Talk:PATH (rail system)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Exchange Place "Transfer" of operations to H&M?

This has yet to be substantiated. Given that it took fifty years for the PRR to close Exchange Place Terminal (and that, during the 1950s, there were plans to transfer operations of Exchange Place Terminal to the CNJ, albeit briefly), in light of that plus the rather small size that Penn Station in NYC was built to, it seems unlikely. (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Predates NYC subway?

Did anyone else notice this? The article says (in the History Section) "... predates the New York City subway system (the IRT)..." but then goes on to say "....The first trains ran in 1907 and revenue service started between Hoboken and 19th Street at midnight on February 26, 1908. On July 19, 1909, service began between Lower Manhattan and Jersey City,..." Both dates are after the opening of the first IRT line in 1904. -- 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A portion of the tunnel does predate the NYC Subway. The article as written was very specific and correct on the subject.

--Allan 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Time to move?

There's been a suggestion from User:Atlant that this page be moved from PATH to Port Authority Trans-Hudson and a disambig page created here. I'm in favor, but would like to seek comments before going ahead. --CComMack 15:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another reasonable title for this page might be PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson). At this point, with three different PATHs in existence, I think we need to make the change, but I have no strong preference on the new title and don't have enough Wiki experience to known which would be better; I'd be happy to "go with the flow".
Atlant 16:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the title PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson), since that is not consistent with how we disambiguate titles on Wikipedia. Moving this to Port Authority Trans-Hudson would be more appropriate. Darkcore 22:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move is done (almost). (Almost == some pages are left to pipe their links, but should be no double-redirects left. If people could help out with those last few, I'd appreciate the help.) Now another question: should the dab page be at PATH, or PATH (disambiguation) with a hard redirect here from PATH? And what of Path (disambiguation)? Basically, this question turns on how likely someone searching for "PATH" is to be looking for the Hudson Tubes as opposed to any other definition of the term. --CComMack 16:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, I changed the hard-redirect at PATH to a dab. I think that's a satisfactory solution ('cause I suspect about as many people will look for Toronto PATH as Port Authority PATH) but if anyone else feels strongly that it should be the other way (PATH (disambiguation)), I probably won't put up a fight. ;)

Atlant 21:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Are the line colors used in real life, or only on maps? --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The trains have lights on the front, which correspond to the line colors. (Red lights show they are a Newark-WTC train, yellow for JSQ-33rd trains, etc...) Darkcore 04:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Journal Square-33rd Street (via Hoboken)? Does this service use both yellow and green lights? --SPUI (talk) 06:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Darkcore 03:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually the JSQ-33 via Hoboken trains use blue/yellow on the front, indicating a combination of JSQ-33 and HOB-33. The green for HOB-WTC is not used when the combined service is in effect. Mjj237 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following:

The Hudson Tubes were an engineering marvel of the era. It was the first ever transportation system under a major river, pre-dating both those of the New York City subway system and the Pennsylvania Railroad's tunnel into Manhattan.

The IRT subway opened its tunnel under the East River in January 1908, a month before PATH started running. Also, there were surely tunnels outside the U.S. (this 1908 map of the London Underground shows several under the Thames) by then. --SPUI (talk) 15:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but I do think that the tubes are still significant as the first transportation system to cross the Hudson, creating the first physical connection between New Jersey and New York. Maybe we could reword the comment, without removing it completely. Darkcore 20:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this yet, but I do believe that the H&M tunnel was remarkable for the size and depth of the river it crossed. Also, the H&M tube was started much earlier than the IRT tubes, when the state-of-the-art of underriver tunneling was much newer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I think we should reword the comment to reflect that. Darkcore 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement that the tubes were "the first physical connection between New Jersey and New York" is, if not inaccurate, then at least misleading because it might be true of New Jersey as a state and New York as a city, but it is not true of New Jersey as a state and New York as a state too, because on the west side of the Hudson the land along the entire northern border of the state of New Jersey is completely contiguous with that of the state of New York. While I'm here, let me ask something about the opening of the Journal Square/Summit Avenue station. The date given in the article, 4/14/1912, would situate that opening almost a year after the date given for the opening of service from Grove Street to Manhattan Transfer, 10/1/1910 (and Newark too, 11/26/1911). Since Journal Square lies between Grove Street and Manhattan Transfer, that would mean tube trains bypassed a Journal Square stop for all that time. Now, if all this is true, shouldn't the article acknowledge that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can say nothing confirming the opening date of Summit/Journal Square, such a fact would already be apparent in the dates and making a more explicit statement of it would be pedantic. As for the New York/New Jersey connection issue, it seems pretty well clear to me that when used in this article "New York" refers to the city, not the state as a whole, as that is what is referred to in the introduction. Once again, no need to be more specific in the text.oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article

Just to put my two cents in (and annoy the article authors?) this should really be two articles, a current service one under the current title, and a history article under Hudson Tubes, the generic name of the systems pretty much from day one. H&M and PATH are the operators of the Hudson Tubes, the latter term of which is more inclusive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? The system has not changed all that much since inception, except for the fact that it was taken over by the Port Authority in the 60s. Additionally, PATH is the name for the current service (no one, as far as I know, calls it the "Hudson Tubes" anymore); the "operator" is the Port Authority. Darkcore 05:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for "why", the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad is a fallen flag and has enough detail in its own history to warrant a separate article. The system has changed a great deal since its inception rather than "not all that much", major changes including the WTC station (a Port-Authority-instituted change), the redirection from Newark Park Place station to Newark Penn Station (nothing at all to do with the organization known as PATH), the closing of Manhattan Transfer station (again, nothing to do with the PATH organization), as well as needing greater detail of original H&M rolling stock such as the "black cars" and "white cars", which did not operate as passenger stock under PATH. Using the reasoning that the only "major" change was the ownership would also lead to the kind of reasoning that would lead to a merge of the article about the Pennsylvania Railroad into the Norfolk Southern Railway article. (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, this isn't a big deal to me--just thought it would be more consistent with the way New York City Subway is done, with disambiguation between lines, services, and operators. But that's a much more complicated system. I am going to make Hudson Tubes a redirect to here while I'm thinking about it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It makes sense to do this for the NYC subway because the current system is an amalgamation of different services, and the system is, as you say, more complicated, with a number of different actors involved. Although, it might make sense to create different articles for the four different PATH "services," if enough information is available to warrant them. I'm already working on creating articles for the stations. Darkcore 05:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional data added to 9/11 section

I expanded the information on how Exchange Place was used when it was reopened in 2003 prior to the reopening of the WTC station.

When the Port Auhtority said they were going to rebuild the approaches to the station I thought they were going to realign the separate tunnels that the Hoboken line uses but as it turns out they left it as they were. Only the tracks to/from the Newark line were changed.

This resulted in the service as I described on the page. It was slighty confusing to people coming into the station not realizing that the train that came in from Newark was now going to Hoboken or the train from Hoboken was going to Newark. People coming in from Hoboken would cross the platform expecting to board a Newark train (which would have been under normal circumstances) but found out that the train was headed to Hoboken. PATH never made any offical mention of this arrangement except for announcements at the station.

--Allan 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

change of Hudson template

Would anyone mind if I substituted {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} with {{Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I just created the Exchange Place (PATH station) article, also creating an infobox for it. I also placed the infobox on Hoboken Terminal — though not sure if that article should be it (or Hoboken (PATH station))?

Anyway, if you like the infobox, I could add it to the other station articles. And, any suggestions for improving it are welcome. I tried using the same colors as used on this article to designate the lines. Some other way of using the colors or designating the lines might be better, instead. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the Exchange Place article - I'd been meaning to do it but never got around to it. I think there should be separate articles for the Newark and Hoboken PATH stations, instead of folding them in to their respective station articles.
I like the idea of an infobox. Nothing against your infobox, but I really like the one being used on some New York City Subway articles - see 34th Street-Herald Square (IND Sixth Avenue Line station). I like the idea of showing transfers, particularly for the Manhattan stations (which still don't have articles). Darkcore 05:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can add transfers. This infobox is based on the one used for Washington Metro stations (e.g. Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro)). Adding the transfers is definitely a good idea. The tricky thing with PATH are the colors, especially the gold/yellow used for JSQ-33. The lines can be written in the color, but on some background color that works universally well. -Aude (talk | contribs) 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think the station articles should just be name as Exchange Place (PATH) rather than Exchange Place (PATH station). -Aude (talk | contribs) 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to line up the station names in a row with the train lines as was done with the Washington Metro station example? In the Pavonia/Newport (PATH station) example, Christopher Street causes a line break, creating a slight misalignment. Other than that (and the addition of transfers and maybe some information about platform/station configuration, as in the Washington Metro example), I think it looks good. Of course, the station articles could use more pictures (which I can try to work on from my end). As for Exchange Place (PATH) vs. Exchange Place (PATH station), I'm indifferent - I used the latter nomenclature to be consistent with the naming of New York City Subway station articles. Darkcore 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I tried separate templates Template:PATH infobox2 for stations that have two lines,and Template:PATH infobox for stations with just one line. I'm still figuring out how to make good infoboxes, so not yet sure if there's a easy way to make one that work well for different number of lines. Also, I'm not sure the best way to add the transfers. Mainly the transfers are to New York City Subway and only apply to some stations. Though Journal Sq. and Pavonia/Newport can be considered transfer stations too. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We could also add transfers to Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, New Jersey Transit, Newark City Subway, New York Waterway, and possibly Amtrak. I'll keep thinking of a good way to design and implement it in the template. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Should we add the after-hours service to the template also? I know it's basically the JSQ-33 train with an extra stop at Hoboken, but it's still considered a distinct service by PATH. Darkcore 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, after-hours service is a good idea. Though, I'm not yet sure how to incorporate it. Maybe have two boxes for lines/stations (one regular service) and one for after-hours (with a note on when after-hours are)? After-hours also means that HOB-WTC doesn't run and requires a transfer at Grove Street (PATH station). -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm worried the box could get a little unwieldy with all that information. Maybe we could list the service the same way as the others are currently listed, with a little footnote that would link to the "Service" section of the main PATH article? Darkcore 20:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any precedent for after-hours service, on other . Maybe a footnote would work well. I tried it on Exchange Place (PATH), though I think the formatting could be improved. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea of having to put that footnote in every PATH article. Could we link the footnote to the main PATH article's service section, which already describes the after-hours service? Either that or we could create individual articles on the different services (JSQ-33 (PATH), NWK-WTC (PATH), JSQ-33 via HOB (PATH) etc.), and then have the services in the infobox link to the articles. That way, we don't need to use a footnote. Darkcore 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

After-hours service

You make good suggestions about the footnotes. I don't like them either. I have tried the first idea (not exactly sure what you had in mind), I just added a small footnote in the infobox that links to Port Authority Trans-Hudson#Service, but don't quite like it either. I probably favor your second idea, having articles for each line. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think the creation of articles for each line is probably the best solution. I can start working on that. Another question about the infobox: could you maybe represent the line color in the same way as it's represented in the Washington Metro template (by placing the color on the sides of the cell instead of making the text the line color)? It's a little hard to read with the grey background. As I create the line articles, I'm probably going to remove the colored text because I'm starting to realize that it's hard to read. Darkcore 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can work on implementing the colors like on Washington Metro. That should make the text easier to read. Anyway, if the lines are to become links, the links shouldn't be colored. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Another possible solution for after hours are the maps, customized to highlight each station (easy to do). I've done that for Exchange Place (PATH), though now there are too many images in relation to text. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of map locators. I just created Journal Square-33rd Street (PATH service). Darkcore 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The service article looks nice. I like the idea of including accessibility. The station infoboxes could also include that info. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Updated infobox

I've updated the infobox (see Pavonia/Newport (PATH station)) with new color coding, similar to how it's done with the Washington Metro station infobox - Metro Center (Washington Metro). Let me know any feedback on the color coding or general improvements to the infobox, before it's put on all the station articles. Thanks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks great - good work. Would it be possible to list the JSQ-33 via HOB as the third service for the affected stations? (e.g., making a new row below HOB-WTC in the Pavonia/Newport (PATH station) infobox for the JSQ-33 via HOB service) Darkcore 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried adding another table for "late night service" — I think this term works better than "after hours". Anyway, it's implemented on Exchange Place (PATH station). Let me know if you think this is too much, or what, before the other stations are changed to this format. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I've converted the other station infoboxes to include late-night service. Otherwise, the template was messed-up and looked bad. If we want to revert or modify the infoboxes further, we can of course do that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Can you make the one colour yellow and the other one blue (since the line is represented by two colours)? Thanks for working on this! Darkcore 07:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I intend to get JSQ-33 via HOB with the alternating blue/yellow. I'm not sure of an easy way to do it, but will figure it out. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications on Caissons & FRA supervision

I don't know how particular and precise you want this to be, so I haven't made any edits on this.

Your "Image:PATH_junction.jpg" has the note "A drawing of the northern of the two underground junctions on the New Jersey side. The two western tracks at the bottom were never built." This isn't correct. Each point on this triangular arrangement of tunnels is referred to (at least internally) as a "Caisson". Caisson 1 is closest to the river, Caisson 2 is closest to Hoboken, and Caisson 3 is the southernmost - closest to the Pavonia/Newport station. The actual tunnels in use are 'stacked', one above the other - so one tunnel is on the bottom, and one is above. This can be particularly demonstrated at Caisson 1 where there is a single emergency exit stair / vent shaft ; and at Caisson 3 (where the holiday tree is), there is a ladder that connects the two tunnels vertically to allow for maintenance people to move between them.

You already cite Joseph Brennan under abandoned stations. He has also written about tunnel construction. This particular chapter refers to the caissons and the layout of the tunnels:

Another excellent source for information and illustrations which should be mentioned somewhere is Mr. T. Kennedy's collection. On his website, , he has several books from the early days of the H&M rail construction. There are dozens (hundreds?) of photos and illustrations, and a lot of information that Mr. Kennedy keeps in a private collection.

Further, your quote "PATH continues to be subject to FRA regulations since the line has a connection to the Amtrak mainline near Harrison station." may not be entirely true. That rail connection has been removed (several years), and the FRA has not relented in granting PATH a waiver from FRA supervision. The FRA has not really made its requirements clear and explicit, so the shared connection alone is not a definitive requirement on its own. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Federal Railroad Administration., No. 97-1103 (D.C. Cir., Dec. 15, 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 818 (1998).

JoiseyBill 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)JoiseyBill

Newark Airport Extension

"Recently, the Port Authority has allocated funds to conduct a feasibility study of extending PATH two miles (3.2 km) south of Newark Penn Station to Newark Liberty International Airport. If the project is deemed to be possible from an engineering, operational, and financial standpoint, the Port Authority would include funding for the project in its Capital Plan. The extension to Newark Airport is estimated to cost $500 million. Extensions of PATH to Newark Airport and Plainfield, New Jersey have been on the drawing board for years, but there has been no movement on either project."

is that section valid? I thought that the Newark Airport extension proposal became moot when AirTran was built. Also, how seriously has a Plainfield extension been considered? 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The AirTrain connects the airport terminal to the Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station), which is separate from the Pennsylvania Station (Newark), where PATH currently goes and the lines end. With, the airport extension, the PATH lines would end at Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station), instead of Pennsylvania Station (Newark). And I don't know about Plainfield. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The Plainfield extension was being considered in the late 1970s-1980s, but it's highly unlikely that would ever happen now. As for the Newark Airport extension, the PA allocated about $30 million to study the feasibility of extending the PATH to the NJT station where it would link up with the AirTrain service there. Last year, the PA board approved the allocation of about $550 million for the extension, which is expected to be complete by 2015. This is all to say that, yes, that section is valid, and probably needs to be updated. Darkcore 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


The statement above, AMTRAK connections removed, is inaccurate. Yes a crossover was removed but PATH still has two major links to AMTRAK. The first is the Dock bridge, a lift bridge owned and operated by AMTRAK the second is a crossover on PATHs eastbound mainline just east of the Harrison car shop which is used to deliver equipment and supplies to the PATH Maintenance Shop, and remove equipment as well. The Home Signals on Dock Bridge, the Crossing at Harrison, and the interchange inside Harrison Shop are all interlocked with and operated by AMTRAK's Operations Center in Manhattan. In addition, there is another reason why the FRA is involved with PATH. PATH operates Interstate, and thus is regulated by the FRA even though it only does minimal interchange with AMTRAK. In this case, its status is similar to that of PATCO between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lindenwold, New Jersey.-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Category for renaming

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PATH Fare information

I noticed the the 'citation needed' in a couple of spots in the fare information section. The problem is that the information came from PATH newsletters from 2005 which are no longer available online.

I am open to recommendations on how to better cite a source in this case.

--Allan 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PATH fare information is sourced and can be found on the PA website here. Darkcore 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SmartLink info update

In the November edition of "Pathways" PATH announced that they "expect that the mailing of Senior SmartLink Cards will soon begin to all of the current PATH Senior Fare Card holders". So much for the August date they kept talking about.

The 1st q 2007 information was also taken from the newsletter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRT1904 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Good to know semi-trucks are "not currently" allowed in the PATH tubes. As opposed to when there used to be a lot of truck traffic in these rail tunnels? I'm fixing that line, I hope nobody minds.Mjj237 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When was there truck traffic in the PATH rail tunnels?

I hope you aren't confusing the use of the old H & M station (Hudson Terminal) and a portion of the lead tunnel was used as a data storage site. --Allan 16:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

AAR Reporting Marks?

Are there any AAR reporting marks for the PATH? I believe it's likely because the system shares track with other railroads. CoolGuy 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Appendix A of the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports, the "railroad code" (reporting mark) is PATH. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't all reporting marks, and it doesn't share any track. Back when it was the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad, it did, and had reporting mark HDM. --NE2 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 No Move. Húsönd 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Port Authority Trans-HudsonPATH (rapid transit) — Port Authority Trans-Hudson is the system's official name, but it is commonly referred to as simply "PATH," especially by its owner, PANYNJ.[1] The system's logo also simply reads "PATH" and should be moved as per WP:COMMONNAME, similar to how Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority was moved to SEPTA, and how Port Authority Transit Corporation was moved to PATCO Speedline. —–Dream out loud (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If renamed, rename to PATH (NY-NJ). This seems to be a name more people would relate to. Vegaswikian 05:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as pointless, because the user can't enter PATH in the search box and be taken to this article. Moves should be made only if it improves the user experience somehow, and this proposal doesn't do that. If the move is made, PATH (rapid transit) is the best of the proposals. There are no other rapid-transit systems called PATH, nor are there likely to be. If the names of the states are used, I see no problem with "NY–NJ" (separated by an en-dash), as PATH is a service of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. People are accustomed to seeing the states listed in that order. The fact is that none of these proposed names are likely to be entered by a user in a search box, unless s/he already knows the article name. Marc Shepherd 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as pointless. All proposed names except PATH are clumsy, and that one is properly a disambiguator. No distinction between PATH and Path should be relied upon for finding the article, since even when search engines recognize such distinctions, readers don't. Port Authority Trans-Hudson is official, which isn't always good enough but is proper here. Jim.henderson 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stated above, over and over again. Anything other than plain old "PATH" sounds, for lack of a better word, dumb. Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose We always called it the PATH train, never the PATH rapid transit. Ewlyahoocom 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose No necessary. PATH (rapid transit) is rather ambiguous, however I would support a move to Port Authority Trans-Hudson (rapid transit). Acps110 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't have a really strong opinion about the proposed move, but you all should probably take a look at the section on this talk page above entitled "Time to move?" This article was originally at PATH and was moved in January of 2005.

On the subect of disambiguation problems, I believe that the Wiki can differentiate between Path and PATH. --Jfruh (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki can differentiate the two, but "PATH" can also refer to PATH (Toronto) (an underground pedestrian tunnel network) and PATH (Atlanta) (a trail-building organization). –Dream out loud (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
After reading the comments by Marc Shepherd above, I was wondering what is the primary use of PATH. I think that a strong case could be made for Port Authority Trans-Hudson renamed to PATH being the primary use. So add a hat note and we could be OK. Is this a proposal where consensus can be formed? Vegaswikian 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that every time "PATH" is linked in another article, is it almost always inside a piped link (ex: [[Port Authority Trans-Hudson|PATH]]). Since that is the case, the article should be renamed as per WP:COMMONNAME and disambiguated with parentheses in the title, such as (NY-NJ), (rapid transit), etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So this is the primary use of PATH and it does not need to disambiguated. Vegaswikian 07:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is apparently the biggest single use of PATH, and the only important use in New York, but it's a big world, and a worldwide encyclopedia needs PATH to be a disambiguator, seems to me. The current name of the article is the least bad one we can get. Second choice, for me, would be Hudson Tubes, but that's a distant second. Jim.henderson 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The current name may be only know to rail geeks, so it is not a good choice. Hudson Tubes is also not a good choice that that implies only a small portion of the entire line. Since this is clearly the primary use for PATH that should be the location for this article. Vegaswikian 20:27, 3 November 2007 (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.

Requested move to PATH

There was no consensus in favour of the move. If I may suggest, any future discussions may wish to consider what the common practice is with other acronyms that are also common words. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


... the following does not sound trivial at all:

PATH is one of the few transit systems which continue to rely on air-operated switch machines and trip stops throughout its entire system. PATH has found their performance and reliability to be superior in the wet environment of their tunnels and low-lying surface trackage.

However, there is no source for it. I've removed it till we can get a source. Can someone provide one? If so, can they please incorporate it into the main article and NOT into a trivia section (given that's it not trivia). - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace service map with track map

33rd Street
New York City Subway
28th Street
23rd Street
New York City Subway
19th Street
14th Street
New York City Subway
unbuilt branch to Astor Place
9th Street 
Christopher Street
Hudson Terminal
World Trade Center
New York City Subway
Uptown and Downtown Hudson Tubes
under Hudson River
Exchange Place
Hudson–Bergen Light Rail
Hudson–Bergen Light Rail
Grove Street
Hoboken Terminal
NJ Transit MTA NYC logo.svg Hudson–Bergen Light Rail NY Waterway
Waldo Yard
Journal Square
Manhattan Transfer
Harrison Car Maintenance Facility
Park Place
Newark Penn Station
Amtrak NJ Transit Newark Light Rail
Newark Airport
proposed Amtrak NJ Transit BSicon MONO.svg

Instead of using the rail line images to make a confusing service map, I was thinking we could replace it with this version and use it at the top of the page. It displays all stations, past and present, and their accessibility status. j.reed (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Note: The Newport station is using an incorrect icon because one does not exist with the dotted line in a horizontal fashion. I will try to get someone to make one. j.reed (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Fixed with an image I made. j.reed (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better than the VERY confusing existing map! Acps110 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

H&M tube dismantled

Spotted this on my feed reader today:

Another Ghost From Ground Zero’s Past Fades Away (New York Times, October 26)

Slambo (Speak) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Name issue (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no consensus to move -- Aervanath (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though it is already a redirect, I was thinking that maybe we should move this article to PATH Train per WP:COMMONNAME. The thought struck me when I realized that this article doesn't even appear on the first page of a Google search for "path train", which is what it is most commonly called by local media and riders.

I understand from reading the above discussions on this that calling it simply PATH (which is also commonly used) would pose problems, but using the full, spelled-out name instead of the acronym seems a clunky solution, especially since it is rarely used. Indeed, most users of the system probably don't even know what the acronym stands for. Few are ever going to search for the full name, which, to my understanding of it, means it fails WP:COMMONNAME.

Just wanted to throw that out there and see what sticks. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This is an encyclopedia, therefore the article is named the official name of the system. A redirect from PATH is helpful, but the article does NOT need to moved there. This is similar to if someone moved New York City Subway to NYCS. :-( Acps110 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Official name is not wikipolicy, common name is. And "PATH" or "PATH Train" is what people call it more often than not.oknazevad (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If a reader wants to access this article and has no idea about the Port Authority Trans-Hudson name, they will first go to the disambiguation page under PATH and find the link to this article there. If you find common search terms for this article, that's what redirects are for. The name "PATH Train" for the article sounds unconventional and too informal, to me at least. Plus, I feel there is little desire elsewhere to use acronyms as the article name for a rapid transit system. (Prove me wrong, if you can.) I saw SEPTA was moved only because one user responded in favor to the requested move. Other systems in the U.S. have not done the same. BART, LACMTA, MARTA, MBTA and WMATA come to mind. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
While not necessarily the best measure, Google produces 211,000 hits for "path train" and only about 30,000 for "port authoriy trans-hudson". And while it may sound informal, it is certainly the more commonly used name for the system. Heck, it's what the traffic reports on CBS2 uses every morning. So that's why I believe, per WP:COMMONNAME we should move it. It's the same as it was with SEPTA. The full name is rarely used, and most daily users of the system likely don't even know the full name.
Also, I think it must be mentioned that a redirect, which currently exists is great if one is using the search box here at wikipedia, but there are a good many people who just search via a regular Google search, who wouldn't get this page for their search. Wikipedia should be accessable to the average netizen who is just trying to find info in general. Overly detailed or formal titles reduce the usablity of the encyclopedia, which, IMO, misses the spirit or accessability that the encyclopedia is based on.oknazevad (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I barely know a little about listings of search results on Google or search engines in general. Generally, listings are ordered by popularity. It's the search engines' algorithms/methodology/et al. that determines placement of results. So I am skeptical that changing the name of this article will, in turn, necessarily increase the popularity of this article on those search engines. You may try to go to the village pump and ask a question as to how this particular article could appear higher in search engine results, which I also think it should. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I just googled "path trains" (plural) and this article came up #3. Station1 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Common name. I never had any idea that Path (PATH) was an acronym, but that is all I have ever heard it called. But the T does not need to be capitalized, so it should be called PATH train. (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The subject is the transit system as a entity, not PATH trains themselves. PATH might be a viable option, but I'd rather not re-open that discussion. If consensus does emerge for a move, it should be to PATH train rather than PATH Train. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi support It should be PATH Train (NY-NJ) instead. (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Putting something in parenthesis is only done to disambiguate from something else named PATH Train, not to specify what it is. (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues with Station-layout tables in PATH articles

Interested parties, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template:Rail text color and comment there about the colored links being used in the "Station layout" tables in articles about PATH stations. - dcljr (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Citations had been requested for the below material since 2008. Feel free to re-add this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this map is clear enough confirmation. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)