Wikipedia

Talk:Second Avenue Subway/Archive 1

< Talk:Second Avenue Subway
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Any recent news?

It's late 2004, so there should be some new information about the Second Avenue Subway. Has construction started? CoolGuy 09:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Routing around an old tunnel?

Does the current plan still call for it to avoid the one-block section of the Lower Manhattan Expressway that has been built? If anyone can find an elevation diagram, that should answer the question. --SPUI (talk) 22:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does--it clears it by a considerable margin. I've seen the cross-section, but now I don't have a clue where. BTW, the section down in Chinatown, IIRC, was not "completed." It was excavated and the utilities moved, but as no substantial infrastructure was put in place, it was filled in to stabilize the surface. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - can you add in the info on the section in Chinatown? And have you seen mention of a section from 2nd to 9th? The DEIS says nothing about it. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen mention of the section. I'll see what I can find documentary. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The most straightforward mention of 2nd to 9th I can readily find is at http://www.nycsubway.org/ind/2ndave/builtfaq.html -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second Avenue Subway

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article should be called Second Avenue Subway. I do not know of anything that refers to it as the Second Avenue Line. CoolGuy 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) See [1]

Under the nomenclature of this WikiProject, usually trunk lines are used in that case. Pacific Coast Highway 14:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:2nd_Avenue_Subway.jpg

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have added this image, originally uploaded by Rock nj to 2nd Avenue Subway. After previously removign this image for a copyright violation, I have carefully examined Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria and Wikipedia:Fair_use and I believe that as long as no suitable free map exists, this image is used in these two articles to illustrate the specific subject at hand, and is therefore fair use. Any comments are welcome. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Can you point me to the part about maps in Wikipedia's policies. I haven't looked into its fair use section much. Thanks, CoolGuy 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK there is no section specifically dealing with maps. In general, maps would NOT be usable because one of the [[Fair use criteria, since most maps are published by for profit companies, and policy states The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product.. However, since the MTA is obviously not making a profit from its maps (they are free to the public), This condition is met in this case. I went through a couple other articles, like the philly, boston, and NYC subway articles and the general trend I was was that maps were allowed as fair use until a free image was created to replace them (User:SPUI has made dozens of these free versions to replace FU images.) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

POV in Politics section

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The newly added Politics section is highly POV. Can it be cleaned up? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was stating my opinion on the matter. But it does seem relevant considering the way the 2nd Avenue Subway project has dragged on for 7 decades through wars, peace, boom economies, depressions, recessions, inflation, prosperity. The point is the 2nd Avenue Subway project is not getting done, but along comes the East Side Access in 1999, a similiarily complicated and expensive project and wahlah like magic, the New York pols are actually able to fund and construct a large public works project from scratch. No foot dragging here. They are heeding someone's wishes. The East Side Access project is getting done. This begs the question why? Politics. Feel free to modify it if you wish. But I stand by what I wrote. Rock nj 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Youre right that it begs the question, but Wikipedia is not a place for speculation of this nature. We are a factual encyclopedia, and articles must conform to our NPOV Policy. Additionally, we have a policy about Original Research, which that paragraph really was verging on. As an aside as well, to say that the east side LIRR project was done because it benefitted rich suburbanites while the 2nd ave subway benefits primarily the poor is kindof bunk- The 2nd ave line serve the Upper east side, the east village, and plenty of other areas which are hardly low income neighborhoods. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is amazing how the 2nd Ave subway can't get off the ground and yet a project about 1/3rd the size but similiarily complext goes from the drawing board to construction within just a few years, East Side Access, all in the same New York that is notorius for foot dragging on public works. I believe it comes down to the people who control the purse strings, politicians and planners, for one reason or another wanted to get the East Side Access project done. It proves things can actually get done in New York and that there must be some explanation for why the 2nd Ave subway can't get done.Rock nj 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. However, opinion and personal conclusions are not encyclopdiac. Lets stick with the facts :) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 07:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also the claim "A similar public works project in New York, the $6.3 Billion LIRR East Side Access project, which will bring the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central Terminal, has moved along rather smoothly since its inception in the late 1990s." is open to question. Arguably, the project started in the late 1960s with the 63rd Street Tunnel, whose lower level was intended from the start to carry LIRR trains to a new terminal on the east side of Manhattan. When the East Side Access finally opens, the first trains will run thru the tunnel lower level some 45 years after it was completed. --agr 04:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

redirect of IRT Second Avenue Line

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IRT Second Avenue Line redirects here. Is it useful for it to do so before an article on the elevated line is written? Or should the redirect be deleted? If not, should it be mentioned with a {{redirect}} tag? --CComMack 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been annoying me since I realized it. The IRT Second Avenue elevated line has almost absolutely nothing to do with the Second Avenue Subway, and this article contains very little about the el at all. I don't feel that the redirect is at all useful, as long as it links to this article. —Larry V (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference to IRT Lexington Ave Line

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

There is no note/ reference as to from where did someone got the information regarding the ridership of IRT Lexington Avenue line exceeding the entire Washington Metro and thus Second Avenue line will therefore be an effective solution.

I am a transit advocate and agree the real need of Second Avenue line, but simulataneously suggest having authentic details. Will someone please add a note/ reference as to from where did the information about LEX and Washington Metro ridership details were obtained?

I've added a reference for that statement. Marc Shepherd 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The FEIS link is dead, and needs to be replaced. Also, are we certain that the Lex is more crowded at this point than the Flushing Line? Again, sources are helpful. Jd2718 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[2] (page 7) gives the daily ridership (one-way? I think so, though why does it say "inbound and outbound"? page 5 gives a total breakdown, suggesting it is two-way?) across the "60th Street screenline" on the Lex as fluctuating between 447,000 and 597,000 from 1971 to 1996. The Washington Metro's daily ridership is 564,000 in 2006. Can you try to figure it out? --NE2 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
NYMTC issues Hubbound Travel every year, (but I haven't gotten them in 10 years) so I will make a call and try to hunt down a more recent report. The table headings seemed correct. We have 679k inbound passengers on the eastside IRT, westside IRT, Upper Manhattan IND, (page 5), But 1.3M across the 60th St cordon all day (page 7), so page 7 would be both directions. Ridership, I have heard, is up, but this one is going to be close. With better numbers we may chose to say that the numbers are comparable, rather than make an amazing facts-style superlative. Jd2718 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree; we should say something like "daily ridership on the Lexington Avenue Line is comparable to that on the entire Washington Metro" if the number is around 550,000. But what exactly are we comparing? Ridership is the number of individual trips, right, so each commuter contributes two? [3] says the daily ridership on the Lex is 1.3 million: "The route’s three trains have a collective daily ridership of about 1.3 million. That is more people than the number who ride transit systems in San Francisco, Chicago and Boston combined, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority." We probably shouldn't make an arbitrary additive comparison like that, but maybe we should say that it's more than the ridership of the entirety of any other rapid transit system in the U.S.? --NE2 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about newspapers. Lex ridership has not doubled in ten years. I'll have RS in a couple of days, at most. Jd2718 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's doubled. You're using the one-way figures, but ridership is two-way. --NE2 15:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Second Avenue Line is way too ambiguous. It could mean a bus line (New York and many other cities), trolley line (Pittsburgh, for one. or New York, or Brooklyn) or even something else. The article should be titled something else, like Second Avenue Subway or Second Avenue Line (Proposed New York subway) or New York City Second Avenue Subway. And as someone pointed about earlier, noone calls it the Second Avenue Line when discussing it. It is the Second Avenue Subway or (SAS). Even the article lead says "usually called the Second Avenue Subway (SAS)"--if that's what it's usually called, that's what Wikistyle is to call it. If there's no objection in a few days or a week, I will rename it. -- Cecropia 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The New York City Transit site calls it the Second Avenue Subway [4], so I think it should be named as such. CoolGuy 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Second Avenue Subway sounds right Marc Shepherd 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Construction methods

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I added a table that shows the construction method for each block. I created it in Excel, and have the file saved. I know tables can be hard to manipulate in wiki script so if anyone has a better idea for it, please let me know; I can certainly change it and resubmit. -- CoolGuy 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs some sort of visual clue that this 8-column table is really 4 2-column subsets. Like whitespace or a thick vertical line between columns 2&3, 4&5, 6&7. DMacks 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree. The converter I have seems to be unable to do add a vertical line. Perhaps someone out there with more table programming experience can help with that one. -- CoolGuy 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Not perfect, but better. Say, do you have this as a single(paired) long column layout instead of flowed into 4 side-by-side? I'd like to experiment with some alternate layouts, or at least simpler-to-manage formatting. DMacks 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


One column

Please feel free to edit. -- CoolGuy 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Street Construction method
124-125 Cut and Cover
123-124 Cut and Cover
122-123 Cut and Cover
121-122 Cut and Cover
120-121 Cut and Cover
119-120 Existing
118-119 Existing
117-118 Existing
116-117 Cut and Cover
115-116 Cut and Cover
114-115 Cut and Cover
113-114 Existing
112-113 Existing
111-112 Existing
110-111 Existing
109-110 Existing
108-109 Cut and Cover
107-108 Cut and Cover
106-107 Cut and Cover
105-106 Existing
104-105 Existing
103-104 Existing
102-103 Existing
101-102 Existing
100-101 Existing
99-100 Existing
98-99 Existing
97-98 Cut and Cover
96-97 Cut and Cover
95-96 Cut and Cover
94-95 TBM
93-94 TBM
92-93 TBM
91-92 TBM
90-91 TBM
89-90 TBM
88-89 TBM
87-88 TBM
86-87 Mined with Cut and Cover
85-86 Mined with Cut and Cover
84-85 Mined with Cut and Cover
83-84 TBM
82-83 TBM
81-82 TBM
80-81 TBM
79-80 TBM
78-79 TBM
77-78 TBM
76-77 TBM
75-76 TBM
74-75 TBM
73-74 TBM
72-73 Mined with Cut and Cover
71-72 Mined with Cut and Cover
70-71 TBM
69-70 TBM
68-69 TBM
67-68 TBM
66-67 TBM
65-66 TBM
64-65 TBM
63-64 TBM
62-63 TBM
61-62 TBM
60-61 TBM
59-60 TBM
58-59 TBM
57-58 Cut and Cover
56-57 Cut and Cover
55-56 TBM
54-55 TBM
53-54 TBM
52-53 TBM
51-52 TBM
50-51 TBM
49-50 TBM
48-49 TBM
47-48 TBM
46-47 TBM
45-46 TBM
44-45 TBM
43-44 TBM
42-43 Mined with Cut and Cover
41-42 Mined with Cut and Cover
40-41 TBM
39-40 TBM
38-39 TBM
37-38 TBM
36-37 TBM
35-36 TBM
34-35 TBM
33-34 Cut and Cover
32-33 Cut and Cover
31-32 TBM
30-31 TBM
29-30 TBM
28-29 TBM
27-28 TBM
26-27 TBM
25-26 TBM
24-25 TBM
23-24 Mined with Cut and Cover
22-23 Mined with Cut and Cover
21-22 TBM
20-21 TBM
19-20 TBM
18-19 TBM
17-18 TBM
16-17 TBM
15-16 TBM
14-15 Cut and Cover
13-14 Cut and Cover


One column and abbreviated names

Feel free to edit. CoolGuy 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Street Construction method
124-125 C&C
123-124 C&C
122-123 C&C
121-122 C&C
120-121 C&C
119-120 Existing
118-119 Existing
117-118 Existing
116-117 C&C
115-116 C&C
114-115 C&C
113-114 Existing
112-113 Existing
111-112 Existing
110-111 Existing
109-110 Existing
108-109 C&C
107-108 C&C
106-107 C&C
105-106 Existing
104-105 Existing
103-104 Existing
102-103 Existing
101-102 Existing
100-101 Existing
99-100 Existing
98-99 Existing
97-98 C&C
96-97 C&C
95-96 C&C
94-95 TBM
93-94 TBM
92-93 TBM
91-92 TBM
90-91 TBM
89-90 TBM
88-89 TBM
87-88 TBM
86-87 M and C&C
85-86 M and C&C
84-85 M and C&C
83-84 TBM
82-83 TBM
81-82 TBM
80-81 TBM
79-80 TBM
78-79 TBM
77-78 TBM
76-77 TBM
75-76 TBM
74-75 TBM
73-74 TBM
72-73 M and C&C
71-72 M and C&C
70-71 TBM
69-70 TBM
68-69 TBM
67-68 TBM
66-67 TBM
65-66 TBM
64-65 TBM
63-64 TBM
62-63 TBM
61-62 TBM
60-61 TBM
59-60 TBM
58-59 TBM
57-58 C&C
56-57 C&C
55-56 TBM
54-55 TBM
53-54 TBM
52-53 TBM
51-52 TBM
50-51 TBM
49-50 TBM
48-49 TBM
47-48 TBM
46-47 TBM
45-46 TBM
44-45 TBM
43-44 TBM
42-43 M and C&C
41-42 M and C&C
40-41 TBM
39-40 TBM
38-39 TBM
37-38 TBM
36-37 TBM
35-36 TBM
34-35 TBM
33-34 C&C
32-33 C&C
31-32 TBM
30-31 TBM
29-30 TBM
28-29 TBM
27-28 TBM
26-27 TBM
25-26 TBM
24-25 TBM
23-24 M and C&C
22-23 M and C&C
21-22 TBM
20-21 TBM
19-20 TBM
18-19 TBM
17-18 TBM
16-17 TBM
15-16 TBM
14-15 C&C
13-14 C&C

Tunnel photo; lower Manhattan route; lack of lower Manhattatn connections

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A photo exists depicting a completed segment of the tunnel. Let's add it.

Also, under exactly which streets from Canal Street, to the "T line"'s southern terminus, will the line run? --St. James Place? Pearl Street?

The line's southern route will pass by a few existing stations.

  • Bowery - J/M/Z lines
  • Wall Street - 2/3 lines
  • Broad Street - J/M/Z lines

Why will there be no connection with those stations? (There should be a three-way link at Grand Street (Grand -T / Grand -BDQ / Bowery J/M/Z). It is a waste of connectivity potential to omit such connections. Dogru144 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[5] shows "transfers under evaluation" to Grand Central. As for the others, it's probably for cost reasons, though I would think they'd want to connect it somewhere south of Grand Street; Grand Street is a pretty good transfer point on its own anyway, accessing the whole southern BMT system, and the Q would also serve the upper SAS. Maybe they figure people going to the Brooklyn IRT should stay on the Lexington Avenue Line. --NE2 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The subway is planned to run under 125th Street, 2nd Avenue, Chrystie Street, private ROW south of the Manhattan Bridge to the Bowery and Division Street, the Bowery, Pearl Street, and Water Street, with the tunnel ending at Coenties Slip. --NE2 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did work stop in the 70's?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section "1970s: Completed segments" starts with the Urban Mass Transportation Act that provides federal money for transit. Why is a vote on the bond issue necessary if money is already provided? Was this a federal vote? Another question: if this is federal money, why was the construction stopped when the city went bankrupt? Did the Feds let NYC use transportation money for other city needs? Or was it withdrawn because the city's credit rating was no longer good enough? I don't see these questions addressed anywhere, and I thought Wikipedia ought to have the most complete information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.133.68 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To New Jersey??

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know what the map on page 6 of [6] is originally from? It shows a four-track two-level tunnel extending the Second Avenue Subway west from the Battery to New Jersey, with two tracks via Bayonne to Staten Island and two to somewhere in New Jersey. Given the service labels, it was from between 1967 and 1976, when the EE became part of the N. --NE2 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the site, it was evidently prepared by one of the members (he is named) of this "consortium of advocacy organizations" as a power point presentation. So it is pie-in-the-sky, but better rendered than most. -- Cecropia 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth groundbreaking?

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

There was one in 1972, but when were the other two groundbreakings? Might they be counting Chrystie Street and 63rd Street as part of it? This seems somewhat misleading, as those were independent projects. --NE2 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just read [7]. There were apparently separate groundbreakings in 1972, 1973, and 1974. --NE2 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And according to [8], they were 103rd Street (1972), Canal Street (1973), and 2nd Street (1974), and one in 1925 (?). But where was ground broken in 1925? That's probably wrong; [9] says that ground was broken for the IND in 1925. --NE2 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So the FTA has not signed a funding agreement to pay for the project yet? Given the history of this project, who wants to bet that NYC will have a problem getting the federal money? Jason McHuff 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that? My understanding is that the federal funding for Phase I is committed, and construction has begun on that basis. I do have my doubts about Phases II thru IV, but the article can say that only if reliable sources have reported it. Marc Shepherd 13:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This is different than the past. The Feds have committed themselves, and they will be looking for the money back if it turns into another hole in the ground. -- Cecropia 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A little late but... From the article: "the full funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration expected to follow within weeks to months". Key word "expected". Consider that with what somebody wrote above: "project has dragged on for 7 decades through wars, peace, boom economies, depressions, recessions, inflation, prosperity" and that the predecessor el has been closed since June 13, 1942 (parallel? 3rd Av since May 12, 1955). That being said, I do understand your point about the Feds granting money specifically for this project, though I believe they require local sources to provide a "match" Jason McHuff 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Also see [10] Jason McHuff 14:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archive

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Miszabot has automatically archived parts of this talk page to Talk:Second Avenue Subway/Archives. I've added a Template:Archive box to link to the archive; feel free to format it differently, or alter the archive in any way fit. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Public domain map

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion
 
Second Avenue Subway with stations

All, I have tried to create a suitable public domain map to display the route. Please find my work at the right. Please let me know if you have any recommendations for changes before I add it to the article. Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to grey out the other lines? Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Do you mean fully grey or just less colorful? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Less colorful. Enough not to distract attention from the Second Avenue Line. Whatever looks better to you. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the color saturation on the other lines by 50%. I've also added the T/Q line bullets to draw attention to the east side. Is this better? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would tone down the other lines even more. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the color saturation on the other lines are now down to 25% of the original. Is this better? I'm concerned that the colors are so muted that people won't be able to tell that they actually are supposed to correspond with the line colors that are in use. Also it is hard to tell the BDFV lines from the NQRW lines. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the colors are way too muted at this point. Perhaps lowering the brightness or overlaying a pattern on the additional lines would work better. When I first saw this image I thought it was based on a historical map of defunct lines. I'm fairly familliar with the NYC subway and I can barely make out the correct colors. The average Wikipedia user would have no idea which lines intersect with the new subway from this map. ~ PaulT+/C 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a labeling problem – all lines need to be labeled as to what service they are. When click to view it at 100% it looks pretty good...or at least that's what my untrained eye thinks. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason the map doesn't show the 63rd Avenue station? I would think this is an important station to show as it is the southern terminus of the first phase, now expected to be complete in ~5 years.-Laikalynx (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the 63rd Street station already exists as a separate station on the F service. It doesn't show any of the existing Q stations on this map, either. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation 'SAS'

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Deleted reference in opening sentence for 'SAS.' This is believed to have been a remark initially created by the author of the article and does not reflect anything real. No mention has ever been made to calling the 2nd Ave Subway the 'SAS' and Wikipedia users should not jump the gun in doing such just to go on record as being the first. Dryamaka (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dryamaka, SAS is a valid abbreviation (see the photo caption here [11], and on other public documents I can't find right now). Your alternate, Second Avenue Express, is not -- notably because an express implies a local, and the Second Ave line does not have separate local and express service. I am reverting your edit. sme3 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not change until you can find those public documents, by all means, make the necessary edits, as you will then have established some ability to cite (keyword here is the lack of a legitimate citation). Express does NOT imply a local; they're two totally different scopes of service. A versus C; 1 versus 2, etc. I am reverting your edit. 81.159.139.17 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in a revert war, so I'll say this and leave it alone. First, I don't think an inline citation is needed for an abbreviation. SAS is referenced six times in the article (not counting the first sentence). SAS is used here [12], here [13], and in a number of blogs (which I do not include since they are not legitimate sources). SAX is not found anywhere. Further, (and unrelated) Express DOES imply a local. To use your examples, the #1 is the 7th Ave Local and 2 is the 7th Ave Express. There is no Second Ave Local. We can let the wiki-community reach a consensus, but the article cannot stand as it currently reads: SAS is used six times and never defined. If you would like to remove all acronyms, and change all six "SAS" occurences to spell out Second Avenue Subway, then that is fine. Otherwise, please find citations for SAX and back up your side of the argument. sme3 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

One track, completion in 2013?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article says that the SAS will be only one track, and won't be completed for use until April, 2013. Should I suspect that the April 1 does not mean an April Fool's joke, and this article is for real? I leave the whole thing to some NYC editor who can figure out what is happening, and put it in this article for the rest of us.

  Facepalm. Obvious April Fools joke is obvious. It's even given away with the last line! Sorry, man, but that's just bad. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's even obvious by the date. Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Q train, what will run in Phase I and II?

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I changed references to "extension of Q" to "reroute of Q" because the Q train is no longer terminated in Manhattan at 57th street and being extended to run to 125th, but since 2010 goes to Queens, so it would not be extended per se, but rerouted entirely. Has there been any new announcements about what will run temporarily ever since the V was nixed and the Q went to Astoria? JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. I haven't seen any new announcements about what will serve the SAS since the June 2010 service changes extended the Q. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Curious. That's actually why I came here, to find out what was up or any new info because I'd been wondering it since they moved the Q. Maybe just make that bit of Astoria one train then? No real reason that they had to run the Q there.JesseRafe (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The MTA website states that "additional service" will be provided to Astoria once the Q is rerouted to Second Avenue. The Astoria Line needs more than just the N on weekdays. Most likely, the W will be brought back into service. Yorkiano (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
One note, the MTA's Second Avenue Subway Capital Construction page still lists the Q train prominently. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Asps, I've seen that, and their map, but there's no date stamps (that I've seen) to indicate they've been produced or double-checked since summer 2010. JesseRafe (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yorkiano, bringing back a dead line? That's a pretty ballsy step... Maybe the G will actually run on Queens Blvd and they'll send the R up to Astoria? Both seem pretty out there. It's funny how anxious I am about this... JesseRafe (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Isn't the External links section a "bit" too long? I think some of the news are outdated and can be removed, if one wants to do it. Thanks. 04:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clear em out. And stop adding every single news story that crops up on NY1. Not to point fingers, but you're the one adding all of them. oknazevad (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why IND?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why the SAS is an IND line? It ought to be a BMT line, or not?
ÖPNV-Bob l´éponge (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's chained as IND. Neither the BMT nor the IND exist anymore, it's just the chaining. Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, also the IND was the company that would have built it.71.172.201.212

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago34 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 06:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The toolbox to the right suggests that this article needs lots of work:

  • I've fixed all bar two of the dead refs, and formatted others. All 8 links are in the template, so I'm not sure how to proceed with that at the moment (I don't have time to go and make 8 articles, as I don't like releasing stubs into mainspace where I can avoid it; I like nice, proper articles). I'll take a step back for now, hopefully someone else will wander in like I did to do some work. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest that I was going to quickfail this one, but I want to read it since it runs through my old neighborhood. I use to live on East 60th and hated having to walk all the way to the Lex from between 1st and York. Also lived on E96th between 2nd and 3rd. Looks like this does not stop at 59th though so the walk might have been just as long. Anyways, I am going to keep reading.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
Background
History
Post-war
1970s
Completed segments

I've defined UMTA, I've added current dollar conversions, and I've replaced "realized" in the history section with "recognized". I also merged the last two paragraphs in the background. I haven't done anything with ICs or dates yet, or anything about rewriting the lead. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dollar amounts are showing an unusual number of decimal places. E.g., US$98,900,000 (US$1,322,308,333 in 2013 dollars[16]) would look more normal as US$98.9 million (US$1.32 billion in 2013 dollars[16]).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Current development
Construction methods
Planned SAS route/stations and designation

New Map

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

By following the link on the map in the infobox to MTA's original map page, there's a new map: http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/images/sas_map_lg.gif This map shows expanded transfer stations. Maybe we should include this (and the stations) in the article? 24.213.167.105 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OTOH, this map shows none of the transfers that are listed as "under evaluation:" http://web.mta.info/capital/map_sas_alt.html Seems unclear what the current transfer plans are, or if they're still officially up in the air. Kufat (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This map does not show transfers at all. It does not mean there will be no transfers, it means the map does not show them. Vcohen (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note and Transfers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know if the singular note that's used for all the info about transfers is still up-to-date? Because not only does that map have the W/V etc trains, it has the 9 still, so it's got to be, what, eight, nine years old? JesseRafe (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Construction Methods

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The citation listed for the construction methods section does not include any of the dimensions in that section, SI or otherwise. If someone knows where these numbers came from, I'm happy to go through and put them in proper local-use-first order. --plaws (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reason for using T

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There is a cited sentence stating that T was chosen because (in part) P, U and Y can't be used as they sound too much like words. That makes no sense. T of course sounds like a word. The cited article is from 2010 and doesn't appear to mention the naming of the T line (it is an article about subway line names generally). Could someone who knows a bit more about all this revisit this? Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"tea" or "tee" are not objectionable or confusing words. "A", "B", "C", are also words. JesseRafe (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case the sentence needs to be revised with, if possible, a source stating that U and Y are rejected because they are confusing and P because it is objectionable. The explanation given is simply that there is a blanket rejection of letters that can be words which as you point out is not the case.Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not if that was not the reason given. If a source says something and it's not factually accurate, it's still the source. Another would have to be found that explicitly states its factual inaccuracy. So if they say that's the reason given, then the article says it's the reason given. It is up to the reader to notice inconsistency in the rationale, wikipedia is neutral. JesseRafe (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well no. The article is given as a source for the naming of the T line. The source doesn't refer to the T line at all. Referencing as to support the claim being made, in this case that the line was named T and not one of the letters mentioned on the basis listed in the article. The article makes no such claim. Wikipedia may be neutral but it still needs to adhere to standard concepts of referencing.Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Then fix it.108.27.80.83 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Rerouting the Q "

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Does this really mean that the Q will no longer serve Queens? The wording in the article is vague, but if this is true it seems rather uncanny. B137 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Q hasn't always served Queens anyway. Check out the article; the curren alignment on the Astoria Line is a only a few years old. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well since it makes phonetic sense it should be kept. All the lines with the exception of the 1 thru 6 seem to simply have arbitrary denominations. Really the E should be the Q since it's the Queens express, has high ridership, and goes farther into more happening parts of Queens. It could be the start of informative nomenclature. B137 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually used to get a great kick out of the fact that the B went from Bedford Park Boulevard, Bronx to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn while the Q didn't go to Queens. JesseRafe (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha I'm not sure I've ever taken the B, but that's neat. The names should definitely be intuitive, perhaps even if it meant breaking the one-character rule. I guess they already do that by calling a line the "Broadway Local" etc. Either way they know they don't have to offer concessions since so many rely strongly on the system regardless. B137 (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The names should not change too much. But for us here, we just describe what is happening from a neutral point of view. So we will observe rerouting of lines and describe it and that's it. There are other places to discuss pros and cons and what would be good. If quotable significant discussions exist somewhere, maybe they can be referenced from wikipedia as criticism or so, but it really has to be relevant for that.--Bk1 168 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, the Q went to Queens in 1989 too, didn't stop until 2001. The B was Broadway Express, once, too, in 1986. 108.27.80.83 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second Avenue Subway. 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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How does this sound?

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

MTA Second Avenue Line

B137 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are asking? Are you suggesting the page be moved? Is there another Second Avenue Subway that this need be made a disambiguation page for? JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the naming convention that is used for all lines. There was already a page created that is now redirected for "IND Second..." but I don't believe that they go by IND anymore. B137 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not finding fault with the article. SAS seems to be at least for now the closest thing to an official name and certainly a common name, but that may change as opening approaches; Second Avenue Subway makes it sound sort of like a different system than the rest, almost INDependent if you will. B137 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@B137: No, it's still technically IND. When the line opens, it will use IND signaling and chaining Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Will the line even be CBTC-ready? I accepted as a given that it was without looking into it or considering g that it meant the rest of the track the Q runs on would have to be as well. It's appalling that the huge R160 order is not CBTC-equipped, though I believe it can be relatively easily retrofitted? B137 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the R179 has to be CBTC-ready. All stock since R142 is either CBTC-ready or CBTC-equipped. All new projects, like the new 7 Subway Extension, are also planned to have CBTC signal equipment. Also, the R160s can easily be converted to CBTC just by installing some transponders beneath the first and last cars of each consist. Epic Genius (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not uncontroversial

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think this term is fine. But twice in the past three weeks, I've reverted someone changing it to "controversial". Granted, they were both IPs who only ever made that one edit, but wanted to float the topic here. Saying it has been controversial implies it was consistently controversial since inception. Saying it has not been uncontroversial implies that there were occasional or sporadic controversies. The latter strikes me as more accurate, and these two (or likely one) IP users are misapplying an attempt at nullifying all double negatives, regardless of context. JesseRafe (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "There have been several controveries over the [howevermany years] the SAS has been in development."? DMacks (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It should include the word "minor" as that's kinda the point of the (in my opinion appropriate) use of the double negative. This project is widely supported, and we shouldn't overstate the controversies too much. oknazevad (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, put the word "minor" in there too if that's a key idea. No need to imply it with less direct wording. DMacks (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add 1 or 2 new pictures to infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So on one of its Facebook pages, the MTA uploaded a map of Phase 1. I also created an image that shows both the Q and T bullets together. I think we should add one or both of these images to the infobox so that people can see them quickly and easily. What do you guys think? I can understand if clutter is a concern. I know that there are images of the Q and T train bullets further down the article, but I think they should be added to the infobox for easy visibility. Even if the Phase 1 map doesn't go in the infobox, I think it should go somewhere on the page (I guess it could go in the spot where the Q and T bullets are now).

I've made a gallery of the new Phase 1 map, the image I created, and I also took a screenshot of a preview of the page if we added these two images to the infobox. Please give opinions.

PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Added pictures to main page PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The map file is non-free, so I hid it from view here on the talkpage. The infobox screenshot included that file, so it too was non-free (a derivative work) and I therefore had to delete it from commons. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Show Map w Proposed Transfer Stations

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A couple years ago I commented on the T article with a link to a map put out by the MTA which shows all the proposed transfer stations. The map, and the description of the transfer stations, were added to the article, but only the description remains. Oddly, I can find an older map on the MTA's site, which is almost identical in that it shows all the proposed transfer stations, however since it was made previously it still includes the 9 and V lines, as well as the old M and G routes.

I oddly can no longer find the updated map on the MTA site, however it can be found cached here on the Internet Archive. I don't see how this would differ in fair use than the one currently posted since they were both created by the MTA. Since it is a more up to date and correct representation, could someone who knows more about adding images to Wikipedia upload the image & add it to the article? Thanks!

caz | speak 00:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support the addition of this image file to the article under Fair Use. It definitely needs updates. The Talk Archives are full of pointing out that the official MTA maps of proposed service are covered with antiquated lines. JesseRafe (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know how to add images to Wikipedia? I'm sure I could figure out how to upload it, but I'm unfamiliar with all of the legal/technical justifications necessary that must be added so the image isn't deleted. caz | speak 23:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Second Avenue Subway. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick update that I am pretty busy for a few days, I assure you I will finish the review next week. I have also stated this on my user page. Thanks for your response.Sainsf <^>Feel at home 19:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Luckily not so busy today! I must appreciate all the careful research you have done on this article. Go through all my comments; the problems seem to be concentrated in the section "1960s–1970s: Original construction efforts": Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Lexington Avenue Line became very overcrowded "very" may be omitted.
  • Ensure that each part of the article has at least one credible citation. An instance of this is: Although the connection only served Sixth Avenue Line trains, it was essentially the first part of the Second Avenue line constructed. A para or two have no citations at all.
  • provided over $600 million for New York City projects (equivalent to $4,258,000,000 in 2016) What does "equivalent" refer to here, the 600 million dollars or the worth of the projects?
  • However, the city soon experienced its most dire fiscal crisis yet. The stagnant economy of the early 1970s, combined with the massive outflow of city residents to the suburbs, led to a fiscal disaster for the city May be combined.
  • A general question: Where do you and where do you not include the present worth of the erstwhile costs?
  • The fourth phase of construction will bring the Second Avenue line through Chinatown...to reduce construction impacts on the Chinatown community. (in the subsection of this section) What does "will" refer to? When was this plan made and when was the info added? Does this need to be updated?

I will go through the sources a few days later. Rest looks good. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Sainsf: I resolved the first four issues, but I'm not sure what you mean by the last two points. When you say A general question: Where do you and where do you not include the present worth of the erstwhile costs?, I don't really understand whether I am supposed to include the current price of each cost. Also, I don't know what you mean by What does "will" refer to, though I'll try to explain it (and it doesn't seem to need updating, since the MTA hasn't released any new plans for the Chinatown segment since the original proposal). Thanks for your patience. epicgenius @ 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
For the first question, I want to ensure that you add conversions consistently. Not a strict GAN requirement, but such a nice article should not have any flaw :) For the next, I would like you to add when the proposal was put forth, and, if possible to add, when it is expected to be realised. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: Thank you. I added the conversions just now.   And as for the second question, the MTA has no set timetable for anything past phase 1, though the entire line was proposed back in 2004. epicgenius @ 14:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Very well. The article now meets all the GA criteria. I am glad to promote such an amazing work! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Thank you for taking the time to do the review. And thanks for promoting it!   epicgenius @ 14:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry it had to be in the queue for ages... go on for FAC, this will succeed! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: No problem! I'll wait until the actual subway opens, though, then I will send it to FAC. I learned my lesson with One World Trade Center (which didn't pass, mainly because it changed too much over a short period of time). epicgenius @ 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's the trouble with these articles! But this seems much like an ancient dormant volcano... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Subway tours

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This should probably be included in the article. We already include the community information center in the article. Since the tours are sourced to Wall Street Journal, this deserves at least a mention... Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Tours don't seem like they have much bearing on describing this large infrastructure project. Tours for media and officials are a pretty unremarkable part of a large, long-running construction project. Is there a source that says that there was something new or notable about SAS tours? Or gives an explanation of why the MTA offered tours? Without context, giving a series of tour dates is needless, distracting detail. Fitnr 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fitnr: I agree, but this is for the sake of consistency. Residents themselves are given tours of the tracks and construction sites, which are usually closed to the public. This is an unusual detail that will likely be given context anyway. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It's completely non-notable and in your latest revision you have removed the information entirely and the article is better for it. It's news. Not encyclopedia worthy. The WSJ also reports what the stock market closed at, that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@JesseRafe: But it is relevant. It's notable, and I simply moved it to a more appropriate article that actually describes the organization that makes these tours. I concur it wasn't appropriate here, though. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Second Avenue Subway. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Bullets in the infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thought the N/Q bullets and the T bullets should be displayed separately since the T is only a proposed service.

So I edited the file NYCS-line-trans-2nd.svg ( ) to include the N and Q bullets only to use on the page alongisde NYCS-bull-trans-T.svg ( ), and made a new file, NYCS-line-trans-2nd-future.svg ( ) which includes all 3 bullets together.

PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks good. I also created NYCS-line-trans-2nd-QT.svg ( ) since other-language wikis already used File:NYCS-line-trans-2nd.svg, and I wanted to preserve the images on these wikis without having to change the text there. epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Restoring more station articles

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Now that phase 1 of the line is opened, does anybody care to resume work on the proposed 106th Street (IND Second Avenue Line) and 116th Street (IND Second Avenue Line) station articles? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We have enough sources to make every one of these SAS station articles at least 10 KB. I guess I can create them if I have time. epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: I saved drafts of the two articles: one at Draft:106th Street (Second Avenue Subway) and another at Draft:116th Street (Second Avenue Subway). epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) (Links updated. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
Cool, although the 116th Street (Second Avenue Subway) has the same next and previous stations as the 106th Street (Second Avenue Subway) station article. I'd fix this myself, but they're both your drafts. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: You are allowed to edit it, though. These are in the draft namespace so anyone is allowed to edit. However, looking at the next/previous stations, they both have different next/previous stations. 106th Street lists 116th and 96th Streets as adjacent stations, while 116th Street lists 125th and 106th Streets as adjacent. epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Time to split this article?

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

This article is now to long per Wikipedia standards and should be split, in my view. See WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZESPLIT. When I looked at the General Statistics page a few minute ago the page size is show at about 182,000 bytes, which is way above the recommend upper limits. A good start would be to create new articles that focus just on Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the modern day version of the project. FFM784 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the article is large, but there's really no way to split the article well. By phase doesn't work, as that separation doesn't reflect the usage. Separating out a "construction of…" article doesn't make sense, as the construction is the essential topic. That said, I think this article is a prime candidate for trimming out excessively intricate details. There's a certain amount of play-by-play news coverage that could be trimmed per WP:NOTNEWS, and maybe a little too much technical detail for a general interest encyclopedia. That said, such trimming should be judiciously done; there's no reason to gut the article, either. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think a history of the SAS is certainly worthy of its own page, and a lot of the detail can go there. And yes, now that it's about to be open and functioning, we do not need every newspaper article about its progress any longer. JesseRafe (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think the article should be split. We have longer articles that are just fine off without splitting, e.g. the New York City Subway article itself, and splitting this would be counterproductive to the reader. Besides, this article would need to be renominated for GA and other processes if it is split, and I pretty much think that splitting the article would force the reader to click on more links than necessary.
By the way, oknazevad removed all the newspaper articles about its progress back in 2012. When I was preparing this article for GA, I made sure to remove all the irrelevant and minor details, or split them into the appropriate station articles. So, again, don't split this page, as it is just fine currently. epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
And also, this article is well within WP:LENGTH guidelines: its prose size is 77830 characters (12942 words) when I checked it with DYK check. WP:TOOBIG (or WP:LENGTH#Size guideline) recommends the article should almost definitely be split only if the prose is over 100,000 characters. For between 60K and 100K of readable prose, the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material as in this instance. epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. The Second Avenue Subway article should be more in line with the articles for NYC's other rapid transit lines. But there is a lot about the planning and construction and false starts and delays and eventual construction that would make an article that would easily stand on its own. Jd2718 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
But that's just it, the SAS is quite different from the other lines, mostly because if it's distinct and lengthy history. Removing that from the article, even if it's split into a separate article, just to fit some vague format for the other lines is RECENTISM in many ways. Plus, as epic noted, it is within tube current page size guidelines (which have been changed so are not just about computer memory size). oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about topics which are historical in nature, so a separate article that only focuses on the history of the SAS makes sense in my view. One thing to be sure is that this article is only going to get longer once Phase 1 opens and planning and construction of Phase 2 gets going. With that said I think we need input from a wider community of Wikipedia editors before making any changes. FFM784 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Where should historical information be moved? We have IND Second System and Program for Action articles to start with. Plans for the SAS featured prominently in both proposals. I still don't agree with splitting it, but good points are being made. epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
History of the Second Avenue Subway is as likely a title as any. oknazevad (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but we also have two large, existing articles that document two different historical proposals for the SAS. The line has had probably 20 different proposals, though, so it would be better to make a general "history" article if the need arises. epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I expect some redundancy. As you say, this is a line that's been revisited time and time again. I can't believe that I'll get to ride it tomorrow. oknazevad (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If redundancy is OK, then we can definitely consider splitting some historical info. Also, lucky you. I probably won't be able to ride the SAS in a long time, not least because I take the 7 train. epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a special occasion, worthy of going out of your way. Heck, I'm delaying going to my aunt's for this! oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If only my real life were that easy... I probably won't even get to see Lexington/63rd next week, let alone the rest of the subway. epicgenius (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone who argued pro-split was with the understanding that there would be some redundancy/overlap. A history section with a main template is appropriate, as when you get down to it, the history of the SAS is its own thing, and would have been a valid encyclopedia article on its own notability even if there were no modern extant version of the line -- which also is deserving of its own article on its own notability. JesseRafe (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes this article harder than most to split is that the history is ongoing. There are 3 more phases to be built and each could take a decade or more to fund and complete. It's hard to tell the story of the 2nd Ave.'s future plans without its history to back it up.--agr (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Phase 2 will not get any updates for a year. The FEIS for Phase 2 should come out next year, so the article should be pretty stable until then. Also, the article is now 90,364 characters (15,070 words), still within size limit. epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

N train rush-hour service

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

"On January 3, the first date on which the line will be operating under a weekday schedule, some rush hour N trains will start using the line."

The citation given at http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tncur.pdf does not seem to support that assertion. 24.2.162.24 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Rush hour service is on weekdays. Weekday schedule doesn't start until January 3. Jan 2 is a holiday. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not the anon's point. He was talking about not seeing the footnote regarding the N serving Second Ave stations (it's on the bottom of pages 4 & 5 of the PDF). That said, I really do think we have too much mention of the N train here. It shouldn't be in the lead, nor should the icon be in infobox. It's WP:UNDUE and creates confusion. We're talking about 6 trains (out of dozens) each way on weekdays. Yet it's the first service listed in the infobox. It's utterly misleading. oknazevad (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, IRT New Lots Line (and every single local station on the IND Eighth Avenue Line, BMT Broadway Line, IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Lexington Avenue Line, IND Queens Boulevard Line, IRT Eastern Parkway Line, IND Fulton Street Line, and BMT Fourth Avenue Line that has late night express service run local), and the Parsons Boulevard and Jamaica–179th Street stations with their rush-hour E trains, does put too much emphasis on rush-hour and late-night variants. We should talk about that on WT:NYCPT. And on a related note, the N train is sourced multiple times in the article. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, yes. While late night variants are significant (they're signed at the stations and published on maps, including the special late night map), the minor rush hour variants where a handful of trains a day, out of dozens, are overstated in many of our articles. It seems to me that if it's not on the maps or the station signs it shouldn't be in our infoboxes as they're over stated and likely to cause confusion. oknazevad (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
All right. And by the way, late night variants aren't displayed on station entrance signs at all, and are only given a passing mention on platform signs. So, should we display only the full-time service at the top of the infobox for the line and the stations? epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That late night service patterns are on platform signs and have their own map (plus are on the corner legend of the regular map) makes them worthy of the infobox, but should not be listed equally. I'm not sure how to do that, to be honest. If we can't, then the main service should be what's listed, yes. In all cases, the text should mention the variations, but it need not be in the infobox, or the lead. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I know these late-night services have their own map. The question now is, how do we denote late-night only services? This is bordering on tangential, but it's an important distinction. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I definitely was thinking this same thing when we pushed these changes pre-January 1. ~12 scheduled rush hour trains isn't completely not worth mentioning, but definitely shouldn't hold equal weight to the primary services. Late night services can very well be significant, especially in cases where they're the only line serving the station late nights (a la Queens Blvd), but there has to be some distinction because it can be very unclear. How to denote them on station/line articles can be difficult, in particular because there aren't many other standards to compare them to. But I ultimately agree that this might be more worth a conversation with WT:NYCS than reaching an inconsistent consensus on the point here. -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 10:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the official source...

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

for the Second Avenue Subway being IND? The nycsubway.org link seems to say that it's neither IND nor BMT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically it was never part of the IND since that company was merged with the BMT and IRT in 1951. But it is an IND division line as per its chaining code (seen on the red track-layout signs at the end of each station platform, like the red plaque in the middle of this picture). A former MTA employee provided these codes listing "S" as the chaining code for the Second Avenue Line. It's also in the NYC Trackbook for 2016. One thing I can say for sure is that this is an internal designation only. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding as well, internal only -- so it really shouldn't be listed as such in a document meant for the general public. Or "officially" should be replaced with "internally". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added "internally". I think similar lines, like IND Sixth Avenue Line and IRT Lexington Avenue Line, could also be rephrased to reflect this, but it's an issue that would be better discussed on WT:NYCS. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Second Avenue Subway. 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) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Avenue_Subway/Archive_1&oldid=1210743759"