaced Interchange's on the exit list? The temporary Carlisle Interchange from before 1950, the pre-1964 New Stanton Interchange and the pre-1974 Reading Interchange? Cfeddse (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, while we're at it, should we add the pre-1970 Breezewood Interchange? It is located (it was never demolished) 1 mile from the current one, and still partially exists, but no longer serves traffic. Maybe the replaced tunnels as well? Cfeddse (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979 (adding to get attention when user is next active) Cfeddse (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Archive_2&oldid=1251696024"