Talk:Pulaski Skyway/Archive 1

Two "References" sections
There seem to be two references section. That's a little bit odd. TheGrappler 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there were two citation methods used in the article. The top section dosen't really show what statements are being referenced.  I'll go through the edit history and see if I can make sense of it.  Cacophony 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The original reference section was added by SPUI all at once so it is hard to say which statements are being referenced. I'm not sure how they should be merged.  Cacophony 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can sort it out at some point. --SPUI (T - C) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Book arrived
Interlibrary loan was successful once again; I have a copy of "The Last Three Miles: Politics, Murder, and the Construction of America's First Superhighway". --NE2 01:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A minor warning to anyone else who might read the book: I'm sure the details of the politics are correct, but the highway details are a bit off. For instance, he calls the Long Island Motor Parkway a "twenty-mile circular road...that served as a racetrack and, during its off-hours, a connector road for some of the area's estates", and calls Route 25 the "confusing alternate designation" of the Route 1 Extension (it was actually changed in the 1927 renumbering). --NE2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing wordage
Torwards the end of the article, I came across this section:


 * "The skyway was a constraint in the building of the perpendicular New Jersey Turnpike near the west end in 1951. The turnpike had to be built low enough to provide enough clearance underneath the skyway, but high enough to clear the nearby Passaic River. Turnpike engineers could have built over the skyway (at a much higher cost) or built under the skyway's trusses; the latter option was chosen. As part of a 2005 seismic retrofit project, the Turnpike Authority lowered the bridge to increase vertical clearance and allow for full-width shoulders, which had been constrained by the location of the skyway supports. The Newark Bay Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike (I-78) opened in September 1956, finally allowing Holland Tunnel-bound trucks to bypass the old surface road."

...the jumping from 1951 to 2005 and then back to 1956 seems rather confusing, at least to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Update needed
The "Trucks and other safety issues" section is out of date, with the most recent information dating back to August 2007, making this section over 3 years old. I am sure that there have been more construction updates and future projects for the road scheduled, especially with the recent stimulus package in place. – Dream out loud (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New exit/junction table
I recently updated the junction/exit table and I want to explain my edits here just to make things clear. After looking at the SLD for US 1, it states that the Skyway begins at mile marker 49.00 (not at the Raymond Blvd interchange as previously listed). Therefore, I also had to add in the three interchanges between those points. For the eastern terminus, I removed the junction with US 1/9 Truck. It's a little confusing on the SLD but US 1/9 Truck doesn't intersect with US 1/9 until the end of the skyway at an at-grade junction. The "intersection" on the SLD is actually US 1/9 Truck passing underneath the Skyway but with no intersection. I confirmed this by comparing the SLD with a satellite image on Google Maps. Also, the Tonnele Circle itself is not part of the Skyway, but it is its eastern terminus, so the circle intersections were removed. The Skyway actually ends at both the Tonnele Circle exit (US 1/9 north) and at the western terminus of Route 139. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns here. – Dream out loud (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Highway with bridges, not a single bridge
This article is representing the Skyway as a series of bridges, when in fact it is a highway with one section that is made up of bridges. The Skyway is 5.6 miles long according to NJDOT and only about 3.5 miles of that is the bridge section, while the rest is just a highway, partially elevatd and partially at ground level. The road infobox needs to be restored and the correct length needs to be included. The NJDOT SLD was properly cite and now it has been changed back to its old length which was not cited to begin with. – Dream out loud (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Query: why does the article need three infoboxes? I get that the NRHP box is there, and because of its size, it's clearly secondary. I think though that between the bridge or road infobox, only one should be shown.  Imzadi  1979   →  17:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Route 139
Is Route 139 officially part of the Skyway? If so, then the Skyway is longer than 5.6 miles. I didn't think it was (despite what Google Maps says), but then I saw this image. There is also an article in The Star-Ledger that says "The underside of the Skyway, where it splits to become Route 139, which takes traffic into the Holland Tunnel, is falling apart." I still can't tell exactly from this info. The sign could just mean "To Pulaski Skyway" and the article reference could mean that it splits to become Route 139 after the Skyway ends. I don't want to make any changes yet, but I was hoping for some feedback or info from other sources first. – Dream out loud (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I am sure there are different definitions according to different sources, the NRHP designation uses the following defintion: "US 1 and 9 milepoint: 51.25-54.55, NJ 139 milepoint 0-4.5", but that is for the historic structure - the Route 1 Extension. I am not sure that the Extension and the Skyway are necessarily contiguous. As to whether this article should use a structural definition, the NHRP definition, or some other definition is probably dependant upon which editor you ask, Personally, I would think that the deinition accepted by the National Park Service would be pretty authoritative as to the historic portion, but not useful in determining which parts are actually the Skyway, and which parts are adjoining roadways.  Jim Miller  See me 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While it difficult to determine the exact length of the the Skyway itself, the subject of the article as written is about the series of bridges of which it is comprised. While the Route One Extension included the Newark Viaduct and the Divided Highway, they are not part of the skyway.

The approach ramps from 1/9 and Raymond Boulevard on its western end, and the bridge which carries the roadway to the mouth of the cut at its eastern end seem to jibe with the 3.5 mile figure used in both the article's original info box and other sources. My math:54.55-51.25=3.30 plus the short distance from Tonnelle Circle to Kennedy Boulevard = 3.502. The road infobox map itself is close but misses the section beyond the circle. Djflem (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The extension and the skyway are not continuous. The skyway is part of the extension, which was a much larger project (13.2 miles to be exact). – Dream out loud  (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping on subject
As seen in the photographs to right, and 40.7322°N, -74.0645°W it would seem that the road info box added to replace the bridge info box is incorrect. While the NJDOT reference does indicate that Rte 1/9 approach as part of the skyway, its signage along that road indicates otherwise. While 1/9 ends at the Tonnelle Circle the skyway itself continues for another mile or so until reaching the dual level "State Highway" (aka Depressed Highway or covered highway) as that portion of Route 139 is known, making the actual mileage in the bridge info box correct for the subject of the article. Both the national and state register also seem to indicate that the Pulaski Skyway is the bridged section and not the western approach (which incidentally is also elevated). This fact also makes the removal of certain junction information, while incomplete, incorrect. Properly formatted, the table should include the following:

and a corrected/expanded version of:

While there may be other issues that affect featured status the recent changes distort facts and diminish quality, which does not add favorably to the piece. I would suggest eliminating the road info box completely (the map of which shows the skyway begining at Raymond Boulevard) and restoring the previous interchange/exit grid with necessary corrections and additions and keep the article on subject. Djflem (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so fix it if you have the reliable sources to do so. I'm in Michigan, I've never been to New Jersey, and I can only critique the quality of the article's presentation. I don't think this article needs 3 infoboxes, honestly the bridge box is fine, and if the NRHP box can be tagged into it that would be better.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. It would be better to fix up the article now rather than let the article get delisted and have to someday get it relisted.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People need to stop reverting changes to this article, especially changes that cited. The SLD from NJDOT (link) clearly states that the Skyway begins at mile marker 49.00, which would give a total length of 5.61 miles (see page #18 of the diagram).  The 3.5 mile section is part of the historical designation, but that does not necessarily include the entire roadway.  You can't base correct information from photos, especially if the official source says otherwise. I do agree that 3 infoboxes are unnecessary, and we should stick with the road infobox and the NRHP infobox and nothing more. – Dream out loud  (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a preponderence of other references in the article, including NJDOT, which clearly state that the Pulaski Skyway is the bridged portion of the Route One Extension (and not the Newark Viaduct or the Divided Highway at either end of it). Though there may be some that include one or the other, there one none that includes both. A personal preference for one reference doesn't make it the best choice for the article. Djflem (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not about personal preference. The SLD clearly shows the 5.61 mile length.  I have seen other pages on NJDOT's site which state the bridge's length of 3.5 miles, but they don't clearly state that that is the entirety of the Skyway.  This 1938 map of Newark shows the road labeled as the Skyway at the section just north of Newark Airport (north is the to the right on the map).  The Newark – Jersey City Vidacut and the Divided Highway are not specific portions of the roadway, but rather they were the original names of the Skyway before it was officially named "Pulaski Skyway" in 1933.  Some sources even state its longer than 5.61 miles, like this one encyclopedia that lists a length of 6.2 miles. – Dream out loud  (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed that you preferred to use SLD source. Have you come to any other conclusions in light of the contradictory information?Djflem (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition 9/29/10
As seen above, there appears to be much contradictory information as to what constitutes the Pulaski Skyway, leaving editors to discern which is the best and most reliable definition. Since there is no purely technical concurrence on the length (though the most often quoted is 3.5 miles) or structures (most often referred as the series of bridges) encompassed in the term "Pulaski Skyway", I choose for structure between the end of Raymond Boulevard and underpass at Kennedy Boulevard. I would suggest that most would agree or be hard pressed to include the roadways that lead to it. The artice as now written encompasses only the steel structure and not the Newark viaduct or the Divided Highway (New Jersey Route 139, the article for which does not consider it the Pulaski Skyway). I do not think it is necessary to explain the definition in the article but would not object to a qualifying paragragh that mentions the conflicitng opinions (NJDOT, NRHS, and countless others) if someone is willing to write and reference it Djflem (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Route 1 Extension south of Raymond and east of Tonnele predates the Skyway and is not part of it. --NE2 09:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You just stated that this definition is "your choice". Like I said above, the Newark Viaduct and Diagonal Highway (not sure what the Divided Highway is) are simply historical names and do not refer to specific sections.  The NJDOT SLD and the 1938 map both show that the road just north of Newark Airport is named Pulaski Skyway, about 2 miles before the bridges.  This choice of yours seems more like original research.  Yes, the Route 1 Extension below Raymond Blvd does predate it, but once the bridges were built, the entire portion was named the Pulaski Skyway according to the map.  I'm basing all this off of sources, I'm not here to state any facts without citations.  I'm sure there are other sources out there and I'll post them as soon as I find them. – Dream out loud  (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/pulaski/ --NE2 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be about the Historic Site, as well as the elevated road. Each definition should be used in an appropriate section, and the relatively minor detail should be omitted from the lead entirely as it is apparently not a defining characteristic. This piece, from the NJDOT, states that the Route 1 Extension is 13 miles long, and the Skyway itself is "a steel structure more than three miles long." Common sense says that anything that is not elevated isn't part of the Skyway itself, but an ajoining surface road - if it's not in the sky, it's not the Skyway. There is no need to determine a single defined length for the Pulaski Skyway since there are different legnths that can be sourced for the different descriptions and can be used in different sections of the article.  Jim Miller  See me 13:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another map and another map (3 maps total I found so far) that show the approach named Pulaski Skyway as well. Right where US 1/9 turns from purple to red above I-78 is the exact same spot where the Skyway begins according to the SLD.  I'm not stating any opinions.  I'm just providing sources and you can't argue with these facts.  And I've looked at the Skyway's page on NJDOT's site and it does mention the bridge structure, but there's nothing explicitly stating that it begins at Raymond Blvd.  I don't understand where the idea that it officially begins at Raymond Blvd has come from, and I haven't seen any sources that state that.  I know the NRHP listing for the Route 1 Extension lists mile 51.25 as the beginning, but that is south of Raymond Blvd and only refers to the part that has been a registered historical place (not including the entire skyway or the entire 13 mile extension).  It also lists NJ 139 which I believe we have all determined is not part of the Skyway.  Here's my opinion (which you're welcome to argue with, since it's just an opinion), but it doesn't make sense that the Skyway begins at Raymond Blvd.  Looking at this image on Google Street View, the view from Ferry St (which is south of Raymond Blvd) still shows the elevated bridge section of the Skyway.  If one states that the Skyway begins at the Raymond Blvd interchange, then that means the Skyway begins well into the elevated portion of the bridge, which would actually be north/east of this part (to the right, in the image).  – Dream out loud  (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From my view, the Pulaski Skyway is the bridge that carries US 1/9 over the Passaic and Hackensack rivers from Raymond Boulevard in Newark to the Tonnele Circle in Jersey City. This does not include the part of road between Raymond Boulevard and I-78, despite the fact the SLD labels it as the "General Pulaski Skyway". The SLDs have a history of misnaming routes, so it should not be taken that the skyway begins at I-78 as the part from there north to Raymond Boulevard is a surface freeway.  Dough 48  72  15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why include the conflicting definitions and actually create a short section or a good paragraph describing the differences in the article? The infobox at the top of the article can list the longest and shortest lengths with footnotes. (Use  after the each length and a   in a "Footnotes" section inserted just before the "References" section.) Then all of the various definitions can be listed and explained. It would actually increase the information covered in the article in a meaningful way. How's that sound?  Imzadi   1979   →  17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Imzadi1979. Take the length out of the lead paragraph altogether. The infobox, which states that NJDOT maintains the road, should use NJDOTs definition for the legnth of the road. Place one sentence as Imazdi suggested with the sourced lengths in the Route description and designation section. A new section on the historic designation should be written and that should include the length used in the NHRP determination to describe the historic portion of the roadway. There is no reason to try to settle on one signle definition when mulitiple reliable sources disagree. Just acknowledge the disagreement. "Verifiability, not truth."  Jim Miller  See me 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the NJDOT SLD to be reliable (as Dough 4972 suggests), and is the weakest source since is the one that clearly contradicts itself. If one views the edit history and looks to work done 11 Dec 2004 when the original infobox was added it included the bridge ID number 0704150/0901150 as given by the National Bridge Inventory, and the very specific length used by them. Unfortunately the editor who did so did not (or was unable to) properly reference it, and it difficult to track (Any volunteers?). The article as now written discusses only the bridge (Diagonal Highway) part of the Route One Extension built after its other components were completed and given its name two years after the bridge was completed. Thus using the SLD in the infobox is misleading and dilutes the value of it. Is an entire paragragh discussing the contemporary diversity of opinion among sources (NJDOT, NRHP, the above mentioned NBI, NJCU, StarLedger, NY Times, etc, etc, etc.) that all satisfy verifiablility apropros? Don't believe anyone is served by re-writing the piece to include the the other portions of the roadway that are sometimes included under name of the iconographic bridge that is summoned in most when hearing it. (One may wish to call it OR when I dare to say to so, but, similarly, New York Harbor is not officially a placename according to the USGS though it does have the power to conjure strong images). Unfortunately, this article had passed its FA challenge, but that has now been retracted, so a cheap fix will unlikely satisfy at this point (Some are ready for a de-listing, but then what? B-class?). I would be prepared to write a new section called Definition beginning with something similar to |its first reference and draw the conclusion the the Skyway is the iconic structure designed by Sigvald Johannesson, keeping the infobox as it is. I hope that User talk:Imzadi1979 would be willing to help with reference formatting once supplied. Would be great to have feedback on this b4 doing the work. Djflem (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the SLD is wrong, but it is an official source and we would need to find another reliable source that says otherwise. Even though the 3 maps I referenced labled the entire roadway as the Skyway, most editors are convinced that it only includes the bridge. If that is the case, where exactly does the Skyway begin? As explained above, it has to begin somewhere south of Raymond Blvd because the Skyway is still elevated at that interchange. Maybe something can be found on USDOT's site? I do like the idea of the definition section, and I think we could mention the fact that the SLD states a different length than what is commonly accepted. We can also reference the fact that old maps have the entire roadway named. But then this brings me to ask, why are the SLD and those maps labeling the highway approach as the Skyway as well? Regardless, we need to find a reliable source that states this all this information. – Dream out loud (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Couple comments, but you can't totally disregard the SLD. It is a document by the agency in charge of the road. You will need to address that discrepancy somehow. (Interstate 275 (Michigan) has a similar issue. The FHWA doesn't consider it to extend concurrently north on I-96, but MDOT does. Most map makers follow MDOT's lead since the signs are that way. The article lists both lengths though.) That could be a paragraph on the differing definitions, it could be a sentence or two someplace, or just a well written explanatory footnote. Second point though, User:SPUI is long retired from Wikipedia, so don't expect him ever to come back. It's been over 3 years now at least.  Imzadi   1979   →  00:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with User:JimMillerJr above. Omit the length from the lead; discuss it at length in a section; probably the History section is best. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Imzadi, we cannot disregard the SLD. We should still include the length in the article that the SLD states, and doing it somewhere outside of the lead makes perfect sense. – Dream out loud  (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just in case this muddies the waters further, I e-mailed NJDOT and asked them what they defined as the Pulaski Skyway. The reply I got was "Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) regarding the Pulaski Skyway. The Pulaski Skyway starts at mile post 51.17 on Route 1&9 in the City of Newark and ends at Tonnelle Avenue in Jersey City around milepost 54.60.  Broadway, Kearny and Raymond  exit ramps are also part of the Pulaski Skyway." How does that square up with the SLD?  Imzadi   1979   →  23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your perserverence pursuing the confusing issue. My math makes that 54.60-51.17=3.33, which is close to the 3.5/3.6 cited in many other refs. I would quibble a bit more and still suggest that the bridged/elevated viaduct of 139 before entering the cut that makes up most of it are part of the original Diagonal Highway and thus the skyway, but there is no need to do so as the article definition is good. Shame they don't produce a ref that actually really states above info.Djflem (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead/Lede
As now written the serves its purpose and does exactly what it supposed to do: Introduce the subject and VERY briefly state salient facts and mention what topics are covered in article. Are there proposals for what should be included or eliminated, or how the informaation should be presented if the current form is unappealing?Djflem (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The namesake for the skyway needs to be restored to the lead. It's not a minor detail to be left out.  Imzadi  1979   →  00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The name is mentioned. Do you mean the explanation of who the general was? It is a rather long-winded distraction from the subject of article in to have in the 2ns paragragh and is not about the bridge at all. Info is found in paragragh explaining how it was named. Djflem (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a "a Polish general in the American Revolutionary War" is too much to add to the sentence in the lead, "It was named for General Kazimierz Pułaski in 1933."? I know how Pulaski is, and you know who Pulaski is, but for someone unfamiliar with the history who doesn't read more than the lead, this is a key little detail to restore to the lead. Change that sentence to something like: "It was named in 1933 for General Kazimierz Pułaski, an important figure in the American Revolution." or something similar.  Imzadi  1979   →  23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings here, just thought it was long-winded, because the above sentence doesn't clarify whether if that was on British or American side, etc, etc etc, and raises questions that need to be answered, but then not in lead. Buy if a description is indeed necessary, and there's no oppostion, then please do add above.Djflem (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there are any tips on what is needed in/which direction could be taken regarding the LEAD. It does seem to present a good synopsis of what is covered in article w/o going into details later discussed. Is it the prose? Is it the info? Is it the order? Not sure, and don't wanna go messin' w/o a focus. ThanksDjflem (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Guthrie name check
I think that, taken in context, it is likely that Woodie Guthrie was using a bit of poetic license when he sang "...I saw above me, that endless skyway", referring to the boundless open space of this country, and not, in fact, to a 3 mile long overpass. Perhaps he was in a truck, and therefore restricted to the surface road? Gimelgort (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible but either way it's just original research. I couldn't find any sources that explicitly state that the song references the Pulaski Skyway so I just removed the line altogether. – Dream out loud (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links
This article is disgracefully littered with tons of red links. I don't remember the last time that I've seen an article with so many red links, nevertheless a "featured" article. I don't know how this got by in last year's FAR, but this issue needs to be taken care of. I understand that red links can be acceptable at times, but I don't think articles for Theodore M. Brandle or Hugh L. Sloan are going to be written any time soon. – Dream out loud (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are not a bad thing, in fact, the Featured Article criteria are silent on them. If the subjects are notable and worthy of receiving an article, even if that article is not started for five years, the links should be left alone.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Route description and designation
Eliminating length in lead, a properly referenced new paragragh under above header could read:
 * Different sources include different parts of the Route 1 Extension in the Pulaski Skyway. In some cases, the NJDOT includes the southern approach starting at milepost 49.00. The National Register of Historic Places includes the road starting at milepost 51.25 extending to the dual level highway at its northern end. Most though, refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5 mi iconic bridge designed by Johannesson that was the third and last component of the new highway to be built.

I made a few copy edits above. You'll need to define by whom is "most".  Imzadi  1979   →  07:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Will change it to "many" and include in references (just NJDOT and NRHP will be) such as those mentioned above: NY Times, Star Ledger, NJCU, and various books (for a total of five other sources at a minimum) Think mentioning two the two first examples is enough, without adding a list of who says waht. Let's dispatch this succintly and get over the red-herring Djflem (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then change the line to something like "Other sources, including the New York Times and the Star Ledger refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5 mi iconic bridge...". There's no need to go overboard, but "Most" is a weasel word and won't help the cause to keep this article listed as a Featured Article.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine.Let's see if other people can live with this.Djflem (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many" is still a weasel word and is the same as saying "most". We need to be specific here as to who we're referring to.  And NRHP doesn't state that the Skyway begins at 51.25.  That milepost is for the beginning of the historical part of the Route 1 Extension. (The NRHP listing cannot be directly linked, but can be found by searching "Route 1 Extension" from this link.)  Yes, I'm aware that that's where the Skyway bridge begins, but NRHP doesn't say that, so we'll have to find some reference that does. – Dream out loud  (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As seen above the most/many issue is resolved. Please make a proposal for the the phrasing/wording of the qualifying paragragh and the references you would like use. Then we can move on with the rest of the article. ThanksDjflem (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the current wording is: "Different sources include different parts of the Route 1 Extension in the Pulaski Skyway. In some cases, the NJDOT includes the southern approach starting at milepost 49.00. The National Register of Historic Places includes the road starting at milepost 51.25 extending to the dual level highway at its northern end. Other sources such as the New York Times and the Newark Star-Ledger refer to the Pulaski Skyway as the 3.5 mi iconic bridge designed by Johannesson that was the third and last component of the new highway to be built." with the appropriate references inserted.  Imzadi  1979   →  16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't use the nycroads.com source because that's a self-published source, but I did insert the NRHP and NYT sources into the paragraph. We just need a Star-Ledger reference and a second NRHP-related reference.  Imzadi  1979   →  18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the NRHP record, they have the Route 1 Extension as" "US 1 and 9 milepoint: 51.25-54.55, NJ 139 milepoint 0-4.5".  Imzadi  1979   →  18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the re-write and formatting. I'd like to hope that this could be a final version (though I prefer such as in place of like) and think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to include the nycroads.com which, while self published is up to date and accurate, in ex links.
 * It's fine as an external link, but not as a source. I swapped in "such as" for "like" in the paragraph, which, I agree, should take care of the conflicting definitions. I think though that we can list the shortest and longest lengths in the lead in a sentence like: "Various sources disagree on the length of the Pulaski Skyway; it ranges from either X or Y depending on the source in question." Like I did  at Interstate 275 (Michigan) with the two official lengths, a short mention like that will make sure that what is an important piece of information is not left out of the lead. The body paragraph crafted above will cover the discrepancy in greater depth.  Imzadi   1979   →  20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what length are we using for the infobox? And which infobox are we going to use? – Dream out loud  (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the Skyway is primarily known for its bridge, I say the bridge infobox. Honestly, it doesn't matter as much so long as we don't go overboard with 3 infoboxes, and duplicate information between all 3. We could even craft a hybrid of the two using infobox. As for the length see what I did with Interstate 275 (Michigan). The infobox uses both and cites both. If we stick with the bridge infobox, only the bridge length needs to be given.  Imzadi  1979   →  21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think that's opening up the can of worms that we are trying to avoid. Let's not backtrack here, it's a brige article specifically written about the bridge. The other parts of the Route One Extension are discussed in their appropriate articles. Skip length in the lead, as at least two other editors suggested. Getting into this in the lede will lead to a need to re-write with words such as if taken as, if including, if defined as, if taken to be which is an invitation to more of the same as above. As an editor I would have made the choice you did to include the longer length in the exit list at Interstate 275 (Michigan), though that could be seen as POV w/o an addtional qualification. The story here is much less striaghtforward. I do not believe we should use entrances/exits on 1/9 (to accomodate NJDOT, the weakest and self-contradictory link which mentions nothing but the bridge in its Pulaski Skyway website presentation, thousands of words as opposed to one graph) or elaborate on the dual-level highway, its eastern portal and and eventual Route 78 concurrence in this article. It is confusion we trying to prevent. The paragragh as now written could be the first in the description and designation section, thus also defining scope of article: the bridge that is the middle part of the Route 1 extension opened in 1932, designed by Johanessen, given the name the Diagonal Highway, and renamed in 1934 as the Pulaski Skyway.  (I have no wish to re-write other articles to make jibe with this one, which could also possibly be necessary) I would go far to as to re-name the section Definition, description, and designation And here's my OR as a person whose has ridden over, talked about, experienced, and knows like everyone else in the New York metropolitan area knows and four other editors have agreed:the Skyway is the skyway and only the skyway and not the last piece of road to the airport!  Djflem (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And as a bridge article, it should use the bridge infobox with the bridge length. If, however, the road infobox is used for whatever reason, then the pair of lengths will need to be included. Now, I disagree that the heading title needs to be longer, as shorter, concise headings are better. I suggest that "Description" is the best heading title for that section.  Imzadi  1979   →  22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Description would be fine, starting with newly written/ref'd paragragh? Do you think it's necessary to poll on this or can we now say a conclusion has reached on this issue and have ban removed?Djflem (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have one day left with the article locked. We need to figure out a couple things still.  First, we need some more consensus on which infobox to use.  Second, we also need to discuss how we will be presenting the Skyway in the junction list.  When was it established that the Skyway also encompasses the first 0.10 miles of Route 139?  – Dream out loud  (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As seen above, is clear that six people out of seven (not unanimous, but the significant majority saisfactory for purpose of article) people who expressed an opinion agree that the article about the bridge, which resolves the infobox issue. Since the bridge starts where it ascends just before Raymond Boulevard merges with the highway it should probably be shown as and entrance/exit. The designation change at the (middle, east side, west side?) of Tonnelle Circle does not necessarily signify the end of the Skyway, particularly since the bridge over it to the mouth of the western portal of the State Highway was built as part of the Divided Highway (and no reference specifically states it) how do you think the .10 miles to the JFK Boulevard exit and the next .10 miles to solid ground should be handled? As they are included in the Route 139 article they could be left out though qualifier (last exit before 139 western portal of tunnel/cut) could be mentioned. The ban should be allowed to lapse, and that change (if need be) be made later. There is plenty of other work to be done which has been held up. The insertion of the well-worked and well-referenced paragragh as agreed above in the sub-header Description should probably be the 3rd after other terms have been introduced (though that leaves the poorly written Route 25 paragragh hanging a bit, any suggestions?)Djflem (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure really about how to handle the eastern terminus. I looked at the road on Google Maps, and there is no intersection at JFK Blvd, just an underpass.  So that part of the junction box needs to go.  But as to how to list the eastern terminus, I really don't know.  No sources explicitly state where it ends, but we can't just pick a spot and go with it as that would be original research, of course. – Dream out loud  (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is no RS-based definition, remove the list. U.S. Route 1/9 already has the length of the skyway covered in its junction list. As for infobox, since this is primarily about a bridge, use the bridge box. That's been my opinion all along.  Imzadi  1979   →  21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Since it would be a confusing duplication of info better covered in highway articles, leaving the list out will in no way diminish the quality of the article.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * References

So what was the outcome? The article says it's "composed of connected bridges", yet "carrying the designation of U.S. Route 1/9 (US 1/9) for most of its length" (bold added). And the NRHP box says it includes Route 139. --NE2 06:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NRIS and NRHP references
There's been some discussion at wt:NRHP about what version of NRIS reference is okay to use (currently showing in this permalink to the NRHP talk page, in the bottom-most discussion section).

Also there was suggestion to directly cite the available-online NRHP nomination document, well actually it is a "Supplementary Listing", not an original nomination. I suggest doing so by the following reference.

is used.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be in the minority in thinking this, but 99% of the time when you would want to use the "13-mile" style, you should use the 13-mile-long variant. –Fredddie™ 02:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest trying to avoid the triple hyphenated unit. Not always possible, but "A road 13 miles long ..." is possible, but not with "The". Possibly "The road—13 miles long—is in Foo." There are other ways too. Or you go with triple-bunger. Tony   (talk)  02:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with the conversion template. It does not output "13 miles long (21 km)" at all.  We in the US have had it beaten into us that we need to provide conversions from miles to kilograms or whatever the metric unit is.  We could always do it manually, but that defeats the purpose of having the template. –Fredddie™ 02:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if the conversion template could be updated in order to avoid the English units from being separated from the numeral at the end of the line. When manually entering it, it would be accomplished by inserting "&" followed by "nbsp;" between 75 and "feet". However, the current template allows the 75 and "feet" to be separated at the end of the line. The template does allows the metric conversion units and number to stay together when going over the cliff at the end of a line. Inserting the adj=on command prevents this problem, which is the reason that I originally included it for the relevant article text. Please let me know if/when this is corrected. Thanks for your help.Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the last time I asked about it, I was told that the MOS doesn't require such a thing so they won't insert the non-breaking space by default. *shrugs*  Imzadi 1979  →   17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Team Convert finally came up with a long awaited solution today to this problem after this persistent issue was raised again at Template Talk:Convert Hallelujah. Adding command "adj=j" will now allow a number and the first word of the spelled-out unit of measurements to stay together and avoid text wrap. As an example, items that I highlighted in quotes would stay on one line, i.e "75 miles" or "75 square" miles followed by the abbreviated conversion units. I will add this command to the applicable units of measurement in this article in the prose section.Wondering55 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive footnotes
Honestly, it looks really bad to have single sentences with four (or more) citations. Can someone look into culling some of them if they are redundant?  Imzadi 1979  →   04:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, we should be using third-party sources as much as possible over first-party ones. In this case, that means preferring news articles over NJDOT press releases. Even if a newspaper repeats the information, they presumably are confirming and fact-checking it, and they should be adding additional content/context. Even if they just reprint the information verbatim, it is still better to use a third-party source.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The rehabilitation section still has several places with three or four footnotes at the end of a sentence. In one place, there are five. Can we pare back those numbers? Are there cases where two cited sources say the same thing, so that if we dropped one, nothing would be uncited?  Imzadi 1979  →   06:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where there were excessive citations for specific statements in the Rehabilitation section, I reduced the number of citations since other citations for that item covered the same information with more comprehensive details or I deleted the citation for that statement since it is also used elsewhere to verify other items. At most, there are now three citations for each statement in this section. Wondering55 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better, but two maximum would look better. It's a perception thing, but excessive footnotes look bad for a few reasons.
 * Novice editors will seize on a controversial point by adding multiple footnotes to "prove" that point, a "see how many people agree!" type thing.
 * Articles with disputed notability will typically get excessive footnotes to prove the notability of a subject. Usually this happens when the article is still short and developing, and the editors involved don't realize they could add a Further reading section to hold the extra citations until they can be spread out in an expanded article.
 * In other cases, editors have inappropriately synthesized information together and needed multiple citations at the end of a sentence to back the puzzle pieces.
 * This isn't to say that every sentence with more than two citations is a problem. Take as an example from M-185 (Michigan highway), another FA. "M-185 has been recognized in the press for its unique role as the only state highway without car traffic in the United States by such publications as The Kansas City Star,[11] the Chicago Tribune,[12] the Toronto Star,[13] and The Saturday Evening Post.[10]" That sentence has four citations, but they were distributed into the sentence to link the publication titles to the appropriate footnotes, and the first half of the sentence is a non-controversial generalization of those four articles. Had I left them clustered at the end of the sentence, the string of footnotes would have attracted negative attention based on the perceptions more experienced editors have dealing with the bullet points above, even though it would have been a proper use.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the questionable situations that you cited are applicable for this very reputable article. This article has existed for a very long time without anyone questioning 2 or 3 citations for specific statements. I would suggest leaving it alone for now. Wondering55 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike the rest of the article, the rehabilitation section is in a state of flux because that is an on-going situation. The reputation you ascribe to the rest of the article doesn't exactly translate to that section because people are constantly editing it to provide updates on the project. Also, the standards for Featured Articles have risen significantly since this article was promoted in 2005. Back then, inline citations were not even required, and now we scrutinize the articles to make sure sources used actually back the statements, that citations are consistently formatted and that we aren't giving unwarranted perceptions about the sourcing. No article is ever "done", and even FAs need to be improved to retain their bronze star.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated Rehabilitation section to avoid more than 2 adjacent citations. Updated outdated URL's and citation details. Deleted outdated URL's covered by remaining citations. Reduced citations for statements when subsequent skyway project historical developments, already in the article, are more up-to-date and relevant. Relocated some citations to line up with a referenced item rather than group them with other citations at the end of a statement. Hopefully, this helps. Wondering55 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

older entries
I don't want to edit this because I'm really not sure... but the table is titled "Pulaski Skywaye" and I am assuming the 'e' is extra but I'd rather a normal editor of this article fix it and not myself. -gren
 * Fuck; my bad. --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the March 1, 1930 date for the start of construction; the date of opening on nycroads.com proved incorrect (checked against NY Times articles). --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A NY Times article from April 13 says that bids will be received April 29. BUSTED. --SPUI 11:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has a good view of the Skyway from the side, please add it. That's the one view that's missing. --SPUI 13:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eeep. Are you sure that many pictures are needed? Wikipedia is not a photo album or a satellite database. As nice as some of these are, putting images to both the left and right makes the intro text almost unreadable. It might be tough, but maybe you should look carefully if one or the other shouldn't go. Some of these don't add much, for example: we all have a general idea of what highways look like, so is a picture of (for example) one of the left-side ramps really informative to the reader? I don't know if we already have a solution for this problem, e.g. whether creating a separate picture page is OK or something like WikiAlbum should be created; maybe you should ask the Village Pump.

I realize you put in the hard work, that it's tough to kill your darlings, and that I didn't write it so what am I talking about, but remember that the article should be judged on its merits to the readers, not the writers. Just my $0.02. JRM 00:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Update: Moverton fixed the main layout problem. It's not half as bad now. As long as you're not planning on, say, adding half a dozen more pictures, I think we're in the clear. :-) JRM 00:46, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * How about we remove the out-of-focus pictures and alter the left over photo to incress the constrast? ^_^ 138.89.177.98

traffic data:
 * opening 20800 per day weekdays 23800 saturdays 38700 sundays (23786 average)
 * early 1934 30000/35000/45000 (32857 average)
 * 1987 43650 per day
 * 2000 62390 per day

Bridge?
the Pulasky Skyway is a "structure" and not a bridge? It fits the definition of a bridge: A bridge is a structure built to span a gorge, valley, road, railroad track, river or other body of water, or any other physical obstacle. Sure looks like a cantilever bridge to me.


 * It's not a bridge. It contains two bridges, but most of it is just an elevated road over the meadowlands – flamuraiTM 19:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't "meadowlands" -- they're dock yards and urban areas. The NJ "Meadowlands" are somewhat northwest.


 * My mistake... I should've said "meadows". That doesn't change that the skyway travels mostly over land, though. – flamuraiTM 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Are you really implying that a bridge cannot span land? "An elevated road" falls within the definition of a bridge. Webster tells me Bridge: a structure carrying a pathway or roadway over a depression or obstacle. A highway overpass is a bridge. A "structure" that spans a valley is a bridge. Cacophony 04:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bridge, but with subbridges. It's easier to refer to the whole thing as a structure, and the four separate subbridges (two rivers and two railroads) as bridges.--SPUI 04:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just refer to the subbridges as segments of the bridge. After all, if the segments weren't connected to form a whole bridge, it wouldn't be bridging anything, would it? -- brian0918  &#153;  06:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being overly technical and pedantic. Encyclopedias are meant for the average reader. The average person thinks of a bridge as something that spans two points, while the Pulaski Skyway has numerous on- and off-ramps. The average person would not call the Skyway a bridge. I agree with SPUI's reasoning, as well. – flamuraiTM 08:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * If the "average reader" has a misunderstanding about what is or is not a bridge, the job of the encyclopedia is to correct this misunderstanding, not perpetuate it. The Pulsaki Skyway is cited in the bridge article as an outstanding example of a bridge bridge.   Cacophony 18:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mabye the article should read "Pulaski Skyway, is a series of cantilever truss bridges in New Jersey"? I'll just throw that out there as an idea. I just can't get behind calling it a structure when it is refered to as a good example of a bridge, in Category:Bridges in New Jersey, and well within the definition of a bridge. Cacophony 18:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * That sits better with me. For example, the Triborough Bridge also consists of multiple bridges, and the article is worded similarly. – flamuraiTM 19:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pedestrian and bicycle access information is missing.
I'd like to see every wikipedia article about bridges specifically mention the status of pedestrian and bicycle access ie if there is a sidewalk on the bridge (or if there isn't) and where the access points to the sidewalk are located.

– Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)  16:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point; I'm in agreement. This specific one bans them, being a freeway. I added that to the article. --SPUI 16:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New aerial photo
Since I don't know which is which, I'll let the regulars here sort that out. Nice photo, courtesy of Doc Searls.

You may prefer this one, or have a look through the whole set. All free-licensed.

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC), uploader



As requested. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Pete Tillman and Doc Searls for making all of these beautiful pictures available. The two Wikipedia uploaded images are now in the article. Wondering55 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Doc Searls weblog is often interesting reading; 50,000 Photos as a Blog is pertinent to here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ACR prelude to FAR
I'm opening this talk page section to inform interested editors that in 2 weeks this article will be sent to WP:FAR should the issues discussed at WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway not be resolved.
 * 1) There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
 * 2) There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
 * 3) The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
 * 4) There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

Hopefully there are editors who are interested and capable of handling these issues.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

FAR
Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive2 Djflem (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ACR prelude to FAR
I'm opening this talk page section to inform interested editors that in 2 weeks this article will be sent to WP:FAR should the issues discussed at WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway not be resolved.
 * 1) There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
 * 2) There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
 * 3) The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
 * 4) There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

Hopefully there are editors who are interested and capable of handling these issues.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring previously archived entry with connection which links to WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway and the discussion which took place about the Pulaski Skyway article, but without concerns brought to its talk page.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121209223522/http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/history.htm to http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001030230/http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm to http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/pages/p_pages/pulaski_skyway.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pulaski Skyway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001030230/http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm to http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/Pages/P_Pages/Pulaski_Skyway.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013072736/http://www.northjersey.com/news/032911_Port_Authority_to_redirect_18B_in_tunnel_funds_to_North_Jersey_road_repairs.html to http://www.northjersey.com/news/032911_Port_Authority_to_redirect_18B_in_tunnel_funds_to_North_Jersey_road_repairs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pulaski Skyway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516104106/http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702130013/http://www.northjersey.com/news/port-authority-acknowledges-sec-investigation-1.1034632 to http://www.northjersey.com/news/port-authority-acknowledges-sec-investigation-1.1034632

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulaski Skyway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093204/http://www.northjersey.com/news/united-airlines-complains-to-faa-about-use-of-port-authority-fees-to-fix-pulaski-skyway-1.1151204?page=all to http://www.northjersey.com/news/united-airlines-complains-to-faa-about-use-of-port-authority-fees-to-fix-pulaski-skyway-1.1151204?page=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

opening description
It currently reads: "The Pulaski Skyway is a four-lane bridge-causeway in the northeastern part of the U.S. state of New Jersey, carrying an expressway designated U.S. Route 1/9 (US 1/9) for most of its length. The structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." A couple problems exist: First, a causeway is a roadway on an embankment (as described at the link it connects to), and generally speaking, the skyway is entirely an elevated structure, not on an embankment, so this portion of the description should be revised. Second, its technically one long bridge, not several bridges, since the entire structure is, again elevated. The portion about "longest bridge" should be revised to say "longest span".Famartin (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

car accident on pulaski bridge with deaths
I lost my older brother in a very bad car accident on this bridge. I was a younger person at the time and I'm just looking for some answers, thank you 2600:1700:1992:3D00:D1AF:6AF4:A50F:5376 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)