U.S. Route 1/9 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
Reviewer: Viridiscalculus ( talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I am putting this article on hold
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.
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.
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.
Aside from the above specifics, I recommend the following:
I will check back on February 25 at the latest. Viridiscalculus ( talk) 04:55, 19 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)
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)
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)
Okay, I like that. I'll do that. MarioLOA ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
U.S. Route 1/9 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
Reviewer: Viridiscalculus ( talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I am putting this article on hold
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.
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.
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.
Aside from the above specifics, I recommend the following:
I will check back on February 25 at the latest. Viridiscalculus ( talk) 04:55, 19 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)
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)
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)
Okay, I like that. I'll do that. MarioLOA ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)