![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
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)
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)
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]
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)
The newly added Politics section is highly POV. Can it be cleaned up? -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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 |
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 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Yes, also the IND was the company that would have built it.71.172.201.212
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
MTA Second Avenue Line
B137 ( talk) 23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
I will go through the sources a few days later. Rest looks good. Cheers! Sainsf <^> Feel at home 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading materialas in this instance. epicgenius ( talk) 01:18, 25 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
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)
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)
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]
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)
The newly added Politics section is highly POV. Can it be cleaned up? -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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 |
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 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Yes, also the IND was the company that would have built it.71.172.201.212
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
MTA Second Avenue Line
B137 ( talk) 23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
I will go through the sources a few days later. Rest looks good. Cheers! Sainsf <^> Feel at home 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading materialas in this instance. epicgenius ( talk) 01:18, 25 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)