Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Access to the Region's Core

Dead?

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/05/report-new-jersey-pulls-plug-on-arc-tunnel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.19.166 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Service Only

I confused myself. The "THE" would be used for passengers. The Cross-Harbor_Rail_Tunnel is for freight.--KJRehberg (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.arctunnel.com/. The article has been restored to its last clean. This material must not be reintroduced unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel usage

So am I correct to assume that Amtrak won't be using these tunnels? Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct, but NJ Transit trains that will use the new tunnel will no longer use the North River Tunnels and NYP platforms, thus returning a significant amount of that capacity back to Amtrak. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a dead external link from the article to here, in case anyone wants to attempt to find a current source and revive it. Caseyjonz (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why is the name Mass Transit Tunnel? ARC Tunnel redirects here, but the actual references on its website indicate ARC. Is that not the actual name? Stepanstas (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official project name is Access to the Region's Core as indicated in the Federal Transit Administration's Record of Decision. See the following link. http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/library/final_arc_record_of_decision.pdf During Governor Corzine's administration, the project was also known as the Mass Transit Tunnel and the Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel (THE Tunnel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Charles Nichols (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The website header indicates "ARC: Trans-Hudson Passenger Rail Tunnel". In either case, I don't see any formal reference to Mass Transit Tunnel. I would propose a move, but am torn between the two names. Stepanstas (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the speedy delete tag at Access to the Region’s Core until we have consensus here. According to http://www.plannyc.org/taxonomy/term/715,

The ARC tunnel has again been renamed and is being referred to as the Mass Transit Tunnel, though it is still widely known by its original moniker ARC.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/nyregion/08tunnel.html,

This month, work is scheduled to begin on the Mass Transit Tunnel — formerly known as the Trans-Hudson Express and, before that, Access to the Region’s Core — more than 15 years after it was conceived.

So it seems the "Mass Transit Tunnel" name is newer than "Access to the Region's Core", despite the official website still referring to itself as "Access to the Region's Core". Can anyone find documentation show it was re/un-renamed back to "ARC" ? Though the old name may be OK if that's what it's widely unofficially known as. Either way, the article should include all names. Quarl (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three official sources for the project name -- the Port Authority of NY & NJ (www.panynj.gov/arc-tunnel), the project's web site (arctunnel.com) and the Federal Transit Administration's web site (www.fta.dot.gov). The FTA is sponsoring the project under their New Starts Program. All three are in full agreement that the project name is Access to the Region's Core. Some locations within these sites add the word tunnel at the end, however that is not a substantive difference. As for the project web site, I would not rely on the tab at the top of your web browser, but rather what is printed in bold typeface at the top of the landing page. It says "ARC: Access to the Regions'Core." We always have the option of redirects from Mass Transit Tunnel and Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel. Dr. Charles Nichols (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

revisit

Well, now that the project is dead, we aren't beholden to the most recent press release and can use what has always been the most common name for it, which was Access to the Region's Core.

Frankly, it shouldn't have been moved in the first place, as the tunnel was only one part of the project, which, as noted above, was always officially called the ARC project.oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The project isn't definitely dead yet: there are apparently renegotiations taking place. [1] --Titus.jon (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saw that. Still think we should move the article back to Access to the Region's Core as the real name of the project as a whole.oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ARC definitely seems to be the name most used in the media. I agree that the article should be moved there. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name: What do we think? "Access to the Region's Core" or "Access to the Region's Core Tunnel"? Stepanstas (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "tunnel"; there's more to the project that just the tunnel, especially the Penn Station extension. oknazevad (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved today since there does not appear to be valid criticism. Thanks for the discussion and glad we could all agree. Stepanstas (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem, though. The "(ARC)" shouldn't be part of the article title, as the naming conventions reserve parenthesis for disambiguation purposes., not for including initialisms in the actual title. We need an admin to properly move this to Access to the Region's Core, with out the incorrect parenthetical. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we move it to Access to the Region’s Core with the ’ vs. '? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters. We use straight apostrophes in article titles, not curly ones.oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway extension alternative

I question giving so much weight to a single commentator's critique of the 7 line to NJ proposal, particularly where it is dubious at best. She suggests the 7 line would have less capacity than the ARC tunnel. Per http://www.arctunnel.com/about/ NJT's under the Hudson trips were 44 million in 2008. I added up the 2009 ridership at just the 7 line stations in Queens, leaving out the two stations where there were transfers to other lines, and got 67 million. (http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm) The two Queens transfer stations had another 18 million riders, some of whom certainly used the 7. So the 7 line's ridership well exceeds the total NJT ridership on the present system, which is claimed to be near capacity. ARC would no more than add an equal amount of capacity.

The business about having multiple platforms being an advantage is also questionable. One needs many platforms when serving trains to multiple destinations as NJT does. The 7 line's linear topology is much more efficient in that regard. Riders just take the next train. There will be four stations for the 7 line in Manhattan and subway cars are designed for faster egress, with more and wider doors.

Also the business about a one seat ride to Manhattan is misleading. For NJT commuters heading to jobs on the east side, and additional seat will still be required and neither Penn Station nor Herald Sq offer good east-west connections. By contrast, the 7 line would take them right to Grand Central, which is in walking distance for many of the east side office buildings. --agr (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with all of your points. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel info box

If a tunnel info box is going to be used for this article, then the information in it should be specific to the tunnel component of the project, to which the the box refers, and not the whole project. The 2011 NJT reference specifically calls the portion that was under construction before cancellation the name now used in the info box. Another possibility would be to eliminate the tunnel info box altogether. Djflem (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty obvious that the infobox was intended for the project as a whole. If that makes the use of the tunnel infobox inappropriate, then I have no real objection to its removal.
I would give no real credence to the specific name used in the banner on the site, as the name of the project was in flux in it's last year or two, and that banner seems to hit all three used names. It had never been used before, and is awkwardly phrased. As they made Jo other changes to the website beyond adding that banner, it seems as abandoned as the project itself.
That said, the infobox, if kept, should match the title of the article. That's why I object to the change, more than anything else. Using a different (and otherwise unused) name in the infobox looks sloppy and could be confusing for readers. oknazevad (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the information in the box is obviously only about the tunnel: start locale, two tubes, # of stations, number of tracks refer only to the tunnel portion, and are not an overview of the project at all, which is sloppy and confusing to the readers. To apply POV as to how NJT releases information on its newsletters/websites should be avoided. As project initiator, that NJT have may caused confusion is then part of the story (as mentioned in the article istself). The agency has made a choice to use that name specifically, and they are privy the reasoning (if any). (My POV: I conjecture that it was because tunnel construction had begun and they want to infer that that was the work stopped) That they do indeed use the name in a 2011 release and that the name specifically mentions the tunnel would clarify that the info box is exclusively about the tunnel Djflem (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I truly question the value of the infobox, then, for two reasons. Firstly, because it goes into technical descriptions of a tunnel never built (the maximum depth of a never-built tunnel is trivial). Secondly, because this article is about the overall project, not just the tunnel. So I'm liking your original idea of removing the infobox. I won't unrolled get more comments, though. oknazevad (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Design and Construction Materials ....

Hello... I have materials and data on the ARC project produced for the State on this project... they are releasable into wiki commons for this project as they are works of the US Federal government. I also received clearance in 2013 to release them form the State of New Jersey as public records.... I will start working them into the discussion as original source materials instead of relying on secondary documentation. Cheers ....

Risk Engineer (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Access to the Region's Core. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Access to the Region's Core. 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:

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) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Tunnel Project

New section or coverage of Hudson Tunnel Project specifically is needed. Considering;

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/27465391/article-The-toll-of-the-Hudson-Tunnel--Officials-and-residents-raise-concerns-about-proposed-new-tunnel-under-county-?instance=weehawken

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/

and many other cites. --Wikipietime (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor) Djflem (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 editorial

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/whats_arc_got_to_do_with_it_chris_christies_critics_are_wrong_on_rail_tunnels_mulshine.html

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_the_Region%27s_Core