Talk:Interstate 95 in New York

Merge 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.

The result of the proposal was support merge of New England Thruway; no consensus on Trans-Manhattan Expressway. All users that commented here had either support for or were indifferent to the former merge, but there were several who opposed or had concerns with the latter. As far as I can tell, the Bruckner and Cross Bronx were never formally proposed to be merged, so they're unaffected by this discussion. – TMF 10:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article New England Thruway should be merged here since it is entirely part of I-95 and can easily be discussed here. Dough4872 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I lean toward agreeing with Dough4872, but I am going to hold off on a clear agreement so consistency issues can be addressed. There are several other named segments of I-95 in New York that have articles. I understand why Cross Bronx Expressway and Bruckner Expressway stand on their own and I agree entirely, since they include segments that are not I-95. However, just like the New England Thruway, Trans-Manhattan Expressway is fully a subset of I-95. I think both the Trans-Manhattan Expressway and New England Thruway articles should be merged into this article, for the sake of consistency.  VC  06:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Trans-Manhattan being covered in this article as well. As for Bruckner and Cross Bronx, the only reason they have articles is because they are part of multiple routes. However, a set index article like San Diego Freeway could work for the other two. Dough4872 15:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My only problem with merging Trans-Manhattan Expressway with the rest of I-95 in New York is that it's a shared route with U.S. Route 1 in New York. I would lean towards merging New England Thruway with this article if it weren't for the fact that it's officially part of the New York State Thruway system which once had it's own set of shields, which BTW, I'd like to see revived on Wikipedia whether the article is merged or not. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Even though Trans-Manhattan is signed both I-95 and US 1, the I-95 designation is superior to this stretch of road. Even though the New England Thruway is part of the Thruway system, there is no reason for it to have a standalone article as all the details can be covered here. As a note, other Thruway segments are covered in other articles such as the Cross-Westchester Expressway in Interstate 287 and the Niagara Thruway in Interstate 190 (New York). Dough4872 16:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, the Cross-Westchester Expressway was merely purchased by the New York State Thruway Authority, and remains a free limited-access road, but I see your point. I'd still like a New England Thruway shield for this section, though. ----DanTD (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • From what I know, the shield used for the New England Thruway is now obsolete. However, it can be included for historical purposes. If you want to request a shield for the New England Thruway, go to WP:USRD/S/R. Dough4872 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I'll try, but considering my luck with getting a shield for the Long Mountain Parkway, I'm not holding out much hope. ----DanTD (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The Bruckner is more than one expressway. Merging the Cross Bronx would put too much unbalance in the history, as the history of the Cross Bronx is the most prominent of all 4 names. The Trans-Manhattan is mainly 95, so merging is your choice. The New England Thruway can go, but that's the only clear one. Jut my opinions.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merging New England Thruway and Trans-Manhattan Expressway; both are entirely part of I-95. – TMF 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• I can support merging given the present state of the two articles to be merged. However, there is a lot of distinct history in those two expressway segments that predates the Interstate Highway system. For example, the New England Thruway was basically part of the Westchester County Parkway system of the 1940s while the Trans-Manhattan is intimately tied in to the double decking of the GW Bridge. We should revisit splitting once there is enough distinctive content in those two articles but for now a merge is probably called for. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Polaron does have a valid point regarding the New England Thruway. ----DanTD (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since both highways are wholly part of I-95, their individual histories are also part of the larger history of I-95 in New York. If the histories of the named highways were restricted to only the named highways, I can't see the I-95 in NY article being much of anything. In fact, I'd go so far as to make I-95 in NY a set index page if that happened. – TMF 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • All the information about the roads that made up I-95 can all be mentioned here. Dough4872 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unsupportive of merge. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway is one of the most unique, if not the most unique, portions of I-95. There is much that can be expanded upon in this article. I have read city documents in the library outlining the relocation of residents prior to the removal of the buildings that stood here, and there are many stories and details this article has yet to tell. There is a documented history here that this article only hints at. I really feel this article can be expanded, but furthermore feel that because the highway is the only highway to cross Manhattan island (one of the most world wide recognized islands in the world), crosses a portion of Manhattan that is of great historical importance to the United States (the battle of Fort Washington literally took place on the land the highway crosses), crosses by icons such as the Jeffrey's Hook Lighthouse, GWB Bus Station, Washington Heights "Towers," and is a huge factor in Washington Height's drug trafficing problems that this highway is truly deserving of a proper article that gets into the details of its history and social implications. Wikipediting (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 95 in New York. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927024222/https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Volume%20Report%202008.pdf to https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/Traffic%20Volume%20Report%202008.pdf

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) 07:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge Trans-Manhattan Expressway?

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.

---

I see there was a merge proposal that failed ten years ago. Because both articles are on the short side, I think the main NY I-95 article could handle the additional content from the Trans-Manhattan Expressway article. The main article is only 35 kb, including all refs and tables. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway article is only 12 kb, which includes some redundant information to the main article. If the content on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway ends up overwhelming the article in the future, then it could be split back off, but I'm not convinced that there's so much information that the main article couldn't handle integrating the four paragraphs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 from me on that! Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This merge makes sense to me. Dough4872 23:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Ditto. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  There was a comment above from DanTD about US 1 being a potential redirect target for the Trans-Manhattan that just doesn't carry a lot of weight for me. I'd venture a guess that the lower deck of the GW Bridge and the Trans-Manhattan were all part of Robert Moses's plan for I-95, not US 1. –Fredddie™ 02:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Well, Dough4872 did make a valid counter argument if you look at the failed merger proposal from ten years ago. But somebody else was more willing to keep that segment alive than I was. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (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.