Talk:Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

Urgent inquiry about traffic statistics
We're just a few days away from seeing this article on the Main Page, so I have an urgent inquiry to be addressed, specifically regarding vehicle traffic during the first couple years after the highway opened. I previously cited the book source Gambling on the American Dream which states the following:
 * "One year later [after the connector opened], 18,000-20,000 vehicles travelled through the tunnel daily, after a dip to 11,000 following the 11 September attacks. After the Borgata opened in 2003, the 2.3-mile roadway had about 25,000 vehicles per day, as tracked by the SJTA [...]"

The book does mention a citation for the statistics but I am unable to access it due to the limitations of Google Books.

However, looking at the SJTA's annual reports, these numbers are significantly different. Their 2002 Annual Report states:
 * "From September through the end of December 2001, an average of 23,000 vehicles a day used some portion of the Connector".

Their 2002 Annual Report (which can only be viewed as a Flash file extracted from a ZIP file found here) states:
 * "In 2003, 10.9 million vehicles traveled the AC Connector [...] compared with 2002, during which time 8.7 million vehicles utilized the Connector."

Calculations:
 * 10.9 million &divide; 365 = 29,863
 * 8.7 million &divide; 365 = 23,836

My question is, which statistics should be we using here? – Dream out loud (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you raise an interesting question, to which i do not have a good answer. given two conflicting numbers in equally reliable sources, i often elect to use the more conservative number, but wouldn't consider the other option wrong.  one can also use footnotes to mention conflicting statements in reliable sources.  dying (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok so I did some more research using archived news articles from The Press of Atlantic City. Multiple articles mention the low vehicle count in late 2001, so I don't know where the SJTA got its value of 23,000, and I think it should be excluded from the article.   So let's focus on the data from the next two years.  In 2002, the connector had 18,000 daily vehicles in June and 20,000 in July. That's where those numbers come from.  It seems that daily traffic increased throughout the rest of the year in 2002, hence the final average number from the SJTA being even higher.  I'm going to remove the book source from the section and site Press of AC articles instead, which seem to be more specific about their data.  I've since updated the article context to focus on the following:
 * Initial projections were 14,000-17,000 daily vehicles
 * First several months did not meet estimates due to 9/11
 * Within year after opening, traffic volume exceeded estimates
 * Volume increased again after Borgata opened in 2003
 * Latest traffic volume data (which happens to be from 2013)
 * – Dream out loud (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

mos:jobtitles
, regarding your revert, i believe "New Jersey governor" and "Atlantic City mayor" are not considered titles, but descriptions. there's a brief relevant discussion on this topic archived here, and a much longer current discussion here[]. dying (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * When used in front of a name, they're titles. It's jarring to me that we'd have "President Biden" but not "Governor Christie", and prefixing the state name (which isn't needed based on the context) should not suddenly drop the capital from a title in front of a name. Ditto the mayor, which again, probably doesn't need the city prefixed based on the context of the subject of this article.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , i admittedly was not looking to debate with you what the mos should implement. there are a number of things in the mos i disagree with and do not personally adhere to outside of wikipedia.  i merely wanted to inform you that i believe your interpretation of what mos:jobtitles says does not appear to be widely held.  i do not believe that convincing me that mos:jobtitles should be changed to implement your capitalization preferences is really going to be helpful, as i do not have the power to unilaterally change such a contentious guideline.  (well, i do, but i presume i would be quickly reverted.)if you would like to see this guideline changed, i would suggest that you participate in the second discussion that i have linked above.  meanwhile, i assume that this article should adhere to the mos, seeing that it is soon to feature on the main page.if you don't think it is necessary to mention the name of either the state or the city, feel free to remove them and see if anyone else disagrees; i don't have a personal preference.  dying (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dying: from MOS:JOBTITLES:
 * "They are capitalized only in the following cases... When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII." Thus "Governor Whitman" and "Mayor Whelan" should have the title capitalized as I described above. There's no exception in the MOS for titles that are not heads of state. I'd also note again that adding the state or city name doesn't suddenly convert the actual title ("Governor" or "Mayor") into a non-title when it is in front of a person's name, so even then "New Jersey Governor Whitman" is still correct.  Imzadi 1979   →   02:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Imzadi1979 here - it seems they are in fact titles and should be properly capitalized. I'll update the TFA blurb as well. – Dream out loud  (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , i never stated that "Governor" and "Mayor" were not considered titles, only that i believe "New Jersey governor" and "Atlantic City mayor" are not considered titles. the discussions i linked above should have also made this clear.  i do not understand why you are referring to a hypothetical exception for heads of state.  the guideline explicitly uses the example "US president Richard Nixon".  dying (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia
TahnDomín (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @TahnDomín, sí Over5help550 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Route 87"
I was reading the opening of this article as the featured article. As a former New Yorker, when I see "Route 87". my first thought is Interstate 87 (New York). Should Route 87 be qualified as "state" or written out as "New Jersey Route 87"? I recognize my perspective is that of a quasi=local. I don't know if the additional text would help enough people to justify even one more word when there is a link. Just my thoughts. 2600:4040:7F7A:1300:8C9F:6000:C27F:8558 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Several states refer to their state highways as just “Route X”. Others refer to them as “State Route X”, and we follow those conventions in our writing.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * But it's a good idea to use the state's (or other system's) name as an introduction the first time the name is used, for just this reason. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Connector freeway"?
The article described this road as a "connector freeway" (linked to the connector road article), but later notes that there is an at-grade railroad crossing. From my understanding of the definition of "freeway" (especially the part about limited access), an at-grade crossing makes this not a freeway. Another term should be used, or the discrepancy explained (does the "freeway" designation begin after the rail crossing?). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Piledhigheranddeeper I will try to get you an answer. Over5help550 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piledhigheranddeeper It is a freeway road, but an idea of it about a railway crossing as well. Over5help550 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a freeway bridge, with a railway running beneath it or beside it, with both a freeway and a railway crossing. Over5help550 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piledhigheranddeeper The railway is above the freeway, the freeway is called the expressway. When you look in a picture, you can clearly see the bridge, above the freeway, which contains the railway, going diagonally across the freeway. Over5help550 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, "the project was criticized for including a railroad grade crossing on a freeway." The nearby photo shows the track built into the pavement of the road.  That's not a bridge, it's not limited access, and thus it's not a freeway. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are freeways with rail crossings. They're not ideal, and they should be removed as time goes on, but they do exist. Such crossings, while rare, do not negate the freeway status of the roadway.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * NJDOT classifies the entire highway as an "Urban Principal Arterial Freeway/Expressway". Yes, there is one at-grade rail crossing, but all road junctions are grade-seperated. – Dream out loud  (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You guys for the information. 😀 Over5help550 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Unable To Edit
I would like you to possibly be able for us to edit this passage. It is popular and it will protect it from vandalism. Over5help550 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)