Talk:New York City Subway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New York City Subway is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Former featured article candidate

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
???	Quality: unassessed
???	Importance: unassessed

This is the top-level page of WikiProject New York City Subway.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains.
	See also: WikiProject to do list and the Trains Portal
B	Quality: B-Class. (assessment comments)
High	Importance: high-importance.
Sel	Portal "Selected article" week 47, 2006.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. Top importance

WikiProject Echo has identified New York City Subway as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Archives
December 2003 – May 2006

Contents 1 CSI: NY Shoe paddle 2 Number of stations 3 First operations 4 Ridership Numbers 5 Category for renaming 6 Legal status of NYCTA 7 Subway geography 8 Film 9 System length 10 FAC nom 11 Suggestions 12 Moved from NYCTA 13 New MTA photo ban???? 14 Proposal to reorganize article

[edit] CSI: NY Shoe paddle

When is the shoe paddle used? I assume it's only used on older trains. --Gbleem 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A shoe paddle? Never heard of it. In what what context did you hear it used?

I have heard of a shoe slipper which is a piece of wood painted yellow used for putting a 3rd rail shoe back onto the third rail if for some reason it came off. Those are still used from time to time (even for newer trains) but not very often.

--Allan 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of stations

It is official policy that every factual claim in Wikipedia should be verifiable. There is no "ways of counting" exception. For a claim that the number of stations is different than the MTA's official report (468), I would expect both a citation of a reputable publication making this claim, and an explanation of why the counting was different from the MTA's official count. --Grouse 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Go here, count them all up. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I count 473 on that page. --Grouse 13:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. :) Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't understand. What is your point? --Grouse 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was if you count all the stations individually, and all closed stations, as that list does, you recieve a number different from the MTA's number. Not only that, I just provided a source for the claim. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but that still doesn't provide a source for the numbers 416 or 475, which is what I am asking to be verified.--Grouse 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So just use the number 473. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This could be solved by providing a qualifier for whatever number is used. For example, if 473 count physically separate stations that are unified only by passageways and track connections (example: Broadway Junction is three identifiably separate stations), say so. But if we count Broadway Junction as one station, say that. A number is meaningless out of context. -- Cecropia 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What about bi-level stations whose lines run together only very briefly? (West Fourth Street comes to mind.) In any case, I agree that qualifiers should be included, but that would add too much information in the intro paragraph. If that's the way we're going to go, I think we should include only the MTA's count in the intro, and move additional counts and their conditions to "The subway system today." — Larry V (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this sort of thing should be in a footnote. I am also reluctant to use 473 as a count because I can't verify that the page PCH pointed me to above was a complete list, nor can I say by what criteria stations are included there. But probably some of you can at least say that. --Grouse 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of context could this be a footnote to? — Larry V (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that there are 468 stations. --Grouse 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, actually. — Larry V (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Rapid Transit Challenge(-broke record 12/06), there are 468 stations total. That is, Grand Central has 5 stations (4,5,6,7,S) and is considered as a multi-station complex. 473 would probably be counting each name as one station. Herenthere 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you split up Grand Central, there are only 3 stations (the 42nd Street Shuttle station, the Flushing Line station, and the Lexington Avenue station. Then you'd have to split up every other complex to be fair, resulting in many more stations. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out!--Herenthere 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First operations

Rather than continue to beat around the bush of figuring our the "first" NYC subway date, I supplied the sourceable first dates of each type of operation in what became the subway, since "subway" has two meanings in New York: (1) it refers to an underground railway and also refers to (2) the entire system, generically. The "J" line is a "subway" although it is almost entirely above ground.

The 1904 and 1863 dates are for continuous operations. The 1904 date for the IRT first subway has different parts currently operated by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains. The 1863 section is currently operated by the D train. The elevated date is not continuous because the line was closed as a cable line and reopened in 1870 as a steam line. It became the 9th Avenue el. -- Cecropia 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% (just noting that this took a year since I first started contributing to Wiki (May 2005) and it was changing the 1863 to 1904 and almost getting jumped on). Considering it has been a big bone of contention I hope the issue can finally be put ot rest. --Allan 12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridership Numbers

The ridership numbers are not well reported, please follow the convention of reporting daily ridership as yearly ridership/365. Or reporting average weekday ridership with (avg. weekday), so as to standardize the way data is reported for all rapid transit systems. --JVittes 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of a source we could use for these ridership numbers? I'm sure NYCT has internal numbers. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue was resolved a while ago, but to answer your question there is, MTA 2005 Annual Report, page 10 has the yearly totals for all transit MTA is in charge off, including NYC Subway, Metro North, LIRR, and others, it also has almost everything you would want to know about the finances of the MTA. --JVittes 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Sorry for not checking. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for renaming

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry V (talk • contribs).

Thanks for posting that Larry. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status of NYCTA

From MTA financial filings, "THE RELATED ENTITIES"

THE RELATED ENTITIES
Legal Status and Public Purpose
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), a public benefit corporation of the State of New York (the “State”), has the responsibility for developing and implementing a unified mass transportation policy for The City of New York (the “City”) and Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties (collectively with the City, the “Transportation District”). MTA carries out these responsibilities directly and through its subsidiaries and affiliates, which are also public benefit corporations. The following entities, listed by their legal names, are subsidiaries of MTA:

• The Long Island Rail Road Company,
• Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company,
• Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority,
• Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority,
• MTA Bus Company, and
• MTA Capital Construction Company.

The following entities, listed by their legal names, are affiliates of MTA:

• Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, and
• New York City Transit Authority, and its subsidiary, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority.

I believe this may have something to do with the fact that the City of New York owns the assets of the NYCTA and was formed under the earliest legislation of the current units of the MTA. --Cecropia 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subway geography

Removed this from the Trivia portion of the article. Whether the geography is correct or incorrect is really a matter of opinion rather than encylopedic fact.

"The geography of the New York subway system is incorrect. First, there is no part of the subway system where consecutive stations are 57th street and 66th street -- the station south of 66th street is 59th street. Second, the station just before Yankee Stadium (from Manhattan) is underground"

--Allan 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film

A scene in Ghostbusters 2 takes place in an abandoned NY subway line.

[edit] System length

The number in the infobox beside "system length" seems like it may be a bit confusing, at least to people like me who don't know much about trains. nycsubway.org[1] seems to say that while there are 656 miles of revenue track, the routes actually only add up to 230 miles -- I presume the former figure includes tracks that run side-by-side. Is there a standard way of determining system length? The method used in this article does not appear to be the same as the one used, for example, in the London Underground article. Greyfedora 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the "system length" figure is dead wrong. It should be (as for all other metro systems) ROUTE length not TRACK length. If no-one objects I'll change it

Exile 13:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC nom

With relation to this nom, I believe that this article needs to be expanded greatly in order to be featured, and even if it is not, just to be as high a quality as other articles of similar nature. Take a look at these articles of subways in other cities:

• London Underground
• Hong Kong MTR
• LA Metro
• Washington D.C. Metro

Now of course, I know as a native New Yorker I have to get involved too, but as you can see, these other articles involved hundreds of contributers. I hope we can rival against the other articles, not for pride, but to educate others who either take the MTA daily, or lives on the other side of the world.

Also, should we merge some smaller articles that were created as an expansion, but would be more rounded if was incorporated into this article. Example:

• History of the New York City Subway

Herenthere (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2007

I personally don't think that the article has to be expanded as much as reorganized. For its length, it has far too few inline references and citations. There are too many external links, many of which are no more than novelties (e.g., for finding directions on the subway to any point). Information is often repeated among sections; it seems like lots of separate authors contributed to single sections without checking out the other ones to make sure they weren't repeating anything. As for merging, I have to disagree. Using your example, I think it is optimal to have a concise, to-the-point history in New York City Subway, with an expanded, more in-depth article at History of the New York City Subway. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, at some point someone needs to bite the bullet and kill the trivia section. i.e., if the subway appears in a movie, that can be documented at the article about the movie, but not here. Filming in the actual subway system, however, might warrant a line or two, for the entire subject. —CComMack (t–c) 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. The "Trivia" and "Popular culture" sections nearly dominate the article, which is ridiculous. A scarce few pieces of information can be integrated into other parts of the article; however, most of it, frankly, is useless. Passing mentions in music and very brief appearances in television shows and movies should definitely go. Instances in which the system plays a significant or particularly notable role in the show's or movie's plot (e.g., The French Connection) can be judged on a case-by-case basis. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_culture for guidelines that I think apply here too. --Aude (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point with the trivia section. After the first few times going thru the article, it felt awkward that the section overshadowed the rest of the article. Should it be separated or skimmed...? -Herenthere 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I can see the article still needs a bit of work. Here are some suggestions.

• Trim the external links section.
• As mentioned above, trim the trivia and pop culture sections, per the military history wikiproject guidelines.
• Material could be added/organized about "safety and security", "funding", and "accountability and controversy". I wrote substantial portions of each of these sections on Washington Metro. On that article, we also need to add material on the impact of mass transit on urban planning of the region. Not sure if/how that would equally apply here, though, because the Metro system was built at a key time when ideas of the likes of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs clashed, while the NYCS has been around a lot longer.
• Make sure everything is referenced more thoroughly.

As time allows, I might help out a little bit. --Aude (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from NYCTA

I'm moving this, which relates entirely to the subway, from the NYCTA article, in case any of it is useful here. --NE2 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A policy of deferred maintenance (in which infrastructure was repaired only when absolutely necessary) instituted in the 1950s came home to roost by the early 1970s when fires, collisions, and derailments became more common. Public perceptions of deteriorating service were not helped by spray-painted graffiti. A persistent but minor problem since around 1970, it rapidly spread throughout the subway system from 1972 to 1974, by which time much of the system's trains and stations had been tagged with graffiti. While credible arguments have been made that some of it had artistic merit, the sheer volume and discordance of graffiti on both the interiors and exteriors of subway cars reinforced an impression for many that the entire system had slipped out of control. Perhaps the system's nadir was reached in 1981, when one day, approximately one-third of all subway cars in the system were not fit enough for service to leave the yards.

An ambitious series of capital programs begun in January 1982 (and continuing to this day) ended the policy of deferred maintenance and began to restore the system to a state of good repair. Although little visible progress was evident in the first Capital Program's early years, from 1984 to 1989 it gradually became evident that the subway system's reliability was improving and that graffiti -- due to an expanding policy which forbade trains from leaving their terminals with any graffiti on them -- was diminishing from view. Over the years, NYCTA has continued to upgrade its network image, including safer trains and stations, new MetroCard vending machines, easier-to-read maps, and cleaner trains. Cars also tend to be better maintained and have more reliable air-conditioning and heating than they used to. However, the decline of graffiti has been matched by the rise of scratchiti, where scribers, keys, razor blades or other sharp instruments are used to etch markings on windows and interior surfaces of the cars. While less noticeable and objectionable to some, it is a more permanent form of vandalism.

Upgrading the rail fleet includes replacement of older cars. The IRT Division phased out the 1959-1963 vintage Redbird cars in 2001-2002. The oldest cars remaining on the IRT lines are now the R62 model from 1983-1985, which are only at mid-service life. In the BMT and IND Division, planning is underway for the selective replacement of cars in the 1964-1974 R32, R38, R40, R40M, R42 and R44 cars.

Future NYCTA plans include the extension of the IRT Flushing Line to Manhattan's West Side by 2012, and a Lower Manhattan Transportation Center at the new World Trade Center. The 2nd Avenue Subway line is also in the advanced stages of planning and engineering and contracts for the construction of the first segment from 96th Street to 63rd Street along 2nd Avenue in Manhattan are expected sometime in 2006, with an expected opening date of 2012.

[edit] New MTA photo ban????

I removed this from the article:

"In January 2007, the MTA tentatively approved a ban on taking pictures and video on the subway system citing that the NYPD felt that it could deter terrorists. ^[1]"

The referenced article on NY1 (40174) is from May 26, 2004 (there was another similar article (45737) onNovember 30, 2004). NY1 articles from 2007 are in the 66xxx number range.

To Herenthere - do not confuse the date at the top of the page on NY1 with the date of the article. If you were to click on "Transit" from the main page on NY1 you will see that there is no article regarding photography listed.

--Allan 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the checking. Must have subbed view date for article date. Herenthere (Talk) 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to reorganize article

After reviewing other subway/metro articles, I am proposing to remove the Overview header in this article. As more and more info and images are added to the article, not only will the table of contents get wider, but each sub-section will deserve its own section. The overview title seems to be already implied in the introductory paragraphs. I welcome all comments.

In addition, I would also like to propose a renaming and reorganization of certain sections within Overview. The "Construction" section should be moved immediately after the History section and placed as a subsection since it is linked to the different methods used by differing companies when the subway was first opened. Also, the "Station" section should be renamed to "Station facilities and amenities" since some have stores, restrooms, etc.. Here is a sample layout with new subsections:
Introduction/Overview
History>Construction and design
Lines and routes>Depots
Station facilities and amenities>Restrooms and stores>Transfer stations>Connections (LIRR, MN, PATH)
Trains
Fares>Token>Metrocard>In planning (SmartLink card)
Future plans
Safety and security
Rolling stock
Trivia, See also, Refs, Ext Links
Herenthere (Talk) 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has expressed opposition, I will move forward with this reorganization plan starting 03 April 2007. Herenthere (Talk) 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Support

Oppose

Comments

So how should the "Overview" section before "Stations" be named? Are you proposing to remove those three paragraphs? Tinlinkin 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the "Overview" paragraph should be moved to the intro, since it explains the extent of the system as well as some "quick facts". The Construction section should follow the history part since it is linked to the different methods used by differing companies when the subway was first opened. I've added more detail above. Herenthere (Talk) 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the current system should be described before the history. --NE2 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would moving the overview and copyediting it a bit to add in some facts about the current system be better? Herenthere (Talk) 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)