Talk:NJ Transit

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

Expansion request - privatization[edit]

List of privatizations includes New Jersey Transit, but there's not a good explanation in the article about public/private ownership issues or history. -- Beland 21:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes![edit]

Hello all, I wanted to add a public transit infobox to this page but realized that this is kind of hard to do! The infobox template is {{Template:Infobox Public transit}}. However, I'm not sure what figures to use for some of the parameters, such as system length, lines, and number of stations. For example, would bus routes be included in number of lines? Help me out, or put it up on the main page as you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensovet (talk • contribs)

This article already uses {{Infobox SG rail}}, so another one probably isn't needed. Chuck(contrib) 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I now notice there is already two infoboxes. Some of the information seems duplicated. Is there anyway to put it all in one box? Chuck(contrib) 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because SG rail is a railroad-only box, and Public Transit is public transit only. We could make our own table, but without any templates. lensovet 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an infobox, Infobox NJT. I put it in some articles. Geoking66 23:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Transit station articles - templates to use[edit]

I would like to point everyone's attention to a template I created specifically for use on NJT rail station articles. The template is {{NJT rail line}} and its purpose is to replace the currently-used {{rail line}}. Please see the template talk for detailed instructions on how to use it; it is a LOT simpler than the current {{rail line}} and eliminates the need for piped links. Here's a sample edit which shows the changes necessary to make when doing the conversion. Thanks! lensovet 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station name links[edit]

Hello, we now have a new template for linking to stations, {{njt-sta}}! It means that now there is absolutely no need to type piped links into station articles! Check out its talk page for instructions. lensovet 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route map[edit]

The route map was deleted by FairUseBot, but I highly doubt that there is any copyright issue warranting deletion. It's a widely distributed, publicly available map of the rail system made for public use by NJT for pete's sake. Wl219 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem worthy of restoration if there were no justification by FairUseBot. Dogru144 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that the official map is freely licensed. --NE2 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route of NYC-Atlantic City Train[edit]

Can anyone provide information as to what exact path the train will take? Historical maps show a north-south interior route that runs from the vicinity of Red Bank in eastern Monmouth County to Winslow Junction northwest of Hammontown. Dogru144 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no intermediate stations between NYC and Atlantic City[edit]

It seems hasty to have this route make no intermediate stops for NJ residents. Sensible locales for this would be Newark and Perth Amboy. Dogru144 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed service will operate via the Northeast Corridor line to Frankford Junction, then cross the Delair Bridge into Pennsauken (Camden County), where it will join the existing NJ Transit Atlantic City Rail Line. This is according to the Cherry Hill (NJ) Courier-Post in it's Friday, 15 December 2006 editions. Ctrabs74 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, perth amboy isn't anywhere near this route. my guess would be secuacus, newark penn, maybe trenton, and that's it. otherwise this service is going to be too slow anyway. —lensovet–talk – 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not on Wikipedia enough to feel comfortable making edits yet, but maybe someone can update this section now that this service is being cut here is the ref : http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/casinos_end_aces_express_train.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.88.6 (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include ACES as a "cancelled project"?[edit]

Just wondering. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local programs[edit]

Under the terms of Wikipedia challenging, I have deleted this section from the article. Please add it back only after sourcing it. --AEMoreira042281 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

"^ NJ TRANSIT BOARD APPROVES NEW YORK – ATLANTIC CITY EXPRESS RAIL SERVICE" (footnote 6) appears broken and probably should be removed. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map requested?[edit]

I'm curious why there was a map requested. There is already a map on New Jersey Transit rail operations. Or is this for the bus routes? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG logo removed?[edit]

In this edit, the svg logo was removed and replaced with the PNG. Why? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future section[edit]

Since this section covers only rail, should it be moved to New Jersey Transit Rail Operations? oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fare hikes[edit]

Perhaps this should go under history, but NJ transit recently raised all fares by at least 25% and eliminated the off-peak round trip ticket. This change is pretty controversial and worth noting in the article. Many commuters to NY are considering other forms of transportation because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alewin99 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title discussion[edit]

So recently there was move request at Talk:Main Line (NJ Transit) proposing to move that article to Main Line (New Jersey Transit) with the principal that the disambiguator should be consistent with the title of this article. But while contemplating it, it struck me that if anything this article should be moved to NJ Transit. Not only does the agency itself always use "NJ Transit", so does the local media, including northjersey.com Bergen Record), NJ.com (The Star Ledger), CBS, ABC, Fox and even The New York Times. In spoken word, though only my observation, the "NJ" is used slightly more than "New Jersey". In short, "NJ Transit" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and should be used as the title of the main article. This would also affect other articles, particularly the articles on the operating units New Jersey Transit Bus Operations and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, as well as the disambiguators at River Line (New Jersey Transit) and West Trenton Line (New Jersey Transit), so a centralized discussion seems to be the best choice. Any thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll acquiesce to anything that follows WP:CONSISTENCY. I think NJ Transit is the common name, so I'll go with that. epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made a solid argument that "NJ Transit" is the common name.--Cúchullain t/c 23:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the projects listed above oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my concern. Everyone with any knowledge would immediately recognize New Jersey Transit as NJ Transit, and it wouldn't make it a big problem. I would imagine that NJ Transit already redirects to this page. I will do some research within the state's info and come back with a definitive link about their marketing and/or more info regarding this subject.TJH2018 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, NJ Transit always uses that name in their public materials, including all over their website at njtransit.com. Now while the law creating the agency may use the full "New Jersey Transit Corporation", WP:OFFICIALNAME holds true. As it stands we already leave off the "Corporation", so this is njst correcting the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What that bracketed formal or common name is ("NJ Transit" I understand) does not matter that much. WP:COMMONNAME first and foremost pertains to the name before any diasmbiguation is at hand. In this case: "Main Line" (or maybe "Main line"). Full stop here. Only then an addition comes in, because Main Line at enwiki has a ambigous meaning (as there are more article topics with that name). So WP:DAB takes over the ruling here for the bracketed additional disambiguation term. To cut short: using the formal name of NJ Transit is not good practice. First, "NJ" is not clear to mean New Jersey for most of our readers. Second, "New Jersey Transit" does not help either. By DAB, the tiutle could easily be: "Main Line (New Jersey)". The move proposal was between two wrongs. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Main Line (New Jersey)" is not completely right, either. It is a train service (as opposed to a physical trackage) operated solely by NJ Transit. And that is a proper name, with capital "L." Besides, why do the readers need to know what "NJ" is, if the main topic at hand is the transit agency? epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re "why do the readers need to know what "NJ" is?" -- Well, without checking: probably clarified in or near the lede of both WP:DAB and WP:TITLE. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the clarification is in the lead, then we don't need it in the title. We already know that the Main Line is a NJ Transit service. Now it's just one step more to find out what NJ Transit stands for. I doubt that people are that lazy. epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the name of the operator will definitely be best for disambiguation. But the real question, for this article, is WP:COMMONNAME. Again, I think Oknazevad has made a solid case for "NJ Transit" being the most common.--Cúchullain t/c 14:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, WP:COMMONNAME for this article is Main Line (as it is the proper name for it). Were it the only such name (=title) wikiwide, we would not be allowed to add anything. Next step: DAB is needed. Then for DAB reasons, DAB criteria count (not Commonname any more: that is for proper titles). DAB additions should be clarifying, not prefecticising. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, dude, we're discussing the name of the article New Jersey Transit at Talk:New Jersey Transit. This isn't Talk:Main Line (NJ Transit). That discussion was closed pending the outcome of this discussion. You're discussing the wrong thing. We are not talking about the title of the Main Line article. So please stay on topic. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a move to NJ Transit based on oknazevad's evidence. Will there be a formal RM? --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oknazevad: As James says above, are you making a RM? epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if we should do a formal RM or just take this discussion and request a technical move. Being that it's being discussed already, and the projects were notified, a formal RM seems redundant. I think I'll wait a few days and then make a technical request. oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, checking the edit history, it wouldn't even need to be a technical move, as the NJ Transit redirect has no history other than the 13 year old creation of the redirect. Anyone of us could manually move it in 5 minutes or less. But I won't be that bold. Not at least for a few more days to see what other input there might be. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support oknazevad as I was unable to find anything from NJ Transit otherwise...TJH2018 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oknazevad, I don't think there's a need for a formal RM. Several editors have weighed in and there are no objections, and at the moment RM is heavily backlogged. Waiting a bit to see if there's any other objection would be fine, but even after a move, if objections turn up we can open an RM then.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll wait till the 24th (the same conventional 7 days as a formal RM, and if I see no cutlet her major objections, I'll move it then. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be moved uncontroversially to "NJ Transit", as can New Jersey Transit Bus Operations to "NJ Transit Bus Operations." However, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations cannot be moved to "NJ Transit Rail Operations" for consistency, because "NJ Transit Rail Operations" already has a history. Therefore, if we move this article, we have to file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for "NJ Transit Rail Operations". epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, after waiting a few extra days (having been really busy), I made the move. So now comes the hard part. While moving New Jersey Transit Bus Operations will take 3 seconds, and the technical request for New Jersey Transit Rail Operations only slightly longer, the sheets number of links is pretty big. Now, because of WP:NOTBROKEN, we don't need to change every single link right away, though over time it would be a good idea to have a consistent use of the common name around Wikipedia. But I think the priority should be fixing links in templates, especially navboxes. Any help would be appreciated, as I don't use automated tools (I edit on my phone too much, and I don't like the interfaces for the most part; they're written by and for people used to coding programs, which I also dislike). oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on NJ Transit. 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) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NJ Transit. 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) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many bus routes are there?[edit]

This article says the number that NJ Transit has 871 bus routes, but NJ Transit Bus Operations says the number is 267. neither claims are sourced, so which number is it? Caleb The Wipper (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of routes that are directly operated by NJT (Thru NJT Bus Operations) is 253, the rest of the 614 routes are operated by private carriers using NJT buses. (Private Carriers also have a contract with NJT) NJTFan22 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source: https://www.njtransit.com/about/about-us 144.121.253.125 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the source. NJTFan22 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NJ_Transit&oldid=1209392069"