# Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Bridge

The bridge has been renamed since 2008 and the name "Triborough Bridge" has fallen significantly out of usage since the debates below. The Wikipedia article on the recently renamed "Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge" has been renamed, and so should this article. I will rename this article unless anyone can point to any valid reason why we should keep Wikipedia out of date.The Interloafer (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that new threads should generally be started at the bottom of a Talk page. Secondly, please see the very, very recent above discussion. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for misplacing this new section, thank you for moving it. Sorry also for failing to note the recentness of the decision to title the article Triborough. I'm sorry I missed that discussion because I would have argued fairly vigorously for the name of this article to remain Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. The only reason I'm coming to this now, however, is that I came to the article when it had been renamed, and I wouldn't have thought to look to the talk page otherwise. The argument to name the article as Triborough Bridge is based on a Wall Street Journal blog post that references research by High Beam that looks merely at references to the bridge by reporters. It was not a survey of actual usage by the public.
The blog post doesn't link to the actual research, which in my mind makes it a fairly dubious source. Clearly the unseen High Beam research did not include traffic reports in its review. Traffic reports nearly always refer to it as RFK Bridge, as anyone who listens to traffic reports known. (Yes I realize this is inadmissable original research.) But why would the High Beam research not include these important references? It is unclear what was included and what was left out. Having worked as a journalist, I can tell you what happened. The WSJ reporter needed to make a point that nobody uses new bridge names, because no editor is going to run a story with a headline: "New bridge names quickly adopted!" So he went to the High Beam website and typed in "Triborough Bridge" and "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge" and date parameters, and counted the results by hand. Any of us could do the same. High Beam searches the small universe of print publications it contains but not the much larger universe of radio and TV reports which are not archived. The results support his need to be published, and Presto, the WSJ blogger has his article! We need to be better than that here on Wikipedia.
Robert F. Kennedy Bridge is the name of the bridge ("official name" if one must, but that term diminishes the fact that it IS the actual name). It's the name on all the signs. Again, it's in basically all the traffic reports repeated ad nauseum throughout the day. Everyone I know uses the term RFK Bridge. (I know it's inadmissable here but I'm just trying to explain what animates my enthusiasm on this subject.) Please note I don't feel this way about the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, which was "renamed" for Hugh L. Carey. That renaming TRULY hasn't "taken." I also feel that the trend toward wantonly renaming things (see Willis Avenue Bridge for Mayor Dinkins, Ed Koch Queensboro, Hugh Carey Battery Tunnel, etc.) is misguided and needs to stop. But once a bridge is really renamed, and the name has gained as much currency as RFK has, this article ought to reflect that.The Interloafer (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose I apologize that you missed this argument, but as you can see from the talk page above, (which is less than two weeks old), the consensus across the board, with few exceptions, is to use the common name. You seem to recognize that the common-use name takes precedence over the official name, so I don't need to cite Wikipedia Policy again.
Your issue with this renaming, as I understand it, is that you question the validity of the research on the part of Highbeam, as there are no precise statistics and no details of the study.
I also see that you feel personally that "RFK" over "Triboro" is the most common. However, all of these notions that you and I, as fellow New Yorkers, are experiencing are entirely irrelevant here. We can talk about how our aunts and friends call it this or that until the cows come home. However, the only true piece of evidence we have to go on is this article from The Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States in terms of volume; it beats out USA Today in terms of readership. They have been continuously publishing since the late 1880's. As they are a highly reputable news source, and as the country's most-read newspaper, I find it highly doubtful that their fact-checkers would allow anything to be published on their site that would even remotely be untrue or damage their reputation.
The problem here lies in that you do not see the research here from Highbeam itself; you're taking issue with this. Instead of posting on here and declaring fraud on the part of an independent research company like Highbeam and the Wall Street Journal, (which are quite frankly, unfounded accusations on your part) on the authenticity of both their respective research methods and publishing ethics, you really should be contacting them and inquiring for further details about their study.
In summation, I find no issue here. This article and research was not posted on some "fly-by-night" institution, but on the Wall Street Journal; the most read newspaper in the United States, with a strong reputation to preserve and keep. If their fact-checkers took any issue with Highbeam's research, there is no way The Wall Street Journal would allow a scenario in which dubious information would be allowed to be read by the public.
If you take issue with the article, I will contact the Wall Street Journal and try to get them to release the full details of their findings. If you feel that most New Yorkers say "RFK" now, no problem, just submit some kind of article or research that shows so; until then, the best evidence we have is this Wall Street Journal article, and it should otherwise remain "Triborough Bridge', whether it be from official traffic reports or otherwise. (And again, I see nothing on this article to say official traffic reports weren't used.) I fully recognize a poll of all New Yorkers themselves would be ideal in this situation to determine what moniker they use to reference the bridge, however, this study is the best information we have. We cannot go by what our friends and family call the bridge; independent research is disallowed. This article is the reference at hand, and it seems to be pretty solid.
Efb91 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
So for this article, everything hinges on a Wall Street Journal blog post citing undisclosed Highbeam research into references by journalists. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, articles on pieces of transportation infrastructure bear the actual name of the facility fairly quickly after they are renamed, regardless of research into usage by the public. Case in point: Atlantic Av-Barclay's Center subway station, still mostly called Atlantic Av-Pacific St despite the recent renaming. Indeed, there are still signs up in the station that read Atlantic-Pacific. Court Square (23rd-Ely until last year) is another one. And as I noted above, Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge was also renamed more recently than the RFK Bridge, with less currency among the general public. Wikipedia reflects all of these changes. We are applying a standard here that is inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages.
Efb91 yes, please do contact the WSJ if you have any easy way of doing so. If you can get them to release any written documentation of their Highbeam research, I will be very impressed. I doubt they kept written records of an online web search for their blog post, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. The Interloafer (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No, The Interloafer, everything does not hinge on a Wall-Street Journal article to change this talk page, but consensus on the part of everyone who took part in the last talk about reverting the name to common-use.
Sigh, I can't believe I'm doing this again. I just did this. We have more recent data from a reputable source (The Wall Street Journal) which demonstrates that indeed the majority of references to the bridge use its "Triborough Bridge" moniker, providing proper cause for renaming to its common-use name under Wikipedia policies. Again, I cite Wikipedia policy:
Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.
This article is an independent source (which means neither you nor I, the editors of this page) and has undoubtedly undergone heavy scrutiny from Wall Street Journal Fact-Checkers before it was published for the public. Any reputable paper, including the most-read paper in the United States would not allow something that didn't pass muster to be distributed.
Those instances you cited I take issue with. I very much doubt there's anyone saying "Barclay's Center" in the name of the subway stop. And, quite frankly, I know most people just referred to the entire BMT, IRT, and LIRR Complex as Atlantic Avenue, with no references to Pacific Street, whatsoever. And it is quite interesting that you mentioned the Queensboro Bridge, because before you occupied me with this, I was planning to make a move to revert that name to the common-use name as well.
Show me Wikipedia policy that shows that Wikipedia supports Official names over common-use names, and we'll talk. Show me ANY independent source which shows that the majority now refer to it as "RFK Bridge" and we'll talk. I'm not in love with the name "Triborough Bridge". I didn't make it up. And, quite frankly, I despise Robert Moses. This is about adherence to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia demands common-use name be used over official names. The same way Jimmy Carter's page is not "James Earl Carter" but "Jimmy Carter," the name of most common use. Another instance is the High Bridge in the Bronx. It's official name is "Aqueduct Bridge". However, it has always been "High Bridge" in common use, and thus is the title of the page.
If I found independent sources that people still called the stop on the IND Queens Boulevard Line 23rd Street-Ely Avenue, I'd change it in a hot second. It makes the article inaccurate and against Wikipedia Policy. Until you find me a more recent source that says the majority of references to the bridge use the moniker "RFK", over "Triborough Bridge", then the common-use name must stand in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. Efb91 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly support I'll also say this: I think we can probably all agree that the proper name of the bridge, the real name of the bridge, is the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, as this is the name given to it in 2008 by the New York State Legislature, which is composed of the duly elected representatives of the people of the State of New York. And we can all agree that 54% of articles cited in undisclosed research erroneously referred to it by its former name. Many of these articles may have been written by reporters on the other side of the planet without local knowledge. In absence of poll numbers, we don't really know what the public at large refers to it as. But even if a majority of the public continued incorrectly to refer to it by its former name, other Wikipedia pages fairly rigorously adhere to the actual name of a facility soon after a renaming. The Interloafer (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose Dude, you lost, stop fighting this. Sturmovik (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Support I believe the move back was in error, based on a single paltry source that doesn't show the work, as it were. All we know is that they did Highbeam research since the name change; it shows nothing about the trend. Nor does it account for the most common use of the name, radio traffic reports (which typically use the construct "RFK Triboro(ugh) Bridge"). Indeed, if anything is the most commonly used name, it's that. And it's not OR to report what is said on the radio, as a broadcast is a source. I think this should be moved back. oknazevad (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose based largely on the fact that we just had this discussion and I don't think it's beneficial to the project to present the appearance of changing a page's location twice within 30 days without stronger reasons than are being presented here. That being said, I might change my opinion if this is handled as a formal move proposal. Doniago (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Mea culpa Hey everyone. I'm going to chill for a while. And maybe come back after a decent amount time has passed and try to formulate a cogent argument -- within a context that acknowledges both the pros and cons of various points raised as well as the Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry for generating unnecessary agita and revisiting this so quickly after the prior discussion. This whole thing could have been avoided if I had only read a little further down into this thread instead of first lobbing a hand grenade into something that had just been decided. The Interloafer (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Interloafer; I think letting the matter rest for the time-being is probably the best course of action. I'd certainly be (more) open to revisiting the matter further down the line...at that point I might still recommend handling it as a "controversial" proposal and going through all the applicable formalities just so we can hopefully avoid any repeats of this...until next time. :p Doniago (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so currently the lead reads:

The Triborough Bridge, renamed the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge in 2008, and sometimes referred to as the RFK Triborough Bridge...
Yesterday, an anon editor (not me) edited it to read:

The Triborough Bridge, known officially as the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge since 2008, and sometimes referred to as the RFK Triborough Bridge...
This was reverted, then I undid the revert, stating in my edit summary "Yes, but it still is commonly called the Triborough (hence the article title). This phrasing makes it clear that the official name is the RFK (and since when), but also makes it clear that that is just an official name, not the common one." I was then reverted with an edit summary stating this has been discussed at length on the talk page, but all I see is discussion about the article title, not the phrasing of the lead. 
As I said in my edit summary, which I stand by, I believe the anon's phrasing to be superior, as it more clearly explains the situation without raising the obvious question as to why, if the bridge was renamed, the article title doesn't match that name. It also is similar to the phrasing of the leads at Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel, Queensboro Bridge, and West Side Highway, other New York City infrastructure that have official names dedicated to people that are not used in common use. So it seems to me that it would be a better, more complete, phrasing that also reads better. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The common name is still the Triborough Bridge, which is why the article is located at that name, but the phrase "known officially" is POV, because it carries the very strong implication that the renaming has not "taken", and it's only known as the RFK Bridge by officials - much as 6th Avenue is only really known as Avenue of the Americas officially and in corporate addresses.  This is not (yet) the case.  The renaming is too new to know whether it has "taken" or not.  It could well be that five, ten, or 25 years from now, it would be justifiable to indicate that the bridge is only known by that name "officially", but that's not the situation now.  Right now, it's been renamed, and that's what we should report.  We give due weight to the common name still having primacy by calling the article by that name, we shouldn't presume anything about the efficacy of the renaming by characterizing it. BMK (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the renaming is too new; it's been half a decade since the official name was changed. There is sufficient evidence already given that the common name hasn't really changed, or at the most "RFK" has been appended to it, like in the traffic reports. I don't think we're pushing a POV at all with the proposed phrasing (I think you're reading too much into it) or that it constitutes OR to state flatly that the official name is the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge". oknazevad (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"Half a decade"?  What are you, a politician, touting the success of his pet program?  It's five years, that's nothing, I've got food in my fridge older than that.Nothing's been settled.  Changes like that take a lot more time than five measly years to determine their success.  Sometimes it can take a generation or two, so the old folks who know it by the original name are replaced by new people who only know the new name.  The city just more-or-less gave up the fight on 6th Avenue recently, and that change was made almost seventy years ago.  Chill out, and let's wait to see the results.  There's nothing wrong with what's there, it's neither inaccurate nor does it make any implications. BMK (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In May 2010, a few days after a failed truck bomb attempt in Time Square, a suspicious U-Haul truck was spotted on the Triborough Bridge. The truck was examined, no issue was identified and traffic on the bridge was reopened; It was a false alarm justified by the circumstances that week, but no more than that. I agree that, at the time of the event, the incident appeared notable. With the passage of five years since the truck was puled over, the false alarm appears to have no enduring encyclopedic value. I had removed it in this edit, with an edit summary noting that the event "no longer appears encyclopedic in nature". Oknazevad removed the content after it was reinserted in this edit, noting that "it lacks any long term significance, and therefore is just trivial. After five years I think we can judge a false alarm". In both cases, Beyond My Ken blindly reverted, with edit summaries noting that "sourced incident" and "SO, I can assume you don't live in NYC, and never lived through 9/11".Both Oknazevad and I acknowledge that there are sources, but neither of us see any enduring significance. BMK raises the 9/11 trump card, but that appears to offer no justification to maintain this particular material.In the absence of any evidence that a mention of this false alarm deserves mention in this article and in the absence of any consensus for its retention, it will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I am going to point to this section at my talk page to get an idea of where BMK's head is on this. Frankly, I was incredibly, personally insulted by the post, honestly (as a I said in my response, I was actually in NYC on 9/11). But even disregarding that, it seems that BMK can't edit dispassionately in this realm, and uses questionable judgement on these issues, but has set himself up as the arbiter of security issues. Bad form. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is important either. Bomb threats are not important unless it was a very widely publicized incident and it was still mentioned years after the fact.As a side note, I think WP:ASPERSIONS also applies in BMK's posting to oknazevad's talk page. epic genius (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


### "Causeway"
I have reverted the addition of "causeway" as one of the four bridge types. We don't call a normal freeway structure a "causeway," we just call it a "freeway." A "causeway," on the other hand, is an elevated road on an embankment across a body of water. Examples are:

– epic genius (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A "causeway" by definition is not limited in the way you think it is.  See Causeway, and for a specific case Courtney Campbell Causeway. BMK (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A causeway is mainly limited to a low bridge or an embankment over mostly watery terrain (maybe a neck of land). The Triboro connector is neither.The Courtney Campbell Causeway and the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway are examples of low elevated structures across large bodies of water, though. A viaduct on land doesn't really count. epic genius (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionary of Construction, Surveying and Civil Engineering:causewayRaised road, track, or path through a marshland or low-lying area that is often waterlogged.[5] More of the same here, here, here, here, etc. BMK (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I know about the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. And you said yourself, the Oxford Dictionary says that a causeway is a "raised road, track, or path through a marshland or low-lying area that is often waterlogged." Obviously Randall's and Ward's Islands is not "often waterlogged" or a large pond. Nor is the I-278 viaduct raised just above the ground; "raised" is not the same as "elevated," as the former suggests a structure that is closer to the ground or even on the embankment, while the latter suggests a higher structure. epic genius (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I can't make you understand what a thing is if you're not interested in knowing.  Suffice it to say, that the dictionary definitions, and commons sense, do not support the very limited use of "causeway" you're attached to.  I'm reminded of when I presented many citations from the most reliable of sources to show you that the name of NYC's most northern borough is "The Bronx", and you refused to accept it, or when you insisted that "Bowery Road" or "Bowery Street" (I can't recall which) was an acceptable alternate name for "The Bowery", despite having no citations to support your contention.  You really need to keep yourself more open to things being somewhat different than what you think they are. BMK (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW "often waterlogged" does not mean "the land under discussion gets waterlogged on many occasions", it means "the type of land being referred to is often the type that is waterlogged". BMK (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Two points. One: I am not exclusively limiting use of "causeway" to "embankment across a wet land or body of water." I also take it to mean "a low viaduct across such." Two, how is Bowery/the Bowery/whatever related to this dispute? I know what the dictionary says, and what the dictionary says doesn't support your assertion that the RFK Bridge's elevated freeway is a causeway. I think the misunderstanding here is that you are misunderstanding that I am agreeing with the dictionary definition, which does not agree with your edit. epic genius (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


### Three bridges or four? Viaduct or causeway?
The Power Broker is cited in the lead as the source for a four-bridge complex. Page 386 says that the "Triborough was really not a bridge at all, but four bridges, which together with 13,500 feet of broad viaducts, would link three boroughs and two islands." I'm sure that most natives, even those who have traveled over the bridge thousands of times, don't think that there are four bridges, but may well realize that there are three (perhaps once the Bronx Kills crossing is pointed as a bridge). When it was constructed, one could argue that there was a fourth bridge connecting the now-unified Randalls and Wards Islands, which had been separated by the Little Hell Gate until it was filled in during the 1960s. So are there three bridges or four? Caro says four and the MTA says three (see this link)? 
Is the structure over Randalls and Wards Islands a viaduct (per the MTA and Caro p. 386), is it a causeway (Caro p. 387 "The last of the four bridges -- a causeway connecting Randall's and Ward's islands -- would have stood alone as an engineering feat of no mean magnitude, but so huge was Triborough that the causeway was a mere incident in its construction...") or is it something else? Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alansohn: It is technically three bridges. The fourth "bridge," which is actually a viaduct (see above), is structurally a lead up to the suspension bridge, not a standalone bridge. We don't call the ramp at the Queens end a "causeway" either. Caro is not infallible.On the other hand, I expect that the MTA know what they're talking about, since they actually own the bridges. epic genius (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I think that you and I agree that there are three bridges connected by a viaduct. Any thoughts on this from Beyond My Ken, Oknazevad or other editors? Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, clearly I think it's three, and Epic's characterization is correct, as I'm the one that edited the article to state that. It's exactly how the MTA describes it, and fits the usual civil engineering characterization, too. The viaduct is part of the various connecting roads. It's mentioned, but doesn't need to be given a separate bullet point in the list. oknazevad (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
So basically, there are three "bridges" under The Rest Of The World's standards. The fourth is something that is exaggerated by Caro to the point of fantasy. I agree with the removal of the fourth bridge's bullet point. epic genius (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a lot harsher than I would describe it. Characterizing the viaduct that connects the Queens span with the toll plaza area as a separate bridge is not an unreasonable position and probably as much a function of the formerly separate status of Ward's and Randall's Islands. After all, the Little Hell Gate did once exist, and there is a separate span originally intended to cross it as part of the Hell Gate Bridge. But that's a different bridge with a different design, and the design of the Triborough makes the viaduct part of the approach to the suspension span over the (big) Hell Gate channel. Caro isn't making stuff up, but he's a historian, not a civil engineer. oknazevad (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
While there may be a span over the former Little Hell Gate, the design is such that it is part of the suspension approach. But I agree, Caro may just have been miscounting the current number of bridges. If the design of the Little Hell Gate span is indeed different, we can note that the bridge is now part of the suspension span, not a separate bridge in itself. FTR, this is the Little Hell Gate span in question, but the design is not that different than the rest of the ramp. epic genius (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. We're both saying the same thing. Caro is mistaken, because he's not a civil engineer. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That may also be the reason why he says that the viaduct is a "causeway." Not only is a causeway not a bridge, the viaduct is not a causeway either. epic genius (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
See causeway for your misapprehension about the meaning of the word.  I'm afraid it's used much more broadly than you think.I have no objections to the article as it stands. BMK (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If the article is OK as-is, think we're fine. epic genius (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I-278 is a grade-separated highway (as opposed to traffic lights), so it is relevant to note that. I apologize if this outburst in the edit summary offended anyone, but I think that adding the grade separation is relevant. "Highway" itself does not indicate "grade-separated" (the OED gives "the public road network, regarded as being under royal protection; (esp. in early use) a specific road regarded as belonging to that network."), so I would like opinions on this.Also, there is an exit to the island just past the tolls on I-278 westbound and on NY 900G westbound. epic genius (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
A "freeway" is a highway that has no tolls, hence "free". Yes, colloquial use has spread it our a bit, but it is still true.  "Highway" is fine for this usage; "expressway" has a slightly different connotation. BMK (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, you are correct about the exit, that was an error on my part, sorry. BMK (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I guess "highway" works then. epic genius (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"Highway" is fine, but I feel the need to point out that "freeway" doesn't actually mean "toll-free" as is commonly but erroneously believed. The "free" actually refers to the highway being free of traffic signals, intersections, traffic circles, driveways and any other at-grade junction other that entrance and exit ramps, and therefore having a (supposedly) free flow of traffic. While not a reliable source for article purposes, this Straight Dooe message board thread has a few good links in it. oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
What links are you talking about?  I see a lot of opinions, but where are the citations to sources, reliable or not? BMK (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That having been said, it does look as if you are correct, and I was wrong, that "freeway" (at least in its original meaning) referred to roads that were free of driving obstructions.  A look through the NY Times archive (without buying any of the articles) shows that pretty clearly. I'm not sure if that's still the case -- i.e. the colloquial understanding of "freeway" meaning having no tolls may be so ingrained at this point that it has usurped the original meaning. In any event, I can't think of a road called a "freeway" which is a toll road.What's interesting about the Times archive is finding out that "freeway" was in use here in respect to planned roads, but really never got used in NYC or NY, where limited-access roads are mostly called "parkways" (primarily those built by Moses, with park-like land around them, intended for a pleasurable driving experience at 30mph) or "expressways" or "thruways". BMK (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Funnily enough, elsewhere an "expressway" is a multi-land road that is divided but may have stop lights and driveways. Whereas an "expressway" in NYC is a limited access highway that's open to trucks (unlike parkways, which are restricted). In other words, NYC "expressways" are what are generally called "freeways" elsewhere. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, you may find this and this interesting. epic genius (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of this phrase. It is unclear how this is calculated. epic genius (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not literal. You can object, but don;t edit war. BMK (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If the details of all the states are being obfuscated, please list some of the states mentioned in the book. If the book says "From Maine to Mississippi," please put it in quotes. A reader would be highly confused by what the text is trying to say, because this is not a common idiom. epic genius (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a quote from Caro, p. 386.  I'm about to alter the text to indicate that. BMK (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There was also a word missing: "the Mississippi" not "Mississippi", it essentially means "east of the Mississippi".
I see, that makes more sense, thanks. (Also, this implies everywhere in the Eastern U.S., not just states on the coast, which was what the previous wording implied.) epic genius (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That's incorrect, Mississippi (the state) is not on the East coast, it's on the Gulf Coast.  Also, please avoid linking words in direct quotes: "the Mississippi" is clear in meaning "the Mississippi River" and does not need to be linked.  Linking Pennsylvania is overlinking. BMK (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I never said "the East Coast," I specifically said "states on the coast," which refers to any coast, whether Gulf, East, West, or Great Lakes. epic genius (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NDASH, the endash connects two entities, just like the bridge does. Chicago Manual of Style agrees. Why is this endash being removed? epic genius (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's easier to see than the hyphen. BMK (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It's easier to see? OK, that's a reason why it should be added, not removed, unless an endash is too obnoxious... epic genius (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The endash is easier to see, the hyphen gets lost in the text -- but it doesn't matter, since my dear friend Alansohn has weighed in on your side of the issue by reverting (although not by commenting here). BMK (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw the edit war in the article, came here and went back to the article to support the use of endashes. Sorry that I didn't come back here (or comment first) to be more explicit. In general, I would not have changed the hyphens to endashes, as there are far more important and beneficial tasks in the Universe, but once it was done I wouldn't change it back, per MOS:NDASH. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh? This road is miles away. Is there a source for a plan to run it to the bridge? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surpised too, but that's what's in Caro. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I re-read the passage, and it looks like I misinterpreted it.  Caro was talking about a general failure by the city to upgrade the Queens street network (as they had promised Moses they would do) including Queens Boulevard, and to buy up the farmland that would be needed to build roads which would lead into the Triborough Bridge, but Queens Boulevard was not one of those roads.  I'm going into the article now to fix it.  Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Splendid. How odd, this warm feeling of being the alert one who catches a slip. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Triborough Bridge. 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/20120306145015/http://www.dnainfo.com/20100506/manhattan/uhaul-abandoned-on-rfk-triboro-bridge-bomb-squad-on-scene to http://www.dnainfo.com/20100506/manhattan/uhaul-abandoned-on-rfk-triboro-bridge-bomb-squad-on-scene
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it's not redundant to add "RFK Bridge" as an alternate name. I see "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge" and "RFK Triborough Bridge" mentioned, but not "RFK Bridge". "RFK Triborough" is not the same as "RFK", which is increasingly being used as a standalone abbreviation without the "Triborough". Although RFK is a common abbreviation for Robert F. Kennedy, this article doesn't say that. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I almost feel as though we may need sources to establish that all of these alternate names are in fact in common usage. Strictly from a technical standpoint I'm inclined to agree with you, but... DonIago (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, this issue generated a healthy discussion a decade ago, but now that so much time has elapsed and name usage has evolved, I am proposing to rename this article "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge", add appropriate redirects, and make related text edits to the intro section. There were good arguments on both sides of the issue as we saw, but I am making this proposal because compared to when this question was last raised, the RFK name has, in my opinion, undoubtedly become the predominantly used name of the bridge. Here are a few metrics: RFK is used in 1) the very large majority of media reports (Googling for both names just now, I got 58,600 hits for Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, 14,400 hits for RFK Bridge, and 5,120 hits for Triborough Bridge and for Triboro Bridge. But many of the latter were not to references to the bridge, but to the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority); 2) Google maps, Bing maps and Mapquest; 3) the majority of highway signs (though certainly not all); 4) most radio traffic reports (I don't know how to quantify this but I experience it in my day-to-day life); 5) my E-ZPass statements. There are certainly people who still use Triboro or Triborough in day-to-day conversations, but IMO RFK is definitely the more used, certainly closer to the FDR Drive than to Joe DiMaggio Highway. I think it's time we let Wikipedia reflect this. The Interloafer (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. futurebird (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
OK if no further comments I'll update the name of the article by the end of the year with appropriate edits to the top and redirects. The Interloafer (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
OK seeing no objections after five months I will go ahead and make this change.The Interloafer (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)