Talk:Holland Tunnel

Holland Tunnel has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 12, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
August 9, 2019	Good topic candidate	Not promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 13, 2010, November 13, 2011, November 13, 2016, November 13, 2017, October 12, 2020, November 13, 2021, and November 13, 2023.

Current status: Good article

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

New York City High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey: Hudson County Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hudson County Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What if you can't pay the toll?

First off, tolls are draconian- restricting travel. What happens when you pass through and can't pay the toll?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.136 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop at a collector they call over the cops who point you away. If you just drive through and the cops catch you there's a ticket with your name on it. If you drive through and don't get caught they send you a bill in the mail (all lanes have E-Zpass with cameras to catch evaders). And if you don't pay that then you get fines attached and lead to registration suspension for locals. As far as I know they can't do much if you aren't from NY or NJ. They just take the loss. Although if you come back they could be waiting for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toll

The article mentions that the 50 cent toll was originally enstated to repay the cost to build the tunnel, which makes sense, but it leaves me completely baffeled as to why the toll persists to this day, and so high (6$). According to the article, 33 million vehicles passed the tunnel in 2005; If we assume this counted return trip twice, then we have about 16 million "NJ to NY" tolled trips, or a total income of about 100 million dollars in 2005. If the tunnel makes $100M every year, and according to the article the total cost to maintain it since it was built was just $500M, then obviously a lot of money is being made. Why? By whom? Is this considered acceptable by NJ commuters (who I guess are the ones who are paying these charges)? I think the article should mention some of these issues. Nyh 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting article about the history of the Holland Tunnel, and its tolls: [1]. Apparently, the original 50 cent toll was indeed supposed to only last until the building costs were repaid, and the toll hasn't changed at all from 1927 to 1975 - half a century! - and remained $1 for a two-way trip - which means, given inflation, that the toll slowly decreased. Today's two-way toll, $12, is actually equivalent (in today's dollars) to the $1 that people paid in 1927, though it looks much more :-) It's just that this money is not going to repay for the Holland Tunnel any more (which was repaid long ago) - it's going into other PANYNJ projects. Which projects? Why? Good questions... 195.110.40.7 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot major roads are said to have tolls "to repay construction costs" but never go away. They make way too much money for the local governments (or PANYNJ in this case) and the upkeep of those places cost a lot as well. I imagine a 90-year-old tunnel under the river requires plenty of maintenance among other services the PANYNJ provides (emergency, toll collection, etc). A big LOL to the $6 dollar complaint since it is $15 in 2018 but as the above stated the toll is basically the same given inflation. The calc I used said that $6 in '07 was half price... what a rip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the tunnel didn't close so much for security reasons after 9/11, but so that trucks hauling waste could travel without being in traffic.

Cause of Holland's Death

According to the Port Authority's[2] website, "Holland dies suddenly in 1927, of apparent exhaustion, on the eve of the day workers from the New York and New Jersey sides are to meet in the middle (a process called "holing through")."

According to Holland's remaining surviving daughter (who died 17 September 2013), he died of a heart attack on the operating table while undergoing a tonsillectomy (personal communication).

Clifford Holland was born on March 13th 1883 in Somerset, Massachusetts, the only child of Lydia Frances Hood and Edward John Holland. He attended Harvard University in the fall of 1902, received a degree of A.B. in 1905, and S.B in Civil Engineering in 1906. According to an article written about him in 1925, the work and stress of the tunnel project over-taxed him and his strength failed him. His health became poor, which necessitated complete rest. The Harvard Class of '06 25th Anniversary Report states that he died at the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Battle Creek, MI of Angina Pectoris. It states he went to the sanitatium "on the advice of his physicians because he seemed to be suffering severely from disordered nerves and an attack of nervous prostration was imminent. Careful diagnosis of his condition and treatment was being given when he died suddenly from angina." According to Clifford Holland's Official Death Certificate, he died on the 27th of October, 1924 in Battle Creek, MI of Angina Pectoris. The Marshall Office has all death records pre-1969. They can be reached at (269)781 0718. Are there any surviving descendants?76.19.191.205 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many descendants. Holland's four daughters each had 2-4 children. He has many great-great grandchildren.

The Liverpool/Birkenhead tunnel

It is believed that the first of Liverpool's two road tunnels (opened 1934) to the other side of the River Mersey followed the principles of engineering used in the construction of the Holland Tunnel. Certain aspects of the Mersey tunnel are very similar in appearance to the Holland tunnel and uses similar ventilation.

Change of Hudson template

Would anyone mind if I substituted {{NYC Hudson River crossings}} with {{Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the color of the link (brown), I'd say your nomination succeeded. 68.32.48.42 03:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Side is Longer?

I have been wondering for ages which state owns most of the Holland Tunnel. I always thought New Jersey owned the most because after crossing the state line into NY it always seems to take a short amount of time to exit the tunnel. (I commute frequently) --Bennyp77 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the NJ side of the tubes are longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The holland tunnel is also in the XBOX 360 game The Godfather

The Soprano

The intro from the TV series The Sopranos don't start to get out of this tunnel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folio (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Rotary

St john's Rotaryis the name of the circular road at the end of the end of the eastbound tube. Have edited article with references to reflect this. There is no need or room for a lot of history about previous uses of the land, which are better covered in an article about the rotary itself.Djflem (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to support this contention. At Talk:St. John's Park, this editor was asked to provide supporting citations from reliable sources after he moved St. John's Park to "St. John's Rotary". He has so far provided none, and for this reason the name should not be used here until it can be supported. I have removed it. BMK (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Tunnel Rotary

An editor (BMK (talk)) has twiced removed the following pertinent reference without justification. Why? It soliday explains previous uses of the land of which the rotary is situated Djflem (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Park of the Past". New York Parks Department. October 8, 2005. Retrieved 2014-12-23..

I removed the reference, because the sentence it was supporting is inappropriate for an article on the Holland Tunnel, although it would be appropriate for the article St. John's Park.

Also, today you moved an article Holland Tunnel Rotary from your user space into main space. I have sent it back there for these reasons:

(1) The article substantially duplicates St. John's Park -- without proper accreditation for copyright purposes -- and duplicate articles are not allwed, per [WP:FORKING]].

(2) You had previous re-written the St. John's Park article to change its focus to the rotary, and then moved it to "Holland Tunnel Rotary" without discussion. I reverted the move and opened a consensus discussion on the talk page.

(3) The consensus that is forming there is that "St. John's Park" is the proper title for the article, and that the rotary was not notable in and of itself to warrant an article

(4) Nonetheless you tried to subvert this emerging consensus by forking the article.

In addition, you seem to have ownership issues about this subject matter. I suggest you review the ownership page to remind you that you cannot own or control any article, and also WP:CONSENSUS to remind you that following group consensus is how we work here. If you continue in this pattern of disruptive behavior, I will be bringing it to the attention of an admin. BMK (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Despite you claims, the reference is completely appropriate for the Holland Tunnel Rotary section of the article
(2) The information in the Holland Tunnel Rotary article relies on sources available.
(3) As discussion is taking place at the St. John's Park talk page. You have been asked to provide references to back up your claims and you have not done so.
(4) You have place a banner on the article which stated article was being substantially edited despite the fact that
you yourself cited Wikipedia:BRD that it could/should not be substantially edited during a discussion, which is a *clear demonstration of you ownership issues.
(5) You were asked on this talk page to discuss the Holland Tunnel Rotary section on this page, and work for a consensus. You have reverted, which is disruptive editing.Djflem (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid every one of your points is invalid, confused or totally inaccurate. BMK (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid, just back up your claims per Wikipedia:Verifiability Unreferenced material from this section has been removed.Djflem (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you really are clueless. BMK (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the reference which you so conveniently removed. Good luck with your scramble on the St. John's Park. Curious to see what kind weasel you try to use to justify your original research. I expect there'll be liberal use of the many fine references I provided in Holland Tunnel Rotary including this one which clearly the states the park doesn't exist and hasn't for 150 years. "Park of the Past". New York Parks Department. October 8, 2005. Retrieved 2014-12-23.. Djflem (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing significant WP:IDHT behavior. Let me repeat what I wrote on Talk:St. John's Park:

It's clearly not a park, in the sense you're looking for, but it is nonetheless called "St. John's Park". Towns can be called "city" without having any of the normal attributes of a city, streets can be called "Maple Street" without having any maples on them, apartments can be called "River View Gardens" without having a view of the river or any gardens, delis can be called "Gramercy Deli" despite being nowhere near Gramercy, etc. etc. etc. In general, there's no accounting for names, and there's no requirement that a tract of land which was once a square or park can't continue to carry its previous name even when it no longer functions as a public square or a park - and that's what's happened here. The land in question is still called "St. John's Park", just as the Meatpacking District will continue to be called that well after the last meat packer in the area has closed down. It's a name.

Ok, let me summarize for you:

(1) No, it's not a park

(2) It was a park

(3) Despite no longer being a park, the land is still called "St. John's Park" -- it's a name.

(4) Which is all pretty irrelevant because the article isn't about an uninteresting non-notable cluster of highway exits, it's about the history of the land that "rotary" sits on, which was known as "St. John's Park".

Do you get it? It's the name of what the article is focused on. I know that you desperately want to have the article focus on your precious exit rotary, but that's just not going to happen, because an exit rotary is boring, uninteresting, unencyclopedic, pedestrian and completely non-notable. (Maybe if Jimmy Hoffa was buried in the pavement somewhere, but otherwise it's just a chunk of highway not worth a tinker's cuss.) BMK (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vent Tower image

Extensive coverage of ventilation system in article justifies showing two different towers. If one image is chosen should be contemporary image that also accents fact that Holland Tunnel is River crossing.Hudconja (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined both images. BMK (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holland Tunnel. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holland Tunnel. 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/20160819164939/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140918/hudson-square/small-parks-with-chaise-lounges-open-near-holland-tunnel-entrance to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140918/hudson-square/small-parks-with-chaise-lounges-open-near-holland-tunnel-entrance

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean?

In the History section, at the end of the third paragraph is the sentence: "Promotional materials compared the diameter and capacity of the proposed tunnel with the smaller-diameter railroad tunnels."

It seems like a total non-sequitor, just exactly what does this mean and what is it attempting to say, and why is it there? Would these be Holland's promotional materials? Just what kind of materials are these, brochures? And it is without citation, there is no reference supporting this statement, even if it did make sense.

Would the editor please either re-write this sentence to have a relevant English language meaning in context, or else eliminate it from the paragraph? Thank you. 2601:342:0:E3D0:687A:10FE:3726:ED3B (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised this image isn't in the commons... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/28/nyregion/28TUNNEL2/28TUNNEL2-superJumbo.jpg or check out https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/nyregion/books-explore-architecture-and-atmosphere-of-new-york.html But I see why the sentence may seem weird or out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate description

The description section gives the depth of the tunnel below the MHW (mean high water) level just fine, but it fails to say at any point how deep into he silt the tunnel lies. Even an approximate measurement would be appreciated here. Is the tunnel covered by 10 feet of silt or by 200 feet of silt? How deep under the river bottom is the top of the tunnel? How deep are dredges allowed to dredge over the tunnel? If a ship with a deep draft were to plow up the bottom, at what point would the tunnel encounter trouble? This information should generally be available and should be known to those who maintain the river and tunnel and should be included in this article. Please include this serious omission. Thank you. 2601:342:0:E3D0:687A:10FE:3726:ED3B (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think it's so important but... According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River the river is 30' deep along this stretch but other Googled sources say 32'. And let's say the roadway is 15' below the top of the tunnel, so 93 - 32 - 15 = 46' of silt sitting above the tunnel. And if you are worried about a ship somehow hitting it, the 32' depth alone keeps large ships at bay. Even if the tunnel was completely uncovered it would sit 78' below the water. Only the largest ships in the world would be at risk of collision. Newer/larger container ships have drafts of 50' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship) and the largest cruise ships are only 30' below the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.195.3.64 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the same conclusion as IP user 73.195.3.64, using the same google sources. I do also agree that this is not a "serious" omission. There is at least 20 feet of silt between the river bed and the tunnels, even if the river is 60 feet deep (which is the case for the East River). This information is not interesting to the general public, hence it is not that serious of an issue, but if there is a source that states the depth of the river at this point, then feel free to add it. epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holland Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 20:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few comments below. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are quite a few hits in the copyvio tool; most of these are clear false positives due to re-use of phrases such as "New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission". The top hit [3] is due to the limited number of ways to describe the carbon-monoxide levels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't have an "in popular culture" section, which might be possible. I don't think it needs such a section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I don't know how to see the license for the video in the infobox. Everything else is tagged correctly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Looks very good at a first pass; I'll do a line-by-line check for grammar and referencing in a few hours. Two minor things: first, I don't like "Context" as the name of the sub-section heading; is there a better choice? Second, the table of tolls should say that the current toll of $15 is equivalent to $15 in 2018 dollars, right? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for taking up the review. I've amended the section header to "Need for vehicular tunnel". As for the toll table, the current "toll equivalent" is actually incorrect, as the current toll is still $15 and the price values don't adjust for inflation. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the two tubes' underwater sections are parallel - should this be "adjacent"? Being parallel doesn't mean the tubes couldn't be two blocks apart. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The river shafts doubled as emergency exits by way of shipping piers that connected each ventilation shaft to the shoreline. - are these still emergency exits, or was this just during construction? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still are emergency shafts. It would be pretty unsafe to have these shafts not be used if an emergency were to happen. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the I-78 and NJ 139 - is it common practice in New York to use "the" to refer to highways? (I know it is done in LA and not done in SF) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who you're talking to. I removed "the". epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truck drivers were invited to Bridge Commission meetings, where they would hear about the details of both the 57th Street Bridge and Canal Street Tunnel plans. - should this be reworded so the subject of the sentence is the meetings, rather than the truck drivers? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission - is there a redirect target for this group? I assume it was subsumed into the Port Authority (or dissolved). I can't read all of [4] which may describe it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It was merged with the PANYNJ as part of the construction of the Lincoln Tunnel. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that and the New Jersey Bridge and Tunnel Commission. This might not be the full name though. epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was the first instance in the tunnel's history where the entirety of the tubes was flooded - this doesn't appear to be sourced (and is missing a period as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is not even the first instance. The tunnel was also flooded during construction. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson River or Est River?

The article says "The Holland Tunnel is a vehicular tunnel under the Hudson River"

But in the map ( File:Holland Tunnel.svg ) the red-highlighted section is at East River. --87.15.151.110 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you've got that wrong and that Manhattan is on the right in that map. DonIago (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holland Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 20:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few comments below. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are quite a few hits in the copyvio tool; most of these are clear false positives due to re-use of phrases such as "New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission". The top hit [5] is due to the limited number of ways to describe the carbon-monoxide levels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't have an "in popular culture" section, which might be possible. I don't think it needs such a section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I don't know how to see the license for the video in the infobox. Everything else is tagged correctly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Looks very good at a first pass; I'll do a line-by-line check for grammar and referencing in a few hours. Two minor things: first, I don't like "Context" as the name of the sub-section heading; is there a better choice? Second, the table of tolls should say that the current toll of $15 is equivalent to $15 in 2018 dollars, right? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for taking up the review. I've amended the section header to "Need for vehicular tunnel". As for the toll table, the current "toll equivalent" is actually incorrect, as the current toll is still $15 and the price values don't adjust for inflation. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the two tubes' underwater sections are parallel - should this be "adjacent"? Being parallel doesn't mean the tubes couldn't be two blocks apart. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The river shafts doubled as emergency exits by way of shipping piers that connected each ventilation shaft to the shoreline. - are these still emergency exits, or was this just during construction? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still are emergency shafts. It would be pretty unsafe to have these shafts not be used if an emergency were to happen. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the I-78 and NJ 139 - is it common practice in New York to use "the" to refer to highways? (I know it is done in LA and not done in SF) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who you're talking to. I removed "the". epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truck drivers were invited to Bridge Commission meetings, where they would hear about the details of both the 57th Street Bridge and Canal Street Tunnel plans. - should this be reworded so the subject of the sentence is the meetings, rather than the truck drivers? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Bridge and Tunnel Commission - is there a redirect target for this group? I assume it was subsumed into the Port Authority (or dissolved). I can't read all of [6] which may describe it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It was merged with the PANYNJ as part of the construction of the Lincoln Tunnel. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that and the New Jersey Bridge and Tunnel Commission. This might not be the full name though. epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was the first instance in the tunnel's history where the entirety of the tubes was flooded - this doesn't appear to be sourced (and is missing a period as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is not even the first instance. The tunnel was also flooded during construction. epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression sickness

The article says "The rate of decompression rate for sandhogs working on the Hudson River Tunnel..." Should this be "The rate of decompression sickness" or "The decompression sickness rate" or something similar? I couldn't see the link to the NYT article [Ref. 127] to confirm what exactly was being referenced.