Talk:PATH (rail system)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Line map discussion

Discussion ongoing: Participants here may be interested in this discussion regarding the line map.
WMSR (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

New "history" article

Apparently there's a new History of PATH article, titled as such. Almost everything in that page is copied from here. Should we condense this page's "History" section, or else merge that article back here? epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging recently active major contributors on this article: @Daniel Case, Oknazevad, HangingCurve, Djflem, and Kew Gardens 613:, and also the history page's creator, @Happypillsjr:, as interested parties. epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge. Unneeded WP:FORK as it's just not long enough to need a separate article, and the unattributed copy and paste is problematic. (I also wouldn't call myself a major contributor, being I've made one edit to remove a redundant part and just found out about the article today.) oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Thanks for your comment. By "major contributors" I meant editors to the PATH (rail system) article, to which you seem to have made 82 edits during more than 10 years. epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you meant to the other article. My bad. Yeah, I've kept an eye here for a while. oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think during the GA review I considered the possibility of a separate history article, or at least the idea of a separate longer article on the H&M. But it doesn't look like there's really consensus for it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

History subsections

I have reverted this edit, which combined all the subsections relating to the 21st century (e.g. 9/11, Sandy, technical upgrades, the Newark Airport extension) into a single, very long section entitled "21st century". The removal made the section nearly incomprehensible and, at some points, even nonsensical. For example, after that edit was published, the paragraph "Subsequently, in June 2019, the Port Authority released the PATH Improvement Plan..." was followed by the paragraph "Three years later, the PANYNJ released a 10-year capital plan that included $1.7 billion for the extension..." The 10-year capital plan was released in 2017, but the edit made it seem like the plan was released just this year. Moreover, that edit made the article really hard to follow, since the different projects were just lumped together. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PATH PA5 New Delivery.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

How many PA5s are there?

Skimming through the rolling stock section, it isn't very clear how many cars have been ordered, especially with little bits of conflicting information all over. I'm not very well versed in PATH, otherwise I would make the changes myself. Piemadd (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Split?

@Epicgenius: The article is long enough that I wonder whether the history section should be split into its own article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, good question. Currently the article is "only" 58 kilobytes of readable prose size, which per WP:SIZERULE is not overly large (there certainly are larger articles, like Rockefeller Center, which use summary style but are still pretty long). However, there are probably also a lot of historical details that can be added, so it may be a good idea to split the history section to a new article in the future, especially if/when the Newark Airport extension gets built. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Commuter rail

Recently, I reverted an edit by DankPedia with the edit summary WPBOLD, which changed the first sentence from the longstanding wording of The Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) is a 13.8-mile (22.2 km) rapid transit system to The Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) is a 13.8-mile (22.2 km) commuter railroad system. My attempt to add official sources that describe the system as a rapid transit system was reverted by DankPedia for what I believe is insufficient justification. Given that the subsequent revert's edit summary It is by law a commuter railroad, therefore it should be designated as such in the head section. Later on in the article it can mention the confusion does not address the reasons for removing the sources, I have reinstated them.

As for the original edit, I reverted it for the following reasons:

1. The edit contradicts information found further in the article. The stated reason for the edit was that the PATH is legally a railroad system. Which is true, but the third paragraph of the WP:LEAD already says Although PATH has long operated as a rapid transit system, it is legally a commuter railroad under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This, in turn, is a summary of PATH (rail system)#FRA railroad status. So the information in question is already in the lead.
2. The edit causes part of the lead to lose context. The last sentence of the first paragraph calls the PATH "the fifth-busiest rapid transit system in the United States" (the ridership figures are referenced in the infobox). By introducing the PATH as a commuter rail system, it introduces confusion when the PATH is then described as a rapid transit system in multiple places.
3. Multiple sources, including the PANYNJ's own website, describe the PATH as a rapid transit system.

Therefore, I do not think the "commuter rail" edit should be reinstated without discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur fully. A minor (and largely irrelevant) regulatory technicality doesn't change the essential characteristic of the system. It's categorically a rapid transit system. And that's the category according to the American Public Transportation Association, who I'm pretty sure knows what they're talking about. There is no justification for changing the long-standing and factually correct wording. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

ok shut up DankPedia 23:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Rude. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, well, that escalated rather quickly. Thanks for reverting their edits on my talk page. I'd quote the great Jennifer Simard's viral line from Death Becomes Her, but then that wouldn't be appropriate to post on WP. Oh, well.

On a serious note, excluding DankPedia, I suppose we all agree that PATH is rapid transit in practice and commuter rail in name only. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say "in name" as no one calls it commuter rail outside of discussing the regulatory technicality. oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. In any case, I suppose the current wording of the article works just fine. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been carefully developed over time. It works. No change needed at all. oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We need not worry about DankPedia again ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Error -- PRR operation west of Journal Square

This article accurately describes the route of trains that operate west of Journal Square. But prior to the H&M being taken over by government and/or Port Authority, operations west of Journal Square were PRR operations. Those trains had a combination of PRR cars mixed with H&M cars. Tickets on that portion of the route were taken by PRR conductors and trainmen. This is minor but should be mentioned where operations to Park street, Newark Penn station, and Manhattan Transfer are described. ~2025-39229-15 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)