Jump to content

Talk:East Side Access

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roosevelt Island?

[edit]

What is the status of putting a statio on Roosevelt Island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InGearX (talk • contribs) 1:43, 20 June 2006

I wasn't aware that that was even an option for this project. Can you provide a source? — Larry V (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
East Side Access doesn't include a station on Roosevelt Island. You may be thinking of Roosevelt Island (IND 63rd Street Line station), which is on the upper level (New York City Subway) tracks of the 63rd St Tunnel. East Side Access will use the 63rd Street Tunnel, but only the lower level tracks set aside for LIRR use. I don't think there's any physical accomodation for a station on the lower level tracks. --CComMack 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost 100% sure that there is no plan for a station. Let's be honest here: How useful would an LIRR station on Roosevelt Island be? — Larry V (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Long Island Rail Road

[edit]

I removed this from there as too much detail, and pasted it here in case it's useful in this article. --NE2 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Access is a project being undertaken by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), designed to bring the LIRR into a new East Side station to be built below and incorporated into Grand Central Terminal.

The project, under construction since 1998, would connect the Port Washington and Main lines to the station via Sunnyside Yard in Queens and cross the East River on the lower level of the 63rd Street Tunnel, which is currently served on the upper level by the F train of the New York City Subway.

The project cost has jumped in price from US$3 billion in 1998[citation needed] to US$6.3 billion in 2006,[1] with the biggest and most expensive work yet to be done—tunneling through Manhattan 90 feet (30 m) below the current Metro-North Railroad tracks under Park Avenue, 175 feet (50 m) below the street surface.

There would be no connections between the two sets of tracks. The LIRR concourse would be under Vanderbilt Avenue to the west of Grand Central Terminal. Current plans are to bring 24 trains per hour at peak time to the station (Penn Station currently can handle a maximum of 42 trains an hour at peak).

The project has so far not run into substantial opposition although some Midtown East businesses have started raising concerns. In addition, Cardinal Edward Egan has expressed concerns about the impact of a proposed air vent (disguised as a building) at 50th Street and Madison Avenue, very near to St. Patrick's Cathedral.[2]

The project was justified by a 1998 study that showed that approximately 70% of all jobs in Midtown Manhattan are within walking distance of Grand Central, while only 36% of jobs are within walking distance of Penn Station[citation needed] (there is some overlap, and some jobs are not within walking distance of either facility).

If the project is completed, Metro-North is considering bringing trains into Penn Station via the West Side Line along Manhattan's west side, which currently handles Amtrak and freight service.

References

  1. ^ MTA Takes Major Step Towards Completing East Side Access Plan - NY1 news, July 12, 2006
  2. ^ East Side Access Draws Opponents, New York Sun, February 10, 2005

How deep?

[edit]

Will the new platforms be beneath both existing GCT levels, or beside one or the other? Jim.henderson 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The platforms will be deep beneath both. The concourse will be next to the lower level. See http://mta.info/capconstr/esas/planned_improvements.htm The platforms and concourse will be north of the existing station, but storage tracks will extend underneath. --agr 13:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can images from MTA (a government agency) be added to this article.

[edit]

The images at MTA.INFO would be invaluable to understanding this article. The MTA is a government agency, so would the images be acceptable on Wikipedia? user:mnw2000 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not free content images. Only works of the U.S. Federal Government are automatically public domain. So they may only be used under the auspices of the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. Wikipedia has rules about the use of images under fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Maps and the like are likely to be rejected as fair use since they are replaceable by free maps. Also, each image used under fair use must have a fair use rationale specific to that image. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Hope this helps. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo, "EastSideAccessGCTCavernJune2011.jpg", is being used in this article. Could all the photos from the same source be used under the same rules? If so, could we have a gallary with the current construction photos next to the "final" image (using the same rules that "East Side Access.jpg" uses)?
200px
Some of the photos and images I am interested in adding to the artcle include:

http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/images/gallery/pages/bluish_green02_jpg.htm
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150228914349091&set=a.10150228914304091.329148.250313209090&type=1&theater
user:mnw2000 14:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern construction photo

[edit]

Isn't this photo more likely to be the final view of the "cavern" photo now used in this article? http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/images/gallery/images/upperplatform_jpg.jpg user:mnw2000 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram Added

[edit]

I drew an quick overview map based on info at the MTA website. Reqdiagram tag removed. Egmason (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on East Side Access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Side Access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Side Access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Side Access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on East Side Access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:East Side Access/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments I will review this with complete disregard to the bleak standards applied by GA, but with fairness and an eye on this being a featured article, which it is easily within reach. Feel free to ignore the nit-picky comments, but please consider that they are provided in good faith.

  • " proposed in 1963. In 1968, the" repetitive.
    • Removed repetition.
  • "n the late 1990s, and the project received federal funding in 2006, and construction commenced in 2007." one too many run-on clauses.
    •  Fixed
  • "Sunnyside" is piped to a redirect.
    •  Fixed, though redirects are not too problematic.
  • " its multiple delays, its high cost, and its bloated scope. Various delays have increased the cost " a bit clunky and repetitive.
    •  Fixed
  • "63rd St. Subway" is piped to a redirect.
    •  Fixed
  • "being constructed" perhaps "during construction" is better.
    •  Done
  • "Park Avenue" is piped to a redirect.
    •  Fixed
  • "There would be two" prior to this it was all "there will be..." so I'm not sure why this sudden change of tone? Seems odd, and there are several examples of this.
    •  Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to change "will" (present tense) to "would" (past tense) so it wouldn't sound outdated after a while. epicgenius (talk)
  • "weekday.[14][10][15] " would order references numerically.
    •  Done
  • " 2004,[21][18][19][22]" ditto.
    •  Done
  • "r $10.8 billion in 2014.[18][17] " again.
    •  Done
  • "either measure.[25][2] " again.
    •  Done
  • "2015–2019 Capital Program" what is this?
  • "been continually pushed back" probably not, maybe pushed back several times.
    •  Fixed.
  • "Track length 6.1 mi (9.8 km)" (infobox) vs "$12 billion project ... a projected price of $3.5 billion per mile of track" doesn't equate.
    •  Fixed, some of the tunnels are preexisting and so only about 3.5 miles are brand-new track.
  • "63rd Street Line" piped to a redirect.
    •  Fixed.
  • "The New York Times" or "The New York Times", be consistent.
  • " of which $14.7 was " missing a million?
  • " Catholic Archbishop Cardinal Edward Egan" proper SEAOFBLUE, best I've seen for a while.
  • 37th Street is piped to a redirect. And 44th Street.
    • These redirects actually may lead to articles in the future, so I'm keeping these.
  • As is Hunterspoint Avenue.
    •  Fixed.
  • "$76.5 million is budgeted " don't start with a number.
    •  Fixed.
  • "As of June 2017 construction was to start in September 2017, " well it's October 2018 so this needs updating.
    • Updated now.
  • There's some SHOUTING in the references which could be toned down a bit.
    •  Fixed.

That's my first pass. It's on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. I'll address them shortly. epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I've addressed your comments. It might be a bit early for Featured status, though, as the project won't be complete for another several years. epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass this now, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

[edit]

@RoySmith: I removed the {{citation needed}} tag that you placed on top of the article with the comment "According to http://web.mta.info/capital/esa_alt.html, 'The East Side Access magaproject .... a history that reaches back to the 1950's when discussions were first held regarding regional transportation planning". While the MTA does say that the regional context of the project reaches back to the 1950s, it specifically mentions that this date was for regional transportation planning, not the East Side project itself. There were plans to bring the LIRR to Manhattan such as this 1954 plan to build a tunnel for the LIRR under 76th Street. However, this is not the same as the scope of this project.

The LIRR tunnel to Manhattan under 63rd Street was proposed in 1963. There is a source for that in the body. epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a pain here, but I don't understand your reluctance to provide a source for that statement. If you know of a specific source, rather than edit-warring with me about it, wouldn't it be simpler to just cite the source at the place requested? It would certainly be more useful -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm adding it right now. But the point is that the cited source that you described in the "citation needed" tag doesn't actually contradict the text in the article. The plan for the LIRR tunnel does date back to 1963, but before that, it was a subway tunnel that dated to circa 1954. So I guess we should agree that we are both wrong in this scenario. I should've added the source first before removing citation needed. epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've added the source. Now the article mentions the reality of the scenario. The LIRR tunnel plan was actually based on a subway tunnel first proposed in the 1950s. The LIRR terminal itself, however, did not get proposed until 1963. Does this version of the article look good? epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I realize that the source I found wasn't the strongest, which is why I just tagged it with a notice. I was a little surprised when you deleted the tag without any explanation other than, "I say it's wrong". I was substantially more surprised when you deleted it the second time. If you had just put in your edit comment something like, "I'm working on finding a good source", I would have been happy. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my mistake as well. I should have made the second edit where I put in the source, and not the reversion first. However, I wasn't sure how to draw your attention to this talk page thread. Hopefully this will be a lesson for us to learn from later. epicgenius (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything worked out, don't worry about it. Thanks for finding the source. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Financial District?

[edit]

The article states the new terminal is planned to remove or reduce the need for subway transfers, as many office jobs are in the Financial District and Midtown East sections of Manhattan, but won't getting to the Financial District still require a subway transfer given that it's in Lower Manhattan, quite far from the terminal under Grand Central? Rublov (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: After I made my edit I saw that it reverted your previous edit. I see what you mean about the 4/5/6 but I don't think the connection, as stated, is clear enough, and for readers who aren't familiar with NYC geography it's too easy to get the impression that the Financial District is a part of Midtown. It could be changed to as many office jobs are in the Midtown East section of Manhattan, and many others in the Financial District are reachable by a single transfer from Grand Central, but that may be too wordy for the lead. Leaving out FiDi and just saying and many others are reachable by a single transfer could work. What do you think? Rublov (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion works for me. I was just thinking that it would be inaccurate to just say East Midtown, hence my revert. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New timetables and mixed opinions

[edit]

The MTA released draft timetables for the new service pattern once ESA is complete about two weeks ago, and there has been mixed reception in the local media: [1] [2] [3] [4], along with several blogs, though those are probably unsuitable as references. I was thinking of summarizing the proposed service changes (even though there will likely be additional changes before December 2022) and their reception, though I'm unsure whether details of this would fall under "proposed service patterns" or "controversies". ComplexRational (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA push for the grand opening?

[edit]

A collaboration was mentioned during two recent WMNYC meetings (as a sort of extended monthly collaboration) to possibly get this article to FA status and subsequently TFA in time for the project's completion in December. Recently, I've done a bit of copyediting and updated some information, though I'm not the main author and haven't previously done an FA on this subject matter. As discussed during those meetings, I'm opening a thread here to discuss general improvements and readiness for FAC.

Pinging the main author @Epicgenius: and those who said that they were interested, @CmdrDan, Jim.henderson, Rhododendrites, Scottandrewhutchins, and Wil540 art:. Of course, feedback from others is most certainly welcome as well. ComplexRational (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to reply earlier, but I will be fine with this. If other editors agree, then perhaps we can spend the next month or two preparing this for FAC. Given that an FAC typically takes up to two months, we'll want to have this done by the end of October, to give a month for TFA preparation. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan; in any case, now's the best time for me to do more substantial content and preparation work. ComplexRational (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging also Kew Gardens 613 – would an FAC plan like this interest you? ComplexRational (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not an FA-regular, don't many people not support GAs and FAs over stability concerns, and knowledge that much will change in the very near future? ɱ (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside

[edit]

Suggest putting Sunnyside station in italics as this appears to be the format for as-yet-unopened/planned stations.

I would do it myself, though I do not know how. Nobody25 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has officially opened

[edit]

The first train has arrived (via MTA Twitter). “Planned opening” should be changed to “Opened.” 130.184.252.79 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Side_Access&oldid=1196323100"