Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about New York City Subway. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How can this coin be from the 20th century when NY transit authority was established later than that?

Quote: "An NYCTA token from the mid-20th century". Mid 21th maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.184.155 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean...the article says that the "New York City Transit Authority was created in July 1953," which is pretty clearly in the middle of the 20th century. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the questioner is confused as to the common way centuries are counted. The common "Anno Domini" calendar evolved from one created by a medieval Christian monk who numbered dates starting with the first year after the day on which he thought Jesus was born, e.g., "the first day of the sixth month of the 300th year of our Lord." Today we would write that date either as 6/1/300 or 1/6/300 or 300/06/01. Note that is in the last year of the third century. This system replaced the older convention of numbering dates after the day a monarch was crowned, such as the "the first day of the fourth month of the fifth year of the reign of Hadrian." The 20th century after the day Jesus had been thought to be born began 1/1/1901 and ended 12/31/ 2000. Btm1 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) ^[1]

After looking at the official NYCS website, it appears that the "official" station names don't have ordinal indicators (e.g. "st", "nd", "rd" & "th"). Why is it that this page and the rest of the NYCS pages use them? And would it be a good idea to change the article names and content to match official standards? Cassius1213 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention page of the WikiProject:NYCPT, we add ordinal indicators and spell out numerical names less than "10th". Acps110 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if we wanted to change it now (not that I am even remotely in favor of this), it would entail updates to hundreds of articles, comprising thousands (probably tens of thousands) of individual references. At the end, the substantive content would be no better than it is now. If there's anyone around who actually has that much time and energy to contribute, I can supply a long list of projects that would actually improve the subway articles, rather than just renaming them. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is essentially no information about the vertical structure of the NYC Subway system. In the novel Reliquary (Preston & Child) it is mentioned that the subway system has a very complex vertical structure of about twelve depth levels. Furthermore, it is said that there were abandoned tunnels, the so-called Astor tunnels, from the late 19th century at about 100 m (330 ft) below the surface that have once been used by very rich people to avoid the overcrowded ordinary subway. The German WP article about this novel mentions that the informations about the tunnel system given in the book are very close to reality, and that even these Astor tunnels do really exist.

Information about these aspects would be a good addition to this article.--SiriusB (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Three news articles discuss various attempts to ride the entire subway system in the shortest amount of time possible. Wondering if this notable enough to include in the article. I'm on the fence. Sources are as follows.

• "Straphangers Break Record For Fastest Subway System Ride". NY1. August 24, 2006. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
• "Queens Man And Five Friends Break Subway Record". NY1. December 29, 2006. Retrieved January 22, 2009.
• Kadinsky, Sergey; Schapiro, Rich (January 22, 2009). "Math whizzes shoot to set record for traversing subway system". Daily News. Retrieved January 22, 2009.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you could add that to the end of the Overview section as a brief mention, like "The shortest time required to travel through the entire revenue system is xx held by...<ref>1 NY1 article</ref> What not to do is to add it into a trivia section. -Herenthere (Talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Subway Challenge, which has to be revisited to add additional references. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The subway map image on the right column of the page is very old, I do not know how to change it. Has someone considered this issue? It's outdated by almost ten years and omits the Z and W lines (although they are both, I believe, proposed for removal of service which I suppose is another unaddressed issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amleth (talk • contribs) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The safety and security paragraph only addresses security, not safety. In light of recent accidents in Washington D.C. Metro subway, it would be nice to have a discussion of the safety record of this older, lower technology, subway system. Btm1 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] is a timeline of several accidents. Stan Fischler's The Subway also has a major section on accidents. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Safety and security must be distinguished better, e.g. safety against system internal hazards (overspeeding, interlocking failures etc.) and security against external hazards (crime, suicides, storms etc.) --User:sbrgc 18:45, 19 Nov 2011 (CET)

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#G Service for centralized discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the train icons (for example, Template:NYCS-bull-small), are used inline in the article text throughout. Per MOS:ICON I believe these should be removed from the mainline text. Unless there are signficant objections I'll go ahead and remove them within the next day or two. Comments are, of course, welcome. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of us at WikiProject New York City Public Transportation have been trying to keep the article clear of those pesky route bullets. Multiple IPs keep adding them back. Go right ahead and fix them. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the above true for image captions too? Vcohen (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they can be used in tables, image captions, infoboxes, and other supporting structure. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be used in image captions. Image captions are running text, and so WP:MOSICON still applies. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just found an interesting historical resource: the 1907 World Almanac, available in its entirety on Google Books. It has an article on the NY subways that I discovered while searching for books mentioning Seventh Avenue. See [2] --ScottyBerg (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In the period between 1990 and 2003 343 subway-related deaths have been registered on a citywide total of 7.394 (4.6%). - number of what is 7.394? Deaths in general, or transport-related? Or overall number of accidents in the subway?--Microcell (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I created that section, let me look into it tomorrow. For now, I suspect the number meant citywide transport-related deaths. Pim Rijkee (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is subway-related suicides vs total suicides in NYC during the period of 1990 to 2003. I double checked the linked source before rewriting it. I must admit that I'm a bit surprised (pleasantly, I guess) that, in a city of 8 million residents, over a doze-plus years there were a relatively small number of suicides overall. Part of the confusion may hav stemmed from the use of a dot instead of a comma as a seperator between the thousands and hundreds place; commas are standard in English, where dots are used for decimal points. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the double checking Oknazevad. My bad with the punctuation, Dutch system uses the dot/comma the other way around. Pim Rijkee (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was edited supposedly to combat overrlinking. That may be true, but I have an issue. In here (the comment "Restrooms: who-t-f is going to click on these here?" is funny just because the restrooms here are generally f'ed up), there are few open restrooms relative to the system, 77 stations out of 468/423 [3]. I am not thrilled with the section as it is, but I think the links serve the purpose of knowing where the restrooms are. The acknowledgment of restrooms may be better served in the subarticles of List of New York City Subway stations, but for now, I believe the links are appropriate. Speaking of, some of those stations are ambiguous, DeKalb Avenue and Kings Highway, for instance. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, what can I say? WP is not a directory, and it certainly isn't here to help people find restroom facilities. It's probably overdoing it by listing them, but linking to the articles too seems to be taking linking practices really to an extreme? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm just blind, but is there any coverage of abandoned tunnels in the New York City Subway system and their history? For example, I know that the Court Street station in Brooklyn was converted to a museum, and when riding I occasionally see dark platforms, but that's all I know. I also seem to recall a story from several years ago mentioning an entire community of people living in the abandoned tunnels from NYCs previous attempts at subways - true/fiction? Is there a page on this? If so, it would be great if a link within this article pointed to it - or am I just really blind? Lexlex (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd like to know myself. I don't think there are any such articles, and there should be. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is such an article. See List of closed New York City Subway stations. I believe it is linked on the main New York City Subway navbox. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's a great article too, thanks. You know, I always tell people that my greatest frustration about Wikipedia is that the area I am most interested in has already been saturated by people who are obviously experts in the field. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's still a lot of room for improvement. There are no WP:NYCPT articles higher than good article quality (and those four are NJT stations). What's lacking in the majority of articles in the project is inline citations. So don't think that you can't contribute to the NYCPT articles if you think they can be better. Strive for a featured article or a featured list. I am not an expert as others may be and I learn as I edit articles. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Best-selling fiction RELIQUARY by Preston and Child relies on the legend of an opulent abondoned line and station. Based on THE MOLE PEOPLE by Jennifer Toth. Could be a corrupted account of City Hall station, long abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.108.202 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it odd that the article has two shots of elevated portions of the system as the lead infobox images? I think it paints a misleading image of the system. I do like that one is Division A and the other Division B, that makes it more complete. One elevated image and one underground image would do the same. Any good images of a train underground floating around Commons that we could swap into the lead images? oknazevad (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but how would you be able to show an entire train in an underground station, not unless it's one of the S shuttle trains? What do you think of File:NYCSub 7 Vernon Jackson 3.jpg? Tinlinkin (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't neccessarily think we need a full train in the underground station shot. Frankly, the images of a full train don't actually add any information, as the back end of the train is so far away that they lose too much detail. The front of the train is enough. The 7 train shot you linked to is along the idea of what I was thinking, but if we have one with a non-blurred train, it'd be perfect. oknazevad (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to include above ground and under ground shots. Having said that, I view it as a requirement to show both IRT and BMT/IND sized equipment in the infobox. Feel free to change it to any high quality image but please make sure it includes both IRT and BMT/IND sized trains. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See, I'd say the opposite was the conditions I would call required. As the majority of the system is underground, and the name implies that status, showing an underground image in the lead seems a requirement. Meanwhile, while the display of both a Division A and Division B train is useful, without a good frame of reference to provide scale, both wind up looking more alike than not.

Anyway, my intention is, if someone can find a good quality underground image, I would swap that division only. In other words, if the image is a Division B image, that would be the one swapped out, while the elevated Division A would remain, leaving one elevated and one underground picture, with one Div A and one Div B. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I like that idea! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use images from other articles? If so, I nominate this picture (not by me)[bigger, of course. A 200-px thumbnail would be preferable].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Level Crossing (talk • contribs)

Perfect. I think I'll make the switch. (PS, don't forget to sign.) oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Level Crossing (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I need a proofread of my addition to the Paypass trial subtopic I made earlier today. I would like you to edit and make it look better that part of the New York City Subway subject. If you think you can improve its look and text, be my guest to change whatever that needs changing. Thanks. Rockies77 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading off to bed right now, but I'll be glad to look at this tomorrow. Cheers! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Above text copied from User talk:Acps110. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to above: I have made some copy-edits to that section as you requested. Specifically, I changed some of the links to where the trial is taking place. I also reworded the second-person "you" statement per WP:YOU.

I added a {{When}} tag to the previous trial, because that sentence is ambiguous as to when it was extended and when it ended. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The 129 number of bathrooms needs to be changed. It's an old number and most of all the articles I've read say that 60 of the 129 have been closed. So that's only 69 bathrooms. But I bet it's a smaller number than that. The paragraph reads like there's a lot of bathrooms because whoever wrote it lists a number of bathrooms and it ends up sounding like they're all over the place even though it starts off saying they're "rare". Does anyone know how to get the real number of bathrooms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzenman (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the MTA, along with the rest of our Wonderful State, that number will never be made public, and there's a good chance that they don't even know how many restrooms are in operable condition. The MTA should do what Transport for London does-create a special map that lists all restroom locations, but as we know, that will never be done. Back on topic, I would not be surprised at all if there were fewer than 75 restrooms in operable condition at any given time. And no, I don't think there is a way to find the number of restrooms. Coasterlover1994 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The MTA seems to have been contracting recently for private operations to maintain and control access to restrooms in some stations. Times Square is one such; the restrooms are located right next to the record store on the Shuttle mezzanine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.34.16 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York City Subway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article falls short of the good article criteria. The main issue is the lack of proper referencing; in average perhaps half the article is not referenced at the moment. There are a number of other issues as well:

• The length of the lead is not in proportion to the length of the article. Long article are expected to have long leads.
• Y The sentence "It is one of the four systems, with PATH, parts of the Chicago 'L', and PATCO to offer service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." is vague and directly untrue. For instance, the Copenhagen Metro also has 24-hour services, and the lead fails to mention that the four systems in question are the four in the US.
• The lead does not summarize the article, and the second paragraph tends to focus on trivialities and almost talks more about other systems than the one in question.
• The article is very long. While the exact length of the article can be discussed, I have a hard time seeing this length as acceptable.
• With that being said, there is a lot of inefficient writing, where a lot of words are being used to say very little. An example of this is the section "lines and routes".
• Y There should not be an overview section. The lead is to function as the overview, while the body is to contain information in relevant sections.
• Y Placing "New York City Subway nomenclature" as a {{main}} under routes and lines is wrong.
• The sentence 'Many rapid transit systems run relatively static routings, so that a train "line" is more or less synonymous with a train "route".' is very vague, as it is not clear to the reader what a route and line mean, as they are often used interchangeably in rail terminology. Here, the third paragraph should be first.
• Y Don't place {{main}} at the end of sections.
• Avoid single-sentence and other short paragraphs.
• Images are placed so they 'sandwich" each other (place directly beside each other on the right and the left sides).
• The article has maintenance and {{cn}} tags.
• Quoting the regulations (regarding photography) is a waste of space. Try to say things in as few words as possible (but of course as many as necessary).

This is an incomplete list of issues, but shows a good starting place. The article is in need of a very thorough copyedit, a partial restructuring of information and a full referencing before being suitable as a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed "New York City Subway nomenclature as a {{main}}" and "Don't place {{main}} at the end of sections." Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"The sentence "It is one of the four systems, with PATH, parts of the Chicago 'L', and PATCO to offer service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." is vague and directly untrue. For instance, the Copenhagen Metro also has 24-hour services, and the lead fails to mention that the four systems in question are the four in the US." was already fixed. Philroc (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed "There should not be an overview section. The lead is to function as the overview, while the body is to contain information in relevant sections.". I cut all of the "Overview" section, deleted the section, and then put that into the lead as the second paragraph, instead of the old second paragraph, which mainly focused of trivial facts, like Arsenikk said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I might take issue with one or two of Arsenikk's points, on the whole I agree that the article is nowhere near close to being GA.

The problem, which infects many of the rail and subway articles, is that it is written mostly by railfans, who tend to throw in a lot of details that would quickly lose the average reader. The article is like a basement that hasn't been cleaned in many years, with a huge accumulation of material in no particular order. It is also poorly sourced, containing many statements that are likely true, but that one would be hard pressed to "prove" if asked by a skeptical reviewer.

Getting the article up to GA quality would be a very big job, given the complexity of the subject. Marc Shepherd (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing at all with Marc Shehperd, I would almost suggest writing this article from scratch if GA or FA was wanted. With so few references as it has (particularly in the history section), it would be necessary to find everything in a source. Somewhat more time-consuming, but essentially what I do when bringing existing "cluttered" articles up to GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Growing_abuse_of_WP:DASH_out-of-context_and_as_if_Holy_Writ, the capitalization of "Subway" in this article's title was brought up as an example of how we respect usage of proper names and such. User:oknazevad said, "Just as an FYI, New York City Subway is capitalized as a proper noun," which was based on the title on his MTA New York City Subway map (presumably the official one like here). Has this been discussed here before? I'd be interesting in knowing if there's any good evidence of this being an official or proper name; in books, it appears to be seldom capitalized, except in book titles and section titles (and map titles). Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is in the first archive, from way back in 2004. oknazevad (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, the reason it's often misused may stem from the history of the system as originally three separate systems. Before consolidation in 1940, the proper names were Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT), Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit (BMT), and the Independent Subway System (IND). At that time, the lowercase "subway" was merely descriptive, and the old usage just persists, even 70 years later. Doesn't change that it's now one system and a proper noun, but may explain the disconnect.oknazevad (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the archive discussion about capitalization of Subway. Just a repeat of your observation, What I mean by "full and proper" is that if you look at the name on the top of the official subway map, it is called the MTA New York City Subway. But as I pointed out, the mta.info web site, "The Metropolitan Transit Authority's official site for the subways of New York City", doesn't call it that, capitalized, except in titles as on your map (search). Here, for example, they talk about "owner and operator of all New York City subway and elevated lines", and nowhere do they mention the so-called offical proper name. Did anyone else support the interpretation that it's a "proper name"? None that I see there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I remember, that was more about the inclusion of "City" in the title (before that it was at New York Subway, which remains a redirect), The capital "S" was already in "Subway". Frankly, I don't think its something to worry about. At the very least, the number of pages that would have to be changed makes it best just to leave it. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CAPS says, "Convention: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." I don't think it's much trouble to change, since a move automatically makes a redirect if needed (although in this case, since the alternate title already exists as a redirect that has been editted, we'd need an admin to do the move, which would probably mean doing a move proposal/discussion first). I was just wondering if there's any evidence, or prior discussion, for it being a proper noun. Sounds like not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is it's not just this page; there's dozens of pages that include "New York City Subway" in the title, such as the pages on stations (there's an article for every single station in the system), lines, routes (not the same thing here) and many others. All of which has been well coordinated by the New York City public transportation Wikiproject. If there was a real issue with the use of a capital, someone would have made a comment about it in the six-plus years since I made that comment. (My God, I can't believe I've been here for over six years!) If you really want to examine this, then the project talk page (which gets tons more traffic than here) is the place to bring it up. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see many, but thanks for the pointer. I posted a follow-up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Proper names?. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved your question to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Proper names? main project talk page, as that subpage hasn't had a comment since 2007, and is less likely to be seen, largely due to the settlement of the station naming convention. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find that one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We all know that this is not true: that the <6> operates local on the Lexington Avenue Line. How can this be changed?

For now, I've changed it to Lexington Avenue Local / Pelham Express. Level Crossing (talk) _is_labeled_as_Lexington_Avenue_Local/Express" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:NYC subway-4D.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 18, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A transit map of the New York City Subway, one of the oldest and most extensive public transportation systems in the world. Operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York, it has 468 stations in operation on 209 mi (337 km) of routes, with 842 miles (1,355 km) of track. It is the busiest rapid transit rail system by annual ridership in the Western Hemisphere, and fifth busiest in the world. Its stations are located throughout the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Staten Island has its own rail line which is not part of the system, but is included in the map as well.Map: CountZ

Archive – More featured pictures...

An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept of express, local, and skip-stop service is confusing to many tourists and newcomers; mainly because it does not exist (or exists on a very limited scale) in most other subways across the globe. Currently, the only place in the article that describes these three types of services in any significant detail is one paragraph in 'Overview'; even this paragraph contains unnecessary information (to a newcomer) about the track configuration used on express lines.

While I know that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, I think that there should be a section (most likely a subsection of 'Lines and Routes') about the different types of services and the differences between them.

Level Crossing (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the complexity of which services do what and when, it is currently broken down by line and by service. Please understand the difference between a line and a service. A line is the physical railroad and number of tracks, a service is the train routing via that physical railroad. Each line has a table that lists which services stop at each station with small bullets explaining the times. Each service has a similar table with an overview. For example, the BMT Broadway Line's stations and services are listed here, and the N train's list of stops is here. The N train's overview is here.

Due to track layouts, only some services are fully local, making all stops (1, 6, 7, C, G, L, M, R). All other services (2, 3, 4, 5, <6>, <7>, A, B, D, E, F, J, N, Q, Z) have a combination of express and local service. This varies by time of day.

Track layout is very important for figuring out what is local and what is express, especially on four track lines. The center tracks are generally the expresses and the outer tracks are generally the locals.

A graphical version is here. It shows two colored lines for each trunk line in Manhattan indicating express and local service. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I know what express and local services are; others don't. And there is no description in the article about what they are, besides 'find them on the middle tracks'. This isn't really helpful to a newcomer. I was thinking of inserting something like

"New York has a unique system of express and local trains. Local trains stop at every station along their line, while express trains only stop at major transfer stations and destinations. A third type of service is skip-stop, which only operates during rush hours on the J and Z lines. Skip-stop trains stop at alternate minor stations, and all trains stop at major stations".

Hopefully you see what I mean here.

Level Crossing (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

These explanations already exist in other articles, Express train and Skip-stop. IMHO, it's enough to provide links to them. Vcohen (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have taken some time to expand the section here about local and express services. I've also expanded the List of services article. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the criticisms of this article was that the lead is too short for such a lengthy article. At the same time, this article has an 'overview' section, which is just a collection of general facts about the subway (which the lead is supposed to be). My suggestion is to remove the overview section and move the information in it to the lead or any other place where it would fit.

Reactions?

Level Crossing (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, The lead is only supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. If a topic doesn't exist in the article it shouldn't be in the lead and vice versa. The Overview section was created to keep the History section from being first and overwhelming a first time reader. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that merger is inadvisable. But I think that a better section title can be found than "Overview." Maybe "System operations." ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

...could one of the New Yorkers please copy the train intervals table and update it to 2011/2012 schedule? Thanks so far. --User:sbrgc 21:03, 19 Nov 2011 (CET)

I've moved it to the List of New York City Subway services. It is a better fit there. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I read that this subject was nominated for the designation of "Featured Article" before, but it was rejected in the end. Why did it occur? Has it improved somewhat since then or is there more work needed, to re-nominate the New York City Subway topic for the title again? Rockies77 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this page should have photos of older subway cars (used on the A, B, C, D, G, R, 1, 3, 7 and other lines), not only the newer ones used on the 2, 4, 5, 6, N, Q, E, F, M, L and other lines. The current photos do not accurately show what the NYC Subway looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.138.244 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2012 February 8‎

Wikipedia is not the news. The trains that are shown on this page are examples, not all inclusive of every train. If you want to see every train, there is a separate article for that, New York City Subway rolling stock.

One more thing, everything you listed is not a line. Those are services or trains. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, article need information about work cellular network in subway. For example, in Russian Wikipedia in article "Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE#.D0.A1.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.8F_.D1.81.D0.B2.D1.8F.D0.B7.D1.8C_.D0.B8_.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BD.D0.B5.D1.82) have part about "Cellular network and the Internet".

Part text (translate): "Cellular network covered most of the stations of the Moscow subway. It also provided many of the bond transitions, bending and moving escalator. However, the availability of coverage and signal strength vary widely, depending on the particular station (movement), as well as the cellular operator."

Also Russian Wikipedia have special article "Cellular network in Moscow Metro" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C_%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5), it's information about each mobile network operator and every station.

Sorry for my English.

AndreyKovalevsky (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We should start a new section about the impact of Hurricane Sandy. Arguably the most damaging event in the 108 history of the subway. Best if people in the know watch for random posts and pics and keep the information tight, relevant, and with a minimum of hyperbole. Buzzm (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The impact page of Hurricane Sandy should cover it. No need for a separate section for every natural disaster that occurs.--iGeMiNix 22:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I will delete the fact that the Montague street tubes were discovered with serious cracks and leaks as this is false. It has been denied by the mta. The webpage on the recovery of the Montague tubes doesn't state this.VMIKEW (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph makes a reference to rapid transit systems in the US and lists the cable car system in San Francisco as being one. This is false, as the cable car system of San Francisco is not 'rapid'. In fact, the Wiki article for the same systems, found right in this paragraph, does not even list the cable car system as rapid either. The mass transit system of San Francisco includes many forms of transit, some 'rapid', including the cable car system. That system, however, is not 'rapid'.63.118.154.94 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is In the United States, five systems offer service 24 hours per day and 365 (or 366) days per year. It doesn't say rapid systems. Vcohen (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence to the paragraph clearly says "By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world;...". The semi-colon clearly indicates a continuous thought, so it's either misapplied or the subsequent sentence makes no logical sense in suddenly changing the subject from 'rapid transit' to anything else.Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no semicolon there. I separated the paragraphs to make it clearer. Vcohen (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I separated the paragraph, although simply breaking the paragraph seems like a nice way to simply massage the argument that it was poorly written to begin with. And yes, there was in fact a semi-colon there ("By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world;...")Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the current version of the article there are two paragraphs, one speaking about rapid transit rail systems and one about public transit systems. The semicolon is in the first one (not between them). The San-Francisco system is mentioned in the second one. Till here, do you agree with me? Vcohen (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You missed the pervious versions that did not include two paragraphs, instead having one non-sequitor separated by a semi-colon.Grammarcop1 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me that version? Vcohen (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still there: "By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world; the metro (subway) systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou record a higher annual ridership.[8]. Only now that the paragraph has been properly broken, it makes more sense.Grammarcop1 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a semicolon between the two sentences about rapid transit rail systems and public transit systems or a semicolon inside one of them? Vcohen (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-colon between two thoughts, which started as you read above, but further included something unrelated and irrelevant. I wish I knew how to show.Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the original text:

1. By annual ridership, the New York City Subway is the seventh busiest rapid transit rail system in the world
2. semicolon
3. the metro (subway) systems in Tokyo, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou record a higher annual ridership
4. period
5. In the United States, five systems offer service 24 hours per day and 365 (or 366) days per year: ... San Francisco Municipal Railway.

Later I emphasized this period by separating paragraphs, but even in the original version it was present. What you call "something unrelated and irrelevant" was after this period, not just semicolon. Vcohen (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Mta.info now says:

Planned Work [F] Coney Island-bound trains run express from Jay St-MetroTech to Church Av

Weekend, 11:45 PM Fri to 5 AM Mon, Jan 11 - 14

Trains stop at 7 Av.

For service to Bergen, Carroll Sts, 4 Av-9 St, 15 St-Prospect Park and Fort Hamilton Pkwy, take the to 7 Av or Church Av [F] and transfer to a Jamaica-bound [F].

For service from these stations, take the to 7 Av or Jay St-MetroTech and transfer to a Coney Island-bound [F].

Alternate travel note: For service to 4 Av-9 St, transfer to the [R] at Jay St-MetroTech.

Notes: No [G] service at these stations during this time. Smith-9 Sts Station is closed for rehabilitation.

So, F train is temporaily running express on IND Culver Line --contradicts that article which says the express tracks are still useless. 218.22.21.3 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York City Subway/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I find that this article has not met the GA criteria, and I am failing the nomination at this time. This article continues to have several issues that were identified in the previous failed GAN on October 26, 2010.

As the previous GA reviewer noted:

• The lead is too short. Longer articles usually have longer lead sections. Furthermore, the lead section should summarize the key points from all of the article's sections, as per WP:LEAD. The lead section currently provides too much trivial detail that could be omitted or reworded.
• Quoting the regulation on photography is unnecessary.
• There are too many images on both sides, such that text is "sandwiched" between them. See WP:LAYIM.
• Please avoid single-sentence and short paragraphs.

Of course, this list isn't exhaustive, and I encourage you to read the previous GA review at Talk:New York City Subway/GA1. Additional comments of my own:

• Embedded lists should be avoided, as per WP:EMBED.
• Certain statements contain statistics but lack in-line citations. Examples include the final paragraph of "Entertainment" and second paragraph of "Rolling Stock".

Edge3 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to put something up to a vote and I think this is the place it is likely to get the most attention. I'm often frustrated by the lack of information on the location of entrances and exits to subway stations in their articles on Wikipedia. When there is such information, as in the article about W 4th St, the information is often vague and confused. While I concede that, given the complexity of the system, making this information available might be a difficult undertaking, but still, this is useful, relevant information, and I would argue that it is just these sorts of difficulties (elucidating esoteric information from esoteric sources) that Wikipedia's crowdsourced model was designed to accomplish, and accomplishes most successfully. I would like us to vote on whether we'd be in favor of attempting to make exact information available in articles on all subway stations. I've already stated what I view as the arguments for and against. Obviously I'm in favor, so count my vote as a yes. Quodfui (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This place is better to get attention. Vcohen (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a debate in Toronto, where I live, over alternate plans for developing rapid transit. The NYC subway system is held up as a model for those who favour building a shorter length of underground heavy rail -- as opposed to building amore extensive network of light rail, which would be cheaper to build, because it would run at ground level in a separate right of way, where circumstances permitted.

I've visited Manhattan, which is very richly served by heavy rail lines. But how well served are riders in the outlying and/or less dense regions of NYC? I suspected the proponents of a subway-only rapid transit system were exagerrating and distorting the NYC subway's effectiveness -- based on the ubiquity of subways in very dense Manhattan.

In Brooklyn, The Bronx, Long Island, Staten Island, how many potential riders live too far from a station to be able to walk to a station?

How long does it take a rider to go from a destination at one side of the city to a destination at the other side of the city?

Are trains infrequent at the termini of the longer lines that stretch into the less dense regions?

How do riders coming to NYC from neighbouring cities get on to the NYC subway system? Do they have to ride in on commuter rail?

How convenient is it for a rider traveling from one location on the periphery to another location on the periphery? Do they have to travel all the way downtown to make the right transfers? So, if NYC were a clock, and they were at 1 o'clock, would they have to travel downtown to make the right transfers to head back out to to the less dense portion of 3 o'clock?

I hoped I could find the answers here. But the overall performance of the NYC subway isn't really addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You might get a better answer at the help desk, but I'll try to answer some of your questions. Yes, NYC's subway system, especially outside Manhattan, is roughly radial in topology. Only a one line, for instance, runs between Brooklyn and Queens without passing through Manhattan, for instance, and that does make it inconvenient to travel between places on the periphery of the system.

However, A) that doesn't mean that a subway system has to be that way, of course (the Paris Metro is a counterexample); B) the subway is supplemented by a very extensive bus system that includes routes that travel more directly between areas that are at the ends of different subway lines; and C) while you can argue about cause and effect, subway service is densest in places where population/businesses are densest.

Some areas outside Manhattan (particularly downtown Brooklyn) are even more densely served than most of Manhattan; some parts of Manhattan have very sparse coverage (particularly the far east side of the entire island, and the far west side in midtown and below). There are certainly areas where it's more convenient to take the bus to the subway than to walk; or where the subway is a significant bus ride away -- but those areas are among the most sparsely populated. I couldn't easily give you numbers on how many are unable to walk or have more than a 15-min bus ride to the subway -- you'd have to do some research.

Trains are more frequent in midtown than at the ends of lines because the lines combine as you approach the center and split to cover more area towards their ends, but during rush hour trains are pretty frequent (several per hour) even at the ends of most lines; in the wee hours, service is sparse (1-2 trains per hour)even at the most frequently visited stations in Manhattan, but service runs to nearly all stations all night long.

There are a few lines that take over an hour to travel from the end into Manhattan even on an express train, so traveling between distant areas of the outer boroughs can indeed take a very long time, but the vast majority of subway commutes are from a peripheral area towards the center or vice-versa -- comparatively very few people have a reason to travel through Manhattan to a different borough on a daily basis. That can change a bit on weekends when people visit friends who live in other parts of the city, but people tend to be in less of a rush then anyway.

In many parts of the city, the subway actually runs above-ground, but it is always grade-separated from automobile traffic -- either elevated or in cut-outs. This is very important because it means that the subway is never impacted by traffic, and especially during rush hour, but even mid-day it can be much faster to travel a few miles by subway than by car or taxi.

New York has few "neighboring cities" and a lot of suburbs. The nearest cities (as opposed to towns) are in New Jersey and Westchester. Some, like Hoboken, have subway-like service (the PATH) into Manhattan; others (Yonkers, Newark) share the suburban commuter rail via three systems -- New Jersey Transit, Metro North, and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) -- that each serve a different segment of the suburbs. All three commuter railroads run their tracks underground in Manhattan (and part of the outer boroughs), and above ground further from the city center.

Commuter rail service is extremely frequent and heavily used during rush hour and terminates in Midtown at major subway hubs -- commuters can switch to the subway without even going above ground, and for the LIRR at least, tickets for the subway and the commuter trains are sold at the same machines. A project (East Side Access) is under way to further improve those connections. Metro North and the LIRR also have some stops in the outer boroughs that provide fast direct service to midtown in 1-3 stops. Commuter rail service in the NY suburbs is arguably more thorough than the subway service available in the city proper of many North American cities.

A few other large cities are located at the further ends of the Metro-North and NJ Transit systems -- including New Haven and Trenton, and even Philadelphia. Faster service to those cities, and service to Boston and D.C., is available via long-distance rail (AmTrak).

Is the NY transit system perfect? By no means, and there are major improvements that could and would be made if we could start over again. But ridership numbers and even car ownership numbers give pretty strong evidence that it's pretty effective.

Hope that answers at least a few of your questions! -- Avocado (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there really a need to mention the nomenclature of other systems, such as said in this statement,This terminology is also used to a loose extent in the Taipei Metro, where trains run on different named "lines" that are part of colored "routes", and on the Washington Metro, where colored "lines" are part of lettered "routes". This article is only about the New York City Subway. By mentioning the nomenclature (or other facts) of other systems, it can go off topic of relating primarily to the New York City Subway. Since there are some editors who seem to be debating over this, please leave comments on this issue. Mysteryman557 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It is legitimate to say that the discussed system is similar to certain other systems in a certain regard. If this statement raises questions, we can rewrite it into a separate paragraph. Vcohen (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons with other systems are relevant when discussing superlatives. For example, saying that the NYC system has the most stations is useful. So is saying that it is the busiest in the US. If the NYC system were the only one in the world to use the "lines"/"routes" terminology, saying so might be relevant as well. But it isn't, so that isn't anything special. Why, then, should this article mention anything about the DC or Taipei metros? That's classic WP:TRIVIA. (Not to mention the fact that the whole paragraph is uncited, and that "loose" is totally meaningless (Taipei uses the same terminology, or it doesn't), but those are secondary weaknesses with the text.) Ylee (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

These are the only three systems that make the distinction. Also, the linked articles have citations—you can look at those. You can't remove a paragraph solely because the paragraph is tangential; the relation between the three systems is pointed out. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is legitimate to give examples of other systems with similarity. However, I do not see anything close to NYC subway in the Taipei and DC metros from the perspective of lines and routes. Perhaps, the preceding sentences should clearly communicate its uniqueness that:

"... A route (service) may utilize many named lines. For example, the R route operates along the IND Queens Boulevard Line as well as the BMT Broadway Line and the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. On the other hand, a named line may also serve many routes. For example, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line is used by the D, N and R routes."

Once the above point about NYC subway is established, then we can look at the Taipei and DC metros objectively whether there are similarities. In case of Taipei, the Red livery contain two lines (which are two services). These two services/lines are on a shared physical rail line. The shared physical rail lines in Taipei are not named, however. The Taipei network in a trunk/branch configuration is very typical in rapid transit and commuter rail. Searching through rail maps from many cities, you will see that trunk/branch configuration. In the case of DC, there are services that switch the physical rail lines (note the Blue, Yellow and Green). However, to my knowledge, those physical rail lines are not separately named like in NYC. A service switching to another "unnamed" physical rail lines like in DC case is quite common too. BART, Brussels Metro, and Oslo Metro are some examples. So, I think when mentioning Taipei and DC metros in this context, it will make readers more confused than helping because they are not really similar to NYC. Z22 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's legitimate—the NYC Subway makes that distinction as does the Taipei and Washington Metros. In Taipei, for example, the Nangang Route is part of the Blue Line, but not the other way around. Same thing with the J train—the BMT Jamaica Line is part of the J service, but the J is not part of the BMT Jamaica Line. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)