Talk:New Jersey Route 85

A fact from New Jersey Route 85 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the New Jersey Route 85 freeway was never built, it is still listed in the state's Route Log?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/October.

Wikipedia

U.S. Roads: State highways / New Jersey Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

New Jersey

This article does not have a map. Please work with the Maps department to create and add a file for this article.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article does not require a KML file.

Article recognition:

	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in August 2013.

New Jersey: Hudson County C‑class Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hudson County Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

"state's Route Log"?

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. After a whole bunch of clicking forward, I finally found the relevant part of the statutes (probably not a permanent link). (By the way, the title is "State highway routes set forth", not "State highways set forth", and it should be cited as "27:6-1. State highway routes set forth" to hopefully make it easier to find.) But there's no mention of Route 85 anywhere in this section. This seems to match the proposed Route 85:

Route No. . As soon as practicable the State Highway Commissioner shall establish the State Highway Route, from the Lincoln Tunnel in the township of Weehawken to and connecting with the Holland Tunnel by way of the township of Weehawken, city of Hoboken and the city of Jersey City, heretofore authorized by P.L.1934, chapter 116 and Revised Statutes 27:6-1; and the aforesaid route is hereby designated a freeway as defined in P.L.1945, chapter 83.

The statement about Route 85 still being in the "state's Route Log" is thus flawed in several ways:

This isn't any sort of "Route Log", just the codified statutes.
It's not actually called Route 85 in the statutes.
It's simply a codified version of all laws relating to state highways, including un-repealed "deadwood", which this one clearly is.

Therefore I'm removing this sentence entirely.

"Route Log" seemed to be a term that was running around 60, 74 and 85. Dunno who added it.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it could be bad OCR, but the cited article, "Freeway Planned Across Meadows", doesn't seem to be about Route 85 at all. It's also in a completely different location, on the other side of the Palisades from the original proposal. --NE2 01:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which I have a copy of, doesn't make NJ 85 referred as a designation directly, but the alignment matches the original proposal, heading to all three crossings (Holland, Lincoln and Geo Washington), and everything seems to match. If you want a copy to read, e-mail me and I will forward a copy.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was from the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City to the Lincoln Tunnel in Weehawken, which is east of the Palisades, and didn't extend to the George Washington Bridge. On the other hand, the meadows are west of the Palisades. --NE2 08:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Meadows article mentions that the Hudson Freeway would start in the same exact place as the original Hoboken Freeway, NJ 139/I 78 near the Holland, would intersect with then-Interstate 495 at North Bergen/Weehawken, and continued northward from the Lincoln with four more interchanges, including meeting the I-95, NJ 4, US 9W and NJ 67 interchanges at Fort Lee.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says:

As envisioned in the Berger study, the corridor for the freeway would run from Sip Avenue in Jersey City north into the Hackensack Meadowlands and roughly parallel to the eastern leg of the New Jersey Turnpike. [...] Mr. Ryan listed these as two in Jersey City---one at the Pulaski Skyway and one at the approaches to the Holland Tunnel. A third interchange is planned for Secaucus and a fourth, in North Bergen, in the area of Paterson Plank Road and Interstate 495, which leads to the Lincoln Tunnel. A fifth would be at 69th Street in North Bergen, a sixth at Route 46 in Ridgefield Park and a seventh would connect the freeway with the Interstate 80 approach to the George Washington Bridge.

The Jersey City end is at Sip Avenue, which is west of the Palisades. The I-495 interchange is also clearly west of the Palisades. --NE2 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]