Jump to content

Talk:Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m TWP parameters
No edit summary
Line 188: Line 188:


{{Talk:Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor)/GA1}}
{{Talk:Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor)/GA1}}

== Maps ==
This thing could really use a better map
[[User:Theblindsage|Theblindsage]] ([[User talk:Theblindsage|talk]]) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:20, 16 February 2021

Good articleGateway Program (Northeast Corridor) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2018Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 21, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that TIGER grants are contributing to the construction of the Gateway Project, a high speed rail corridor between Newark Penn Station and New York Penn Station?

Comment

Is the DYK above accurate? I hear on the news that Governor Christie has halted all the new Hudson River tunnel construction projects. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He halted the Access to the Region's Core project; this project was announced after that as a replacement. Whether or not any TIGER money is actually going into it is a good question, though. oknazevad (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant"

"While Amtrak had acknowledged that the region represented a bottleneck in the national system, its timetable for beginning the project was advanced in part due to the cancellation in 2010 of Access to the Region's Core, a project similar in scope, but with significant differences in design." "Significant" here is redundant; if the changes were not significant, we would not be mentioning them. PRRfan (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant seems appropriate, and does suggest that are not slight, minor, or incidental differences, which would also be mentioned if they were Djflem (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean to say there -- did you accidentally omit a word or two? -- nor which of the several Wiktionary definitions you believe is relevant here. My point is that it's a waste of words to say "significant" in an intro; if it weren't so, we'd leave it until later to mention.PRRfan (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no further discussion, I've removed "significant".PRRfan (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I don't want to get into an edit war here, but the first sentence should stand on its own. As currently written, it suggests that the project is a done deal, to be completed in 2020. That's far from true. Also I think it is important to mention in the introduction that Amtrak trains will be able to use the new tunnel. That is a major difference between this proposal and the canceled ARC project. Also the current wording about Seacacus is misleading. As far as I know the proposal does not change how NJT uses that station. That is a difference from ARC, but not from the status quo. Maybe the Seacacus situation should be discussed in a new section comparing Gateway to ARC. --agr (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that completion date should be shifted, suggest to announcement paragragh.
Since it unwise to assume that any reader has prior knowledge, making an assumption of that prior knowledge in the lead is detrimental to the article, as is going into detail about one aspect of its subject. Amtrak is the initiator of the project, and as the 1st paragraph says, NJT will also use it. It's clear that AMTK is doing so for its own use.
A clear statement is made that Gateway was partially spurred by ARC's cancellation and that the two have some similiar charateristics. Details are handled, partially by way of comparison, in the infrastructure section under the various subheaders. That Amtrak doesn't stop & NJT does stop at Sec Junction is covered there. A more detailed explanation that some through-service in both directions on Amtrak is possible would probably best fall under the Hudson River Tunnel section, as would the fact that NJT can and will need to continue to use the Sunnyside Yards for storage. While it can be gleened that Penn Station South would be used by both AMTK/NJT for service originating in NYC heading south, it has not been specified in any of the references. Nor has there been an outline of the use of Moynihan Station, once intended for tenancy by NJT and now probably for use by all RR's using an expanded Penn.
Since this article will likely undergo many changes, I would ask that you take care with making addtions which give the impression that they are covered by the references cited, including statements which may not necessarily require one. Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing?

As one who had no initial knowledge I found this article (this was the version) very confusing. The map in the lead seems implies that the scope of the project is much wider than it actually is. There is then no clear description of the project scope and the required elements of work. The background section is probably too detailed, or at least should come after the main description of works. And then the 'Existing and new infrastructure' section left me puzzling about what was relevant in it and what wasn't and it was only when I read the main Amtrak pdf that I understood what was proposed. I will have a go at creating a better summary at the start. Is there any reason not to include the map from page 4 of the main pdf source rather than the image currently used in the lead? PeterEastern (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started cutting the article back to the core information. In some cases the additional detail removed from the article is available by clicking through to the relevant linked article; in other cases there is some great detail which I have cut out and which could be probably be recovered as a separate 'geeky' super-detail section towards the end of the article. Any thoughts? I will continue working on the article after a brief pause for comment. PeterEastern (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuing to make sense of the article and have cut out a huge amount of detail that just isn't relevant to the story and reorganised much of what remains. I am moving content to more appropriate articles where appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Need"

Hi, Djflem. The way I see it, if you say a project needs a certain amount of funding, you are implying that without it, the project dies. If the case is not that stark, you'd choose a different word. In this case, what Schumer is saying, most precisely, is that if the project does not get the money, the risks of cancellation rise. So I'd suggest tweaking your last edit ("In September 2012, Schumer estimated that the project would need $20 million in 2013 and $100 million in 2014 to stop it from dying.") to say instead "In September 2012, Schumer estimated that the project would need $20 million in 2013 and $100 million in 2014, lest progress flag and the risks of cancellation rise." PRRfan (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verbose, but fine. Djflem (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer brevity, let's go with "In September 2012, Schumer estimated that the project would need $20 million in 2013 and $100 million in 2014." PRRfan (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically he was trying to pump a little life into the project by drawing attention to it. It's worthwhile to explain why he would have made such a statement and included his estimation, so the first suggestion is better since it mentions the reason to bother keeping it the article at all.Djflem (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

Article currently sais "the project would add 25 train slots during peak periods" - can someone clarify on that, please: Does it mean "25 extra train slots per hour"? Then that extra capacity would be available 24 hours a day, even if used only at peak periods. Or does it mean 25 train slots for the whole peak periods (morning and afternoon combined? What if the morning peak period is shorter than the afternoon peak period?) Meerwind7 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this be 24 train slots. Each of the current tunnels is scheduled for 24 trains in the peak hour (i.e. one every 2½ minutes). In the morning it is through the south tunnel (arrivals into Penn) and in the afternoon it is through the north tunnel (departures from Penn). The project is proposing to add two extra tunnels, which would presumably have the same signaled capacity as the existing tunnels. Therefore, I suggest that the number be changed from 25 slots to 24 slots. Theoretically, this would permit 48 train per hour from New Jersey into Manhattan in the morning, but this capacity could likely only be realized by extra/longer platforms at Penn station (or its long proposed replacement Moynihan).KirksKeyKard (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politics 2015

References

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11][12][13]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gateway Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HIgh-speed rail line

Gateway is considered to be a part of Amtrak's intention to upgrade the NEC to a high-speed line. https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor). 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) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor). 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) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor). 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) 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor). 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) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Initial Reviewing

I've currently reviewed the criteria that are easy to verify and decide one way or the other. The remaining criteria will take up the majority of the general 7 days allotted for a GA nominee review. If anyone has any comments, please feel free to leave them below. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Reviewing

I've finished checking most of the criteria, I just need to check the citations. However, I currently see absolutely no links to references for the first three paragraphs of the article, which may put the article on hold. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97: This is per WP:CITELEAD: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. As long as the material is cited in the body and not controversial, the lead doesn't necessarily need citations. In this case, all the references are in the body. This is so the lead would not be cluttered with references. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Alright, thank you for the clarification. That's the only potential issue I saw with the article, so with that out of the way, I'll be finishing up the review and marking it as passed. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

This thing could really use a better map Theblindsage (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Tangel, Amdrew (January 25, 2015). "Work on New Hudson Train Tunnels Chugs Along". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2015-05-15.
  2. ^ "These 9 facts make the case for spending up to $40B to expand mass transit across the Hudson". NJ.com.
  3. ^ "Chris Christie has to tell Andrew Cuomo to dig deep for those tunnels - Mulshine". NJ.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  4. ^ "Christie, feds meet, vow to build new Hudson rail tunnel". NJ.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  5. ^ Christopher Maag. "Delays put light on tour of transit troubles". NorthJersey.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  6. ^ CHRISTOPHER MAAG. "$1.2B for what? Much of the cash spent on scrapped plan for ARC tunnel will go to waste". NorthJersey.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  7. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/nyregion/transportation-secretary-seeks-meeting-with-cuomo-and-christie-on-hudson-river-rail-tunnels.html?_r=1
  8. ^ "Feds want to meet Christie, Cuomo to discuss new Hudson rail tunnels, report says". NJ.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  9. ^ Herb Jackson. "Analysis: Committing cash is key to Hudson tunnel talk". NorthJersey.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  10. ^ "Cuomo's 'New York Attitude' on Gateway Tunnel: Let New Jersey Pay for It". njspotlight.com. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  11. ^ "Christie says he'd seek more Hudson tunnels as president". NJ.com. Retrieved 8 August 2015.
  12. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/nyregion/chris-christie-claims-he-will-pursue-the-trans-hudson-tunnel-project-as-president.html?_r=0
  13. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/nyregion/cuomo-says-hudson-tunnels-need-grants-not-loans-to-states-from-us.html?_r=0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gateway_Program_(Northeast_Corridor)&oldid=1007159489"