Talk:Port Miami Tunnel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePort Miami 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
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Infobox[edit]

Here is an infobox I found that will fit; I was going to make one called "infobox construction project" or something.


Old tunnel length exact: http://www.fdotmiamidade.com/current-projects/north-miami-dade/port-of-miami-tunnel.html

References[edit]

The reference list should be split into two columns. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a GA candidate now[edit]

This article is nothing like it was four months ago. And there will be a lot more as it develops. Flagler Logistics hub http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/110310/story7.shtml

  • April 5th, 31,977 and 40 refs
  • May 24, 40,940 and 54 refs

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Port of Miami Tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the article is unsourced, especially in the top of the "Overview" section.
Done, trust me it's all sourced it just didn't have enough footnotes because they were bare URL's, now that the references are proper they can be applied everywhere they are used with an inline citation. Trust me this is a huge project for the area, it's well covered, and really, it's just beginning, it's not even 1/4 way into construction and look how much there already is. I am not just trying to get it really good for now to earn the GA status and then leave it, which often is what happens, I actually want it to be very informative and up to date when people read it. I have completely "taken over" and rewritten this article from what it was last December, slowly adding more and more to it, and as I realized it was becoming an exceptional entry, I decided to give GA a shot. If I kept at it like I am now, it could probably be a featured article by 2014. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this is bound to be an issue if this article becomes an FAC.--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$1 billion dollar project" - I am 100% sure that it is USD, so change it to "$1 billion (USD [link USD]) project"
Done
  • "3/4 mile" - Provide a conversion to kilometres.
Done, exact length is obviously unknown, 3,900 feet the newest number I've heard
  • "due to financial difficulties due to the economic crisis," - "Economic crisis", which "economic crisis"? Wikilink to which "economic crissis" because it currently goes to economic crisis in general.
Done, thank you I had no idea that wansn't more properly linked
  • "$3.1 billion USD (this figure seems completely wrong)" - remove "(this figure seems completely wrong)"
Long story on that, it was here before I touched the article. Will look into it.Done.
  • "40 feet in diameter." - Convert 40 feet to metres. Also convert 43 foot to metres
Once again exact diameter of a hole dug through limestone is not precise, but will convert both.
  • All but two of the references are in bare URL style. Add the information including the title, author, publisher, date, and accessdate.
Yes, thank you, I have always just done the bare URL style up until now because it's the most common and it's easiest, but I need to start doing it the right way anyway. All the access dates will be today.
Okay now I see why I've been doing it the simple way like everyone else, the right way is much more complicated and requires going back and forth. Give me some time I'm busy with my real life stuff right now, but would really like to get this to a good article. I'm glad the problems are easily fixable. I look forward to doing it but am busy dealing with the unfun part of window cleaning right now. I wish someone else who is fluent in the different types of references could do it, or help.
Reference #6 is still a "bare URL"--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I meant to say Reference #10--12george1 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have more issues, but I will let you address the above problems first.--12george1 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all the references that are news sources, I'm done for today. I don't know what to use for the other sources. Now that I think about it, won't cite news work for all of them? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the other issues I had are very minor, so I will fix them myself. Anyway, fix Reference #6 #10 and I will pass.--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I believe the article now meets the GA criteria. So I will be passing this article. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boondoggle[edit]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/23/2281988/give-bicyclists-space.html http://seshippingnews.typepad.com/south_east_shipping_news/2009/12/miami-tunnel-threatened-again-as--sec-orders-miami-to-turn-over-its-financial-books------------miami-dade-county-corruption-e.html

Hippie blog calls POM tunnel article "extensive"[edit]

With reference to it not (yet) mentioning some grassroots controversy over polymers to be used in the grouting process, though I believe I just read that it was all pretty much going to be regular Portland cement. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change in 395-A1A designations?[edit]

Since the idea of the tunnel is to boast a direct interstate connection to the port, one must assume that the tunnel and therefore the first hump of the MacArthur causeway will become part of 395, whereas now it becomes A1A just before the bridge. Another interesting fact is that it will be the lowest point in the interstate highway system if it really does reach -120, I have heard other lesser depths mentioned. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Intriguing. Must research further. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely original research/speculation. But as a counterpoint: extending I-395 would require FDOT to ban bikes from that part of the causeway, where they are currently allowed (notwithstanding temporary construction restrictions). --NE2 08:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Road A1A[edit]

The article says that the tunnel will be part of SR A1A. How is that possible? The current way of A1A is over MacArthur Causeway, isn't it? That doesn't seem to be compatible, since there is only access from Miami to the tunnel. Regards, Dionysos1988 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the new signs on the MacArthur eastbound from 95 it wil recieve a unique designation as Florida State Road 887 User:B137 (talk)

I don't get this sentence[edit]

Although a tunnel connecting the Port of Miami to Watson Island was first proposed in the 1980s, when the House rejected President Ronald Reagan's attempt to veto the bill to conduct a premilinary[sic] study and called it a "pork-barrel" project...

So Reagan attempted to veto it, and the House overrode the veto while calling it a porker? Did something get messed up when this sentence became a run-on? --NE2 08:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating post-opening[edit]

Nearly entire article is written as if tunnel hasn't opened.

Furthermore, "Railroad access" and "Deep Dredge/Panama Canal expansion" are out-of-date and need to include info about their current state.

The port's name is PortMiami (no space between "Port" & "Miami"), so I would think that the official name of the tunnel would reflect the orthography of the port's name (ie. "PortMiami Tunnel", not "Port Miami Tunnel"). The project's website is unclear: the logo looks like there's no space, but in prose the name includes a space (there are still many spots where the name is still given as "Port of Miami Tunnel"). Once the correct orthography is determined, the article needs to reflect the name change.

Those are the straightforward updates. Since the tunnel is now open, the rationale/benefits and criticism/concerns for the project need to be placed in context now that it is complete (and didn't become a boondoggle) and should be organized into a section or as subsection of "History". The "Deep Dredge/Panama Canal expansion" section goes into far too much detail about that project. Most of that stuff belongs in the Port of Miami Deep Dredge Project article, with the link being changed from "See also" to "Further information" and the content boiled down to "The Panama Canal is being expanded and so the capacity of PortMiami is being expanded with the Deep Dredge Project. More traffic in/out would mean more trucks through downtown, therefore justifying the tunnel." There's no need for the history of the Army Corps of Engineers dredging the channel deeper or that they're installing bigger gantry cranes.

I'm the type of editor that would typically try to make corrections myself, but this article is so thoroughly out-of-date that I'm just going to place the update template for now (sorry) and also await feedback from others regarding the content changes suggested in the preceding paragraph. AHeneen (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email to FDOT (through "Contact us" form on tunnel website) asking for the official name of the tunnel (PortMiami Tunnel or Port Miami Tunnel). AHeneen (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key issues is the breakup of the billion dollars, the numbers given were estimates did it turn out exactly like that? That's pretty specific information to find. Most of the rest is just simple prose or at most section rearranging. B137 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article needs to be updated with final financial figures. I've trimmed the Deep Dredge section of irrelevant information as mentioned above. AHeneen (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A big issue with the references is that Herald articles always expire and I don't believe they are publicly archived anywhere, let alone for free, leaving many dead links. B137 (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to cite newspaper articles (and other sources) that are not available online: Wikipedia:Offline sources. --NE2 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly updated so I went ahead and removed the tag. One key piece of information remaining would be a more recent traffic estimate. The first month could be expected to be low. Even Google Maps still occasionally does not recognize it as a route. B137 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that's the only traffic count I could find. The article date is September 24 and a few other webpages that mention the tunnel traffic count cite that article. The tunnel website's press releases page is empty (and there's no traffic data on the related subpages) and the FDOT Miami-Dade (District 6) press releases page hasn't posted anything about the tunnel since June. The Miami Today editor may have contacted FDOT directly to get the traffic count, since it doesn't appear that the traffic count has been published online by any 'official' source. So I presume that the August traffic count will have to suffice for now. Maybe someone reading this in a few months can search the web for a newer traffic count. FDOT has a web portal to view traffic counts throughout the state which is updated annually in April, so after April 2015 someone can look up the traffic count through that link. AHeneen (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KML file[edit]

Does this article need a KML file? If so, I can create one. I'm wondering this because many roadway articles like this utilize {{Attached KML}}. However, as this tunnel is short, I don't want to create the KML if it's unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a code guy, so I looked at the Big Dig article, which apparently has a KML with the parameter =title but I don't see what exactly it is. B137 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@B137: The KML file will show a map overlaid over the maps at http://www.google.com/maps or http://www.bing.com/maps. For Massachusetts Turnpike, for example, it will show up like this. In this case, the attached KML file will combine several different coordinate points to make a line that can be placed over the default Google or Bing map to show the route of this tunnel, or any other roadway for that matter. I can create the file at Template:Attached KML/Port Miami Tunnel and put the {{Attached KML}} code in the External Links section, so that links to Google and Bing will show up at the top of the page, where the coordinates link is now. Let me know if that's OK. Epicgenius (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the guidelines for road articles, so I can't say whether this article needs a KML file. However, I think it would be useful. If you want to create one and add it to this article, that's fine. You can use the image at right for the path (in public domain); a couple zoomed in images are available here (also public domain). AHeneen (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KML file (edit • help)
Template:Attached KML/Port Miami Tunnel
KML is not from Wikidata
@AHeneen: Thanks for these resources. I believe (but can't say for sure) that it is normal to have the KML for the road articles, although it's not required. I just created the KML file (at right) if either of you want to use it. Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, I should have known that; I've seen people use inline citations where it leads to Google showing a road highlighted as a reference.
@AHeneen: did you hear back from FDOT? B137 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Never received a response concerning the official tunnel name. AHeneen (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added the KML, by the way. Feel free to revert if you do not want it. Epicgenius (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Port Miami Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Port Miami 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: 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) 09:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Miami_Tunnel&oldid=1209826599"