# Talk:PATH (rail system)

I don't know how to correct this error or else I'd do it myself.  The table shows that the Hoboken station is located in Jersey City, when it's located within the City of Hoboken.  Can someone correct it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 26point2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 July 2005‎ (UTC)

The IRT 2 train on the New York City Subway system has never stopped at Cortlandt Street station near World Trade Center.  I tried to fix this mistake, but on the editing page, it has listed (1 and ​2) 1 and ​2 as the trains that normally stop at this station.  I understand that the 2 train does serve as a local train during late nights, but after the Chambers Street station, it continues onto the Brooklyn Branch, not in the direction of South Ferry.  There needs to be a different code for the 1 trains continuing on the Broadway Line after Chambers Street station.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkiano (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 June 2007

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:

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.
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.
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)