Talk:George Washington Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bridges (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I should clarify my comment about deleting the paragraph related to the 2002 Spider-Man movie. The comic book death of Gwen Stacy was indeed set at the GW. However, the equivalent scene in the movie where Mary Jane Watson is thrown from the bridge is most definitely the Queensborough. Rbs 02:51, 2004 Feb 12 (UTC)

Fiction References[edit]

I don't think the references to popular fiction are needed. I think they detract from the rest of the article. I mean, really, will we include references to all places that the GWB has appeared in TV and film? Any objections to removing them? --ChrisRuvolo 22:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not support removing notable fiction references.--Jusjih 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The GWB is an icon, and mentions in popular culture should be included. The question is where to draw the line at inclusion of any appearance in a movie, TV show, comic book or video game. There should be some measure of "notability" in deciding which should be included. But a wholesale removal, not now. Alansohn 12:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a few mentions that establish its iconic status are a good thing. I would NOT exhaustively list all of them but up to a half dozen or so I would keep with nary a worry. As Alansohn says, filter by notability and relevance, WP is not a link farm or booklist, but keep some. (this idea has been brewing a while I guess?) ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section. There was absolutely nothing of value in it and it was nearly as long, if not more so, than the rest of the article. A cultural significance section may be in order, but it should not just be a list of references and scenes. Write about why it is significant, not a bunch of random references. (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, some fiction references should be there, like you said, significant ones; i.e. the GWB and Hudson river play a fairly big role in the opening chapter of MGS2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


(moved from User talk:ChrisRuvolo)

SR 4 and I-80 do not end on the bridge. SR 4 ends at the merge with I-95, as does I-80, several miles west. --SPUI 09:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. However, these documents show that both US-1 and NJ-4 stop at the bridge approach at US-9W. US-9 is shown stopping in Woodbridge. US-46 is shown stopping at US-1&9 in Palisades Park. Indeed, I-80 stops at the intersection with I-95 and I-95 runs through the state border on the bridge. Am I reading thesr right? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 20:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look at the text below the map, after the straight line portion ends - it shows which highways to follow. --SPUI 01:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

change of Hudson template[edit]

Would anyone mind if I substituted {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} with {{Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings[edit]

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Prolonged overnight sidewalk closing[edit]

While I have seen a web page at the Port's site that overnight sidewalk closing would apply through September 2006, I just checked its traffic advisory that it continues. While the south sidewalk with ramped access has been closed for a very long time while the north sidewalk has stairs. I am unsure if the Port Authority has thus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for discriminating people in wheelchairs.--Jusjih 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The South Sidewalk is open again from 06:00 to 23:56 and the North Sidewalk is always closed.. I will try to call the GW Bridge Bus Station to find available buses.--Jusjih 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

other considerations[edit]

the lower level of the bridge was originally intended to have a railroad running over it. there was talk of extending the A train to go over the bridge into fort lee. but that never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky dog (talkcontribs)


A lot of people passing through New York want to avoid this bridge, and thus New York city. a section on this would be helpful. --Dj245 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GW in popular culture[edit]

I removed this section again because it is just a large list of random unsourced items, that constitutes trivia. WP:TRIVIA discourages creating lists of random facts, and thats exactly what this section has become. The list has become more and more bloated with mention of any appearance of the bridge in some form of media. These are not integral to an understanding of the bridge and this section should not exist. This is in line with a similar cleanup done to the Golden Gate Bridge per this discussion. VerruckteDan (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section again. I am of course absolutely willing to listen to arguments as to why it should be kept, but I can't think of any good ones. Simply listing TV shows and movies where the bridge appeared tells us nothing about it. If someone wants to do a section on the cultural significance of the bridge, that's another thing. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

DAR monument?[edit]

Why is a picture of the DAR monument under the GWB featured so prominently? It barely deserves mention in the article, in my opinion, and it's ugly to boot. A pix of the red lighthouse would be more appropriate. --agr (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

simones theory[edit]

i love the george washinton bridge-simone —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: This site is not public domain; see the website disclaimer for copyright notice. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ERECTED BY[edit] claims that GWB was "erected by" Ferdinand William Roebling, Jr. (while president of Roebling Wire, Trenton NJ;) all history knows of this family. Your article says that Chief Engineer was Othmar Ammann & Architect was Cass Gilbert. Something not specific or correct? in GWB article. It is surprising that Wikipedia does not report the existance of Ferdinand William Roebling, Jr User:Plumalley —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Feel free to edit the article with the proper citations. There is no central "wikipedia" authority that does any "reporting". Edit the fact as needed.--Davmpls 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talkcontribs)


I noticed there is some back on forth on the issue of including Mr. Clementi's recent suicide in this article, and I thought it would be best to discuss it here first. I have to disagree with anon 146.163...'s recent edits, and I agree with Denimadept that this should be mentioned on Mr. Clementi's wiki page. I don't believe Mr. Clementi's suicide will prove to be a particularly notable event in the history of the bridge (and I'd like to emphasize that I am not saying Mr. Clementi's suicide is not notable; I'm saying that for the bridge itself it likely won't be historically important). As such, I'd suggest adding a link to Mr. Clementi's page in a "See Also" section, akin to how US Airways Flight 1549 is handled on the Hudson River page. (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial Toll?[edit]

The article mentions the initial 10 cent toll for pedestrians, but nothing about the toll for motor vehicles. Is this info out there? Also, I'd heard that the initial toll was to be temporary and would be removed once the bridge had paid for itself. NjtoTX (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New article for Fort Lee lane closures?[edit]

I think the fiasco regarding the Fort Lee lane closures has reached the point where a new article might be warranted. Thoughts? Samer (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you've got enough to warrant a new article, go for it! New articles are good. Then link to it in this article. Unfortunately, I see this issue as strictly time-limited news which won't be of particular interest long-term. As soon as Christy leaves office, or a few years pass, this becomes kinda boring. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Chris Christie suggests that the current events are most properly within the scope of that article Chris Christie#Fort Lee lane closure for now. The history subsection of this article seems inappropriate. (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Slightly different issue. Why is this "scandal" considered encyclopedic? It's a local news item at most, of no interest to anyone outside the immediate area. - Denimadept (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

reaching the towers[edit]

Washington Heights has a picture taken from the west tower of the bridge. Yet there is nothing about the tower accessibility. Apparently, they are accessible to someone, though it could've just been a janitor with a camera. (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just about anything is accessible if you can figure out who to talk to. Start with who owns and maintains the bridge. Keep in mind that if they let just anyone up there, they'd have published a public tour schedule, so don't expect it to be that easy. You likely need some kind of credentials. - Denimadept (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Subway on lower level?[edit]

Is it true that the lower level was intended for a subway line? --NE2 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A search inside the listed reference "The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel" gives some perspective. Page 86 of this book says, "Orignally Ammann had thought that were a lower deck ever built, it would be for light rail." The whole book is not available on-line, but this statement indicates that it was considered during planning, even if not included in design or construction. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Upper Deck steel roadbed replacement[edit]

According to a notification I got today (4/28/15), the replacement of the steel in the upper deck will resume on May 4, 2015, proceeding at night. 3 of the 4 lanes will be closed during the work intervals. No end date was given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Do have a cite we can use, please? - Denimadept (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)