Talk:Hoboken Terminal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category question[edit]

Category:Commuter railroad terminals in New York City? After all, its located in New Jersey. Maybe there could be a category for NYC metro or something. RustyCale 23:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea for that category is to include all the commuter terminals that serve people commuting to NYC. In this case, until the Kearny Connection was built, this was the only terminal for the ex-Erie-Lackawanna lines (and still is for some). Other railroads had other terminals; there were at least six in Hudson County at one time. These are no less NYC commuter rail terminals than Flatbush, Jamaica and Long Island City. --SPUI (talk) 03:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail inside?[edit]

The article says that the HBLR lines "operate from the south end of the terminal concourse." Do they actually enter the building or do passengers have to go outside to board light rail trains? --Jfruh 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the lines, not even the New Jersey Transit trains operate within the terminal building. All of the platforms are located outside for all train service, with the PATH train station accessible underground. The description that the HBLR trains "operate from the south end of the terminal concourse" could be reworded, but is fundamentally accurate, as the concourse is a covered area outside of the terminal building. Alansohn 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info ... I guess I was mainly wondering whether there was platform to platform transfer abilities ... a lot of mainline-to-light rail transfers really involve leaving one station and crossing a street or something to enter another (as at 30th St. in Philly). --Jfruh 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The side of the complex oposite the LIghtRail & Ferry includes a Food Court/Bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.55.135 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renovations[edit]

Something probably should be written up about the renovations. I'll try to take a picture of the planned reproduction of the clock tower (on some post on Henderson St.) AND the actual terminal building still includes an unfinished HALL so including info on how that will be renovated would be useful.

Merge proposal:Hoboken (PATH station) to Hoboken Terminal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am suggesting that the Hoboken (PATH station) article be merged into this article, as there is no significant notability of that station from this station, as it is in the general complex. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notices were placed on both pages suggesting this move. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal. The article about the station should discuss all the services that operate there, and PATH is simply one of those services. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another basis for why this SHOULD be the case, is because the articles Walter Rand Transportation Center and [[Broadway (PATCO station) are the same article, with the latter redirecting to the former, despite the stations being in different locations in the same complex. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. Da bomba3 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. This Terminal and the PATH terminal are two separate buildings operated by different companies with different historical significance. If we merge these, a valid case could be made to also merge Penn Station with Amtrak or Long Island Rail Road or New York City Subway because the situation is similar, and that would be ridiculous. Truthanado (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A more precisely relevant example would be the 6th Avenue stations of PATH, each of which is part of the general complex of an IND station and thus as deserving of merger as Hoboken. I OPPOSE all such megers, but am open to suggestions as to why all should be merged, or why some should and some shouldn't, neither of which I have seen thus far. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for two reasons. firstly, because the same argument could be made regarding the HBLR portion of the terminal, which would be even sillier than this.
The second is because such a merger has been done before, over at the Newark Penn Station article. While the PATH tracks at Newark are more integral to the overall station than they are in Hoboken, the situation is mostly similar.oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Hudson Place[edit]

Hudson Place is an integral part of the terminal. It is here that the bus terminal, taxi stands, and only vehicular drop-off/pickup point for the enitre complex are located, above the PATH station, which like the bus station and ferry slips are not actually part of the station building or train sheds. Inclusion of this street, which acts as its entrance plaza merits inclusion in the article. Thoughts? And a question: what is the actual name of the building? Was it indeed officially re-named when NJT took over operations? Djflem (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's an integral part of the station complex. It's just the road the station sits next to. While surely the fact that the road is adjacent to the station means it matters to people trying to get there, that aspect is covered by the terminal's address being displayed in the station info box.
I also disagree with the characterization of the ferry slips as not actually part of the station building. The historic ferry slips, which are currently undergoing rehabilitation for reactivation are fully part of the terminal, and have been since it opened in 1907. The current, temporary ones are attatched to a building that was also built as part of the original terminal, originally used as an immigration and customs house. Both are fully part of the terminal, and have been since it opened.
The only parts that are not original are the bus terminal, which replaced the original trolley terminal that dates to the opening, and the HBLR portion, which was built on former freight docks. They were built on existing terminal property.
And that pretty much sums up my reasoning. The property line is the fence that separates the road from the bus terminal area. Hudson place is outside and off Hoboken Terminal property, therefore it's legally not part of the terminal, and doesn't belong on this page. (P.S., The PATH station is below the bus terminal, not Hudson Place. One makes a right off of the stairs when coming from the Hudson Place entrances.)
To answer your other question, Hoboken Terminal is certainly the official name of the place. I think it dates to the Erie-Lackawanna merger, but it certainly has been in use since at least the Conrail days. oknazevad (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with oknazevad regarding the idea of Hudson CR 736 being integrated into the article. If anything it should be intergrated into a new list of Hudson County Roads. I already complained about the merging of county road articles into Hudson-Bergen Light Rail station articles on WP:USROADS over a month ago, and thought it would be a good idea to reformat List of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey. Recently though, I changed my mind, and thought it would be a better idea to keep the existing list as is and have smaller supplemental lists, such as those in Rockland County, New York and Suffolk County, New York. ----DanTD (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos?[edit]

Could someone in the area PLEASE add some good interior and exterior photos? The platform covers were novel when built. The clock tower - once present, then gone for decades, now rebuilt - adds an iconic landmark to the NJ side of the river. A night photo of the illuminated LACKAWANNA would be nice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.102.32 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DL&W from Hoboken to Chicago?[edit]

I feel like should know this already, but one line has me stumped;

Long distance trains to Chicago and Buffalo were permanently discontinued on January 5, 1970.

So, which station(s) in Chicago served DL&W trains from Hoboken? ----DanTD (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DL&W used the Nickel Plate Road from Buffalo to Chicago, so it used LaSalle Street Station. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until the Erie Lack consolidation, when the combined service went to Dearborn Street Station, which the Erie already used (the combined service used the Erie through Ohio and Indiana). oknazevad (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoboken Ferry Terminal 2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Hoboken Ferry Terminal 2011.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

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hoboken Ferry Terminal 2011.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see a replacement for it. ----DanTD (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoboken Terminal vs. Grand Central Terminal[edit]

Is it just me, or does the elegance of Hoboken Terminal rival that of Grand Central Terminal across the Hudson? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two lines jointly operated with Metro-North[edit]

An editor reverted a statement that said that there were two Metro North lines from the station. User:Oknazevad changed it to one. In fact there are two joint NJ Transit/Metro-North lines, The Port Jervis Line aka Main Line and the Pascack Valley Line. See for example this notice by the MTA the agency running the Metro North. It demonstrates that this is part of NYS (Metro North) operations as well as NJ Transit. http://new.mta.info/press-release/metro-north/new-pascack-valley-line-schedule-goes-effect-june-20 Dogru144 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat true. NJT owns the line all the way to the yard in Spring Valley, but the three Rockland County stations it stops at are under Metro-North control and the MTA does help fund it (particularly the expresses that go straight from Secaucus to Pearl River). But I don't know if it needs to be listed twice in the infobox, and if I were to choose only one place, it'd be under NJT as the vast majority of stations are in New Jersey, and counterbalancing the NY expresses some trains short turn at New Bridge Landing, making them New Jersey only. Plus there is the track ownership issue. In contrast to the Port Jervis Line, which is fully leased to Metro-North between Suffern and Port Jervis, setting it off from the NJT-owned trackage it connects to and and giving rise to its separate name, the PVlL is wholly owned by NJT and operates under only one name. Anybody with a third opinion here? User:DanTD, User:Epicgenius, others? oknazevad (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NJT Map, the NJT Pascack Valley Line operates into New York, but there is no need to transfer to Metro-North. The schedules for the Pascack Valley Line on the MTA's website redirect to the NJT website, so my best guess is that the Pascack Valley Line's three stations in New York are NJT-operated under the MNR brand. Epicgenius (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding has always been that the whole Pascack Valley Line is New Jersey Transit, and Metro-North just leases the stations in Rockland County, while the NJT Main Line and Bergen County Line end in Suffern, whereas the Port Jervis Line begins in Suffern, although they use a few NJT stations on the Main Line south of the border. Bottom line; The only Metro-North line at Hoboken is the Port Jervis Line. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are NJT platforms accessible?[edit]

I understand that the rest of Hoboken is wheelchair accessible, but aren't the NJT platforms low-level, making them incompatible? If that bit is inaccessible, then it should be noted. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have portable lifts to allow wheelchair users to board the trains. It's operated by a station attendant upon request. It's not the fastest method, but it does work, and I believe fulfills the legal requirements for being considered accessible. oknazevad (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hoboken Terminal. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoboken Terminal. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

@Jibreel23: There are several self-published sources here that would need to be replaced, including this and this. Also, the history section is lacking, with almost nothing on the 19th century. You have done good work on the article, but I don't think it is ready to be nominated to be a Good Article. cc:@Epicgenius, Mitchazenia, and Pi.1415926535: Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I won't nominate it yet, and I will start working on your suggestions. Jibreel23 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hoboken_Terminal&oldid=1207594301"