Talk:New York State Route 27

Sources for Older interchanges and crossings

So far, the only sources I can come up with for the older interchanges, intersections, proposed interchanges, and what not, are old editions of Hagstrom's maps & atlases, local land use documents, and some discussions on misc.transport.road. However, I do have some tidbits on old exit numbers for Sunrise Highway east of Phyliss Drive from an old Sunoco road map of the early-1970's:

• Bellport Avenue(Station Road): Exit 53.
• Yaphank Avenue(SCR 21)/Horse Block Road(former SCR 56): Exits 54, S-N(unmarked).
• William Floyd Parkway(SCR 46): Exits 55, S-N.
• Wading River-Center Moriches Road(former SCR 25): Exit 56.
• Railroad Avenue: Exit 57(unmarked).
• Eastport-Manor Road: Exit 58.
• Old Riverhead Road(SCR 31): Exit 59(unmarked)
• Former NY 113(now SCR 104): Exit 60(unmarked).

This map also shows the road under construction between former NY 113 and NY 24, and Nicoll's Road(SCR 97) under construction between NY 347 and the Long Island Expresway(former NY 495). I don't know how true those exit numbers were, because I never saw any exit numbers on that part of Sunrise until the mid-1970's, but that was what the map said. ---- DanTD 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Conduit Boulevard merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose merging. Although the other article does need serious work... – TMF 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I tentatively support unless someone can find a good deal of history on the roadway. Otherwise, it's just a named road that's part of NY 27. – TMF 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If all of Conduit Boulevard were part of NY 27, I'd support a redirect. However, there's the segment northwest of Linden Boulevard to contend with, so I'm going to oppose this one. This was also why I opposed the merging of the San Diego Freeway into Interstate 405 (California) a while back. ----DanTD (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose; on same grounds. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Though few have spoken it seems to me, together with Talk:Conduit Boulevard, we've got a consensus against. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exit Numbers on Linden Boulevard

I was driving on Linden Boulevard yesterday and noticed there was an Exit 2 and Exit 1 posted for at-grade intersections. Traveling westbound, I noticed an "Exits 2-1" informational sign in the center median, plus an "Exit 2" gore sign in the center median indicating the left turn lane. There was no Exit 1 gore sign that I noticed. I did not make note of what intersections these are. Perhaps these numbers should be noted in the interchange table. --Tckma (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Prospect Expy merge proposal

The expressway is wholly part of NY 27, meaning their routing and histories totally overlap. – TMF 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. Dough4872 05:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Prospect Expressway is entirely a subset of NY 27.  VC  05:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Opposee - While the nom is right about the Prospect being entirely part of NY 27, there's still the issue of the formerly proposed extension into Coney Island(http://www.nycroads.com/roads/prospect//), which had nothing to do with NY 27, and therefore does not make it a subset. ----DanTD (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That extension was never built and all of the Prospect Expressway that was built is NY 27. This article can briefly mention the Prospect was to continue to Coney Island. Also, the source given is a WP:SPS. Dough4872 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply - Ugh! You're not going to get bent out of shape over the fact that it's an SPS, are you? Anybody who has ever seen a map of the Prospect Expressway can figure out that there was a proposed extension. If I were still in New York, I'd go there and take a picture of a stub of an extension. ----DanTD (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a little beyond the point of this discussion. The point is that all the details concerning the Prospect Expressway can be covered in this article. Dough4872 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, then as User:Polaron suggested, regarding the New England Thruway, we should at least revisit the issue of splitting this off again. Let the record show that Prospect Expressway is in the same boat as County Route 94 (Suffolk County, New York), when it comes to being a shared route with a state highway. ----DanTD (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
          • @DanTD and Epicgenius: I just found the map showing the plans for the Prospect Expressway and the planned changes to the street grid so it could be built, dating to 1952, and wanted to add it to the article for the Prospect Expressway and just realized there was no separate article for it. Given that it is a grade-separated highway, distinct from the rest of NY State Route 27, I think it would make sense to be split off. I haven't done much work on highway articles, but would be willing to start a draft article if you agree that it should be split off. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

            Kew Gardens 613, generally I don't think named highway articles are split off from the articles of their respective numbered routes unless the named highway carries several distinct numbered routes. E.g. Cross Bronx Expressway and Bruckner Expressway in the Bronx both carry different interstates along different sections, but Major Deegan Expressway only carries Interstate 87 (New York), so the two articles were merged. I believe the same applies here, otherwise we'd have different articles for the Sunrise Highway as well. The only reason Conduit Avenue/Linden Boulevard exist as separate articles are because these are also distinct streets that contain portions which are not part of NY 27. epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

            • @Epicgenius: The thing is, each section of highway is different. The Major Deegan has a substantially different history than the section upstate. I believe that it would make sense to have a brief summary of each segment on the main article, and a more comprehensive article dedicated to each highway or street, which could go more into detail about its history, and provide more detailed descriptions. What do the Prospect Expressway and the Montauk Highway have in common other than happening to be part of the same state route? In any case, this article needs a history section and should be restructured accordingly? How would we deal with the multiple timelines for construction on this route? I also believe than an navbox for NYC highways should be created.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

              Kew Gardens 613, we might have to bring this up with WP:USRD. I think previous attempts to split these articles have failed, and existing articles on segments of numbered routes have been merged back to the main article. The history of each segment is generally covered as a subsection of the main article. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some comments

This article is a mess as it currently stands. I don't even have to read it to say that. No article should ever need to have a Section 2.3.3.4 in it. All of the history should be possible to summarize in a single level of subheaders. No two headers in an article should ever be the same. Right now, if I use the link New York State Route 27#New York City, which heading is the object of the link? The link should always go to the first, but any incoming link meant for the second will not be directed there.

I would reorganize all of the history section into chronological order, start with the earliest history and end at the latest history. Each time you switch to a new topic, change the header. That may mean you bounce back and forth between NYC and LI, and that's perfectly acceptable. Start at the beginning of the story and work to the end. Trying to cluster the topics like this makes a very complicated table of contents that is very off-putting to readers. In the end, nothing comes out very cohesively into a single narrative. And while you're reorganizing it all, summarize! There's way too much detail in some of these sections. That level of detail isn't needed, and it makes the text too dense to read. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the subheaders from the "Proposed Interchanges and Crossings" section and changed the bullet points into text. This is still far too detailed and needs substantial summarization. RuthLivingstone (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Extension Beyond Shinnecock

Why did the plan fail for an eastward extension? There is clearly a strong need, to avoid the "Shinnecock Squeeze".Paulhummerman (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-highway zealotry in the latter half of the 20th Century, and lots of rich people in the Hamptons keeping the politicians from building it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of citations

the article needs much better documentation. Why did the plan for the eastern extension "fail"?Paulhummerman (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

See the previous thread. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)