Talk:Park Avenue Tunnel (roadway)

Bridges and Tunnels Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New York City Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Park Avenue Tunnel should not redirect here

The Park Avenue Tunnel is the much longer tunnel from Grand Central to 125th Street, which is still in use. I'm not sure how to change the redirection.... 69.202.67.35 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concurred. Though where should Park Avenue Tunnel redirect (do we need a disambiguation page listing links to the Murray Hill tunnel and also to the others (or at least the railroads that now use them)? Do people refer to the Murray Hill one as "the Park Avenue Tunnel", since I think it's the only one that non-railroaders need to identify? DMacks (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ... I have a nice pic of the 97th Street portal from the front of a train I'm going to be uploading to Commons soon; and I will put a split proposal here. If no one objects after a few days, I will create the article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the image in question. Not perfect ... I had to blow it up since the picture I had planned to take as the tunnel approached was ruined by the flash going off (I was riding in an M1, in which this sort of unobstructed forward view is possible for a regular passenger). But it'll do, until and unless we get a better one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Park Avenue Tunnel is _the_ official and proper name of the railroad tunnel. The tunnel needs its own article (it's way too important not to have one), and should get its proper name for a title. Many people may incorrectly believe that the name refers to the motor vehicle tunnel, but this is a clear case where official name trumps most common name, as the incorrect name causes confusion.oknazevad (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live at 35th. St. and Park Avenue, right by the tunnel. Myself, and everybody I've every heard speak of it, refer to this tunnel as the Park Avenue Tunnel. The only time I've ever heard the phrase Murray Hill Tunnel was on this page. I'm afraid you are wrong as far as common usage goes, and you should change the name to Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel or some such. You are causing confusion by pedantically insisting on a your claimed nomenclature which does not correspond to common usage.75.146.224.18 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to be a little more emphatic about this. When New Yorkers talk about tunnels they are talking about roadway tunnels almost exclusively. Nobody needs to refer to subway or railroad tunnels by name apart from professionals. The Brooklyn-Battery tunnel means the road tunnel; the 1st. Avenue tunnel means the road tunnel; the the midtown tunnel means the road tunnel; the Lincoln tunnel means the road tunnel. Nobody here knows or cares what the names of the railroad tunnels are. If you take the F train to park slope you care about station names, not the tunnel names.75.146.224.18 (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for using standard-usage, but your edits are making up your own words for it. Unless people actually do call it the "Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel", we definitely should not be calling it that because that makes it harder for anyone and everyone to find the page. If there are two things called "Park Avenue Tunnel", we don't make up arbitrary new names for them, but instead use the proper name with a generic note about which one we mean. What do written sources call what is formally named the "Murray Hill Tunnel"?

Until the issue is resolved, please undo your changes to the WP:LEAD to conform to the style guides. If you like, you can add parenthetical notes or whatever giving other common-usage names, but the article must begin with whatever the article is called. Otherwise you're making things more confusing by having the article and the page-title be different. DMacks (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic

Yes, using official historical names is pedantic. It's an encyclopedia, after all, not a tabloid newspaper. As it happens, the name changes were anonymous, so I simply reverted them rather than check the talk pages first. Had I known the changes were based on opinions I disagree with rather than simple anonymous thoughtlessness, maybe I would have held off for a day, but no regrets. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to search for the Murray Hill Tunnel because nobody uses that name. Can you cite any usage of that name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.224.18 (talk)

Do you think there is some other official name of this tunnel? Do you have reliable sources to support your claim of a clearly preferable name? Did you not see the clear note at the top of the Park Avenue Tunnel page explaining how to find what one is looking for? DMacks (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on Talk:Park Avenue Tunnel about this naming situation. Let's keep all discussion there, since it's about the meaning of "Park Avenue Tunnel" and issues common to that term and page, not just Murray Hill. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a photograph of a New York City Dept. of Transport sign, taken on 26th. July 2008 on 5th. Avenue in Manhattan. This sign is clearly referring to the Park Avenue Tunnel and not the Murray Hill Tunnel. This is a road traffic warning and is referring to the roadway tunnel. I think this is pretty concrete evidence that the NYC Dept. of Transit calls the tunnel the Park Avenue Tunnel.

Farmhouse121 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those not following the discussion elsewhere on this topic, I was mistaken. Different agencies are in charge of the two tunnels, and each calls its own "Park Avenue Tunnel" so we sent that name to a disambiguator. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top picture

Goodness; my new interior pic has stirred a controversy among our thoughtful editors. One side thinks it atypical and the other thinks it's more informative, if they don't mind my reading their minds. I like my picture, but of course I would, so I shall leave the arguments to less biased minds. Better to put the arguments here in Talk, however, than carry on an edit war. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already conceded my point and left the arty interior photo as the infobox image. The gallery is there for more normal views of the tunnel, and I assume the "war" has reached a consensus. jhsounds (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did an about face, sorry. With the gallery there, I like the "normal" pic in the infobox and the SummerStreets pic in the gallery. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. (Incidentally, I couldn't get into the tunnel today, I started out too late and got there just as they woere closing it down. Next week I may go extremely early to make sure I get in. Thanks for the great pic, Jim.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I started with "Wow, I won!" "No, I lost" "Ooh, my enemy is convinced!" "No, my friend betrayed me." No, of course none of that is true; everyone's my friend and just trying to figure out what will serve best. Two days ago riding the Zipline downtown followed by side trips for photos and noshing delayed my arrival at 33rd St until closing time. Should have worn my Wikipedia shirt; someone might have stepped up and introduced himself. Better luck next Saturday, especially for any more skilled photographer whose underground picture might blow mine completely out of the article. Oh, look out for the incongruously grand emergency staircase to about 38th Street. Interesting bit of architecture but my pix of it weren't worth uploading, much less presenting in the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim: Sorry if you felt betrayed, even momentarily. I really did mean it about anyone reverting who disagreed with the change. You image is great! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my long list of habitual faults does not include jumping to paranoid conclusions. Retrospectively overdramatizing my own mental processes, yes, that's one of mine. Jim.henderson (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art Installations?

Is this the same tunnel which has occasional art installations like this: http://news.artnet.com/art-world/dive-into-the-park-avenue-tunnels-aquatic-sound-art-installation-73030 And if so, what's the deal? Do they close it to traffic? Do cars and people and art all mingle at the same time? Thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A long stretch of Park Avenue is closed off to vehicles for a few hours for the SummerStreets event. For the past two years, the Park Avenue Tunnel has also been temporarily closed off to vehicles in coordination with SummerStreets for art projects. It's an optional part of the larger Park Avenue walking path, since there's a line to get in and people who choose to go inside have to sign a liability waiver if I recall correctly. jhsounds (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]