Talk:Access to the Region's Core

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Passenger Service Only 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: So am I correct to assume that Amtrak won't be using these tunnels? Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tunnel usage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dead link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: revisit

message: 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)
replies: text: I entirely agree with all of your points. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Subway extension alternative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Design and Construction Materials .... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207210953/http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf to http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926134017/http://www.northjersey.com/recap/117040328_State_wants_refund_for__161_9M_tunnel_insurance.html to http://www.northjersey.com/recap/117040328_State_wants_refund_for__161_9M_tunnel_insurance.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707160023/http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/library/0_5_executive_summary_feis.pdf to http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/library/0_5_executive_summary_feis.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429194828/http://arctunnel.com/pdf/library/ARC_MIS_Summary_Report.pdf to http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/library/ARC_MIS_Summary_Report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hudson Tunnel Project