This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So far, the only sources I can come up with for the older interchanges, intersections, proposed interchanges, and what not, are old editions of Hagstrom's maps & atlases, local land use documents, and some discussions on misc.transport.road. However, I do have some tidbits on old exit numbers for Sunrise Highway east of Phyliss Drive from an old Sunoco road map of the early-1970's:
This map also shows the road under construction between former NY 113 and NY 24, and Nicoll's Road(SCR 97) under construction between NY 347 and the Long Island Expresway(former NY 495). I don't know how true those exit numbers were, because I never saw any exit numbers on that part of Sunrise until the mid-1970's, but that was what the map said. ---- DanTD 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was oppose merging. Although the other article does need serious work... – T M F 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I tentatively support unless someone can find a good deal of history on the roadway. Otherwise, it's just a named road that's part of NY 27. – T M F 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was driving on Linden Boulevard yesterday and noticed there was an Exit 2 and Exit 1 posted for at-grade intersections. Traveling westbound, I noticed an "Exits 2-1" informational sign in the center median, plus an "Exit 2" gore sign in the center median indicating the left turn lane. There was no Exit 1 gore sign that I noticed. I did not make note of what intersections these are. Perhaps these numbers should be noted in the interchange table. -- Tckma ( talk) 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The expressway is wholly part of NY 27, meaning their routing and histories totally overlap. – T M F 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is a mess as it currently stands. I don't even have to read it to say that. No article should ever need to have a Section 2.3.3.4 in it. All of the history should be possible to summarize in a single level of subheaders. No two headers in an article should ever be the same. Right now, if I use the link New York State Route 27#New York City, which heading is the object of the link? The link should always go to the first, but any incoming link meant for the second will not be directed there.
I would reorganize all of the history section into chronological order, start with the earliest history and end at the latest history. Each time you switch to a new topic, change the header. That may mean you bounce back and forth between NYC and LI, and that's perfectly acceptable. Start at the beginning of the story and work to the end. Trying to cluster the topics like this makes a very complicated table of contents that is very off-putting to readers. In the end, nothing comes out very cohesively into a single narrative. And while you're reorganizing it all, summarize! There's way too much detail in some of these sections. That level of detail isn't needed, and it makes the text too dense to read. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the subheaders from the "Proposed Interchanges and Crossings" section and changed the bullet points into text. This is still far too detailed and needs substantial summarization. RuthLivingstone ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did the plan fail for an eastward extension? There is clearly a strong need, to avoid the "Shinnecock Squeeze". Paulhummerman ( talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
the article needs much better documentation. Why did the plan for the eastern extension "fail"? Paulhummerman ( talk) 23:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So far, the only sources I can come up with for the older interchanges, intersections, proposed interchanges, and what not, are old editions of Hagstrom's maps & atlases, local land use documents, and some discussions on misc.transport.road. However, I do have some tidbits on old exit numbers for Sunrise Highway east of Phyliss Drive from an old Sunoco road map of the early-1970's:
This map also shows the road under construction between former NY 113 and NY 24, and Nicoll's Road(SCR 97) under construction between NY 347 and the Long Island Expresway(former NY 495). I don't know how true those exit numbers were, because I never saw any exit numbers on that part of Sunrise until the mid-1970's, but that was what the map said. ---- DanTD 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was oppose merging. Although the other article does need serious work... – T M F 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I tentatively support unless someone can find a good deal of history on the roadway. Otherwise, it's just a named road that's part of NY 27. – T M F 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was driving on Linden Boulevard yesterday and noticed there was an Exit 2 and Exit 1 posted for at-grade intersections. Traveling westbound, I noticed an "Exits 2-1" informational sign in the center median, plus an "Exit 2" gore sign in the center median indicating the left turn lane. There was no Exit 1 gore sign that I noticed. I did not make note of what intersections these are. Perhaps these numbers should be noted in the interchange table. -- Tckma ( talk) 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The expressway is wholly part of NY 27, meaning their routing and histories totally overlap. – T M F 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is a mess as it currently stands. I don't even have to read it to say that. No article should ever need to have a Section 2.3.3.4 in it. All of the history should be possible to summarize in a single level of subheaders. No two headers in an article should ever be the same. Right now, if I use the link New York State Route 27#New York City, which heading is the object of the link? The link should always go to the first, but any incoming link meant for the second will not be directed there.
I would reorganize all of the history section into chronological order, start with the earliest history and end at the latest history. Each time you switch to a new topic, change the header. That may mean you bounce back and forth between NYC and LI, and that's perfectly acceptable. Start at the beginning of the story and work to the end. Trying to cluster the topics like this makes a very complicated table of contents that is very off-putting to readers. In the end, nothing comes out very cohesively into a single narrative. And while you're reorganizing it all, summarize! There's way too much detail in some of these sections. That level of detail isn't needed, and it makes the text too dense to read. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the subheaders from the "Proposed Interchanges and Crossings" section and changed the bullet points into text. This is still far too detailed and needs substantial summarization. RuthLivingstone ( talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did the plan fail for an eastward extension? There is clearly a strong need, to avoid the "Shinnecock Squeeze". Paulhummerman ( talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
the article needs much better documentation. Why did the plan for the eastern extension "fail"? Paulhummerman ( talk) 23:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)