Talk:U.S. Route 1/9

Name

Wouldn't it be better to title this article U.S. Route 1-9 (with a hyphen) instead of with a slash, since that's how it's signed? What was the rationale behind choosing a slash? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my chat on this issue with SPUI

Great idea to create an article for the U.S. Route 1/9 concurrency. Might it make more sense to name the article separating the 1 and the 9 with either a dash or an ampersand, rather than a slash? I always sound out the name of the concurrency as "1 and 9" (or more accurately "1 'n 9"), which may correspond better to the ampersand. From my informal review of signs, it seems that 1-9 appears much more often than 1&9, but I don't recall seeing 1/9 anywhere. Any thoughts???? Alansohn 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I considered this when I made it (and I think I made all the redirects). Signs typically say 1-9 or 1&9 but NJDOT tends to use 1/9 on their website. --SPUI (T - C) 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation re state usage of 1/9. I saw that you had created redirects for just about every possible combination and permutation of US/U.S., Route/Highway and the numbers 1 and 9. You'd be hard pressed to guess a link that won't work, but the 1/9 may be the least likely to be guessed. Alansohn 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I found that discussion shortly after I posted my comment here, but didn't have time to repost.

I still think that using a dash would be better, since the signs are also posted by NJDOT (I believe), and the signs are a better indication of what the public's common usage would be, but as long as there's a redirect, the choice of punctuation doesn't matter enough to me. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does Route 1&9 intersect with Route 1/9 and if so, would it be major at Route 1 & 9 and so is it applyable on the Route 1/9 info box?

24.228.70.72 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)nextbarker

Get rid of that last question

Does Route 21 intersect with Route 1/9 and if it does is, is it acceptable on the Route 1/9 info box

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 1/9/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I am putting this article on hold

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is almost at GA level. Comments on the minus signs:

1a) The Union County section mentions crossing the Elizabeth River, then using a skyway. If the skyway crosses the river, the two sentences should be reworked. There are other minor issues I can go through and take care of myself once the contextual issues are solved.
1b) Lead and layout are fine. As for jargon, the phrases G.S. Pkwy and PIP need to be expanded in both the Route description and Major intersections. Unless I missed something, the acronym PIP never appears on signs, and the parkway is not referenced frequently enough in this article to warrant an abbreviation. There are a few instances of overlinking, such as George Washington Bridge, Pulaski Highway, and US 1 and US 9.

Reworded sentences about Elizabeth River crossing. The G.S. Parkway and PIP abbreviations are part of {{jct}} and is done to cut down on space taken in the table. From what I see, there is no overlinking, as the terms are linked in the lead, once each in the body, and in the intersection templates. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since G.S. Parkway and PIP are spit out as abbreviations when using the jct template, I will let that go. There are no longer instances of those abbreviations in the Route description, so we are good. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

2a) The details concerning signing 1/9 and how people reference it are included twice using much of the same wording: once at the end of the first sentence of the Lead and again at the end of the Route description. The wording is almost identical. This information should only be mentioned in the Lead, and the references should be included there as well.
2b) Linden Airport should be referenced. All other statements are sufficiently referenced.

Mentioned only in lead and referenced. Linden Airport is referenced from the Google Maps reference in the next sentence. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

3b) There are a few areas with unnecessary detail. First, there is too much detail on the Pulaski Skyway in the Route description. There is already an article for Pulaski Skyway, so all you need to say is how they enter the skyway, how they leave, and the body of water crossed to enter the next county. This way, you do not need to have a combined subsection for Essex and Hudson counties. Second, there is too much detail on the I-95 overlap. All you need to say here is US 1/9/46 joins I-95, cross the George Washington Bridge together, and the concurrency ends in Manhattan when US 9 exits onto Broadway. The details are already covered in the articles for I-95 in NJ, GWB, and Trans-Manhattan Expwy.

Cut down detail on Pulaski Skyway and I-95 overlap. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the above specifics, I recommend the following:

• Add street/highway names in the Route description for numbered routes that have names and those names are not already included. Example: CR 615 in Union County. Also, if 1/9 has names for the portions sound of the Pulaski Skyway, mention them. In Bergen County, a portion of 1/9 is named Bergen Turnpike, but this is not mentioned.
  • In previous GA reviews, I was told that having the names in parentheses for numbered routes is redundant. Accoring to the SLD, US 1/9 south of the Pulaski Skyway does not have a name but is referred to by its route number (this is a common practice in NJ). According to addresses on Google Maps, US 1/9 in Linden is called Edgar Road and a part of the road in Elizabeth is known as Spring Street, I have added mentions of this to the article. US 1/9 does not follow the Bergen Turnpike at any point and is officially called Tonnelle Avenue in Hudson County and Broad Avenue in Bergen County. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Since New Jersey tends to not post both route numbers and street names at intersections, the names in parentheses are not necessary. They would be good to have, but since they are not ordinarily posted at intersections, you can leave them out. I got fooled by google maps on the Bergen Turnpike. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• You mention one or two large cemeteries passed, but there are several more along the route that should be mentioned.
  • The cemeteries I metioned are large and recognizable along the road. Mentioning every single cemetery on the road would be excessive. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• There are a few minor bodies of water crossed south of Newark that are not mentioned in the Route description.
  • These minor water bodies would probably not easily be noticed by the traveler, so they are not worth mentioning. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• When you mention interchanges in the Route description, if you do not already have a description, add them. Example: CR 678 in Hudson County, which should be described as a diamond interchange. If interchanges having missing movements, like the US 1/US 9 interchange in Woodbridge, you may want to explain how the missing movements are completed. Finally, there are several RIROs on Tonnelle Ave worth mentioning.
  • I added some, but not all interchanges fit into a specific type. As for explaining partial interchanges, articles should not have a "how-to" in explaining how to navigate missing movements unless they are officially signposted. Also, listing the RIROs on Tonnelle Avenue would be too excessive. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will check back on February 25 at the latest. Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. I went through the article changes and corrected a few typos and awkward sentences. This article is passed. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NJ residents speak "Route one and nine", or just "1 & 9" and thus the slash is totally incorrect, even if Trenton uses the slash as in Rt 1 or Rt 9. We know Rt 1 goes from FL to Maine, but are hard pressed to know if Rt 9 diverges anywhere in NJ. 2013 & 2014 news of George Washington Bridge lane closures, a political action, cite US 1&9, and the Turnpike, even though a total list at the Bridge would include routes 1,9,4,46,80,95. 80=95 for 3 miles, and 1,9,46 overlap for 2 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffontheroad (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 9 mileposts

It's come to my attention that on the Major intersections list, not one US 9 milepost is listed. Since the individual US 9 article ends its intersection list (and thus its milepost counting) at the joining with US 1 and refers readers to this article's intersection list, I propose we add in the US 9 mileposts along 1/9 on the intersection list table, perhaps using italicized brackets to differentiate US 9's mileposts from those of the dominant US 1 (I propose using brackets because italicized parentheses are already in use for listing I-95's mileposts during the approach to the George Washington Bridge). MarioLOA (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The state DOT uses US 1 mileposts as official mileposts.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but I would think that the US 9 milepost counts for the 1/9 concurrency should still be listed somewhere. When a road forms a concurrency with a dominant road, the major intersections/exit list still lists the less dominant road's mileposts (US 46, for example), and I think that the US 1/9 intersections list should do the same. Honestly, I would add them in myself if I was sure that someone else wouldn't erase them. MarioLOA (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. The article should really only have one set of mileposts. I'm not in favor of listing I-95's mileposts here either. If anything, place a note as to what US 9's milepost is at the start of the concurrency. but don't list them. If anyone wants to know what they are, they can do the arithmetic. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I like that. I'll do that. MarioLOA (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Slash vs dash revisited

I read the above discussion as to why this article's title includes the slash, but I feel that the article should be moved to the dash version for two reasons.

Firstly, because the dash is the most common version used on signs, which is the most prominent display of the concurrent road's name, website or not. The number of drivers who see the signs far out number the visitors to the website. So WP:COMMONNAME leads me to think we should use the dash.

I know that redirect take care of the issue of searches. But that doesn't cover the second reason. Per WP:SLASH and WP:DASH (from the WP:MOS), slashes are largely depreciated, while dashes (endashes specifically) have the meaning of "and" in combinations of otherwise separate things (such as the concurrency of two highways with separate sections).

So, that's my case. I know that there would be a lot of links needing to be updated, but the Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines make me think that the current name is wrong. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an exception to SLASH and DASH. The slash notation is the most common method for denoting road concurrencies. You'd end up forcing thousands of highway articles to switch notation to a standard that's not in commonly use in the end by that reasoning, especially when several highway abbreviation formats use a hyphen. (I-75/M-55 is the concurrency of Interstate 75 and M-55 in Central Michigan, for instance.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that standard. Leave it to Jersey to do its own thing.oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1-9, U.S. Route 1–9, U.S. Route 1 - 9, and U.S. Route 1 – 9 all redirect to this article. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I already noted that. But I don't think that is a convincing arguement to depart from WP:COMMONNAME.oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's at least one other similarly named article: U.S. Route 17/92 in Florida. – TMF 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

New Map (presumably the KML its based on too?) is wrong

The new map shows US 1/9 end at the NY state line. It actually continues a short distance into NYC, ending at the Broadway exit on I-95, where 9 follows Broadway and 1 continues with 95 into the Bronx. Famartin (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You would be correct. If the KML was wrong, that means the converted JSON would be wrong as well. –Fredddie™ 00:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote Error

Why does everyone think that US 1/9 is related to US 119? This should be avoided. CamdenFreeway295 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

that’s not what that tag is forFamartin (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Signage

Forgive my use of this venue for questions. I'm intrigued by the "1-9" and "1&9" signage / naming convention and feel that it is unique to this roadway. I'm looking for references / citations on the approval of such signage / naming. Would this be an AASHTO issue? FHWA? Or is it not controlled and NJDOT is free to sign at will? Is there a precedent? If anyone who is more of a hobbyist than I could lend a hand, reference, or nudge in the right direction, I'd be obliged. Thanks. --Gapmtn1 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)