Talk:Second Avenue Subway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Second Avenue Subway

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)

[edit] Merging Second Ave and 2nd Ave Pages

I've merged the most relevant information and links from the 2nd Avenue page. The merged information was regarding the latest SAS developments. The links are from nycsubways.org, regaring the 2nd Ave subway project.

[edit] Image:2nd_Avenue_Subway.jpg

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)

[edit] POV in Politics section

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)

[edit] redirect of IRT Second Avenue Line

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)

[edit] Reference to IRT Lexington Ave Line

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)

[edit] Title of the article

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)

[edit] Construction methods

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] Tunnel photo; lower Manhattan route; lack of lower Manhattatn connections

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/c/Talk%7ESecond_Avenue_Subway_9ac7.html"

Categories: Unassessed rail transport articles | Unknown-importance rail transport articles | Unassessed New York City public transportation articles | High-importance New York City public transportation articles