Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 2

October 2006 assesment comments

Needs references. This one should be worked up through the quality chain to FA status.

Some references have been added in a few different formats; they need to be standardised with <ref> and citation templates. Other facts in the article are still labeled with {{fact}}. More thorough referencing is needed before we can move it up the chain. Slambo (Speak) 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrasting viewpoint

This is the first time I've seen an article quality designation. I like the idea, but I think the rating in this case too low (how up to date is the rating?) While I agree on the value of minor editing and "tightening" of the structure (hard to achieve in a community project!), imo the presentation is informative, well balanced and impressive. Thanks for listening!

--Philopedia 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To move up the quality scale, it first needs more and better references, and then we can work on the GA criteria and nominate it for such status. Once that is achieved, we can work toward FA status. Slambo (Speak) 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Category for renaming

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry V (talk • contribs)

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

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)

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)

Film

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

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)

I tried to make a clear distinction between route length and track length in the introduction and table on the right. I also changed the "most extensive system in the world" claim into "one of the most extensive systems", since it depends on the way it is measured. Route lengthwise, London's the biggest; track length and by number of stations, it is New York.

sweek 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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. "

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)

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)

I have reorganized the article on April 13, 2007. Please help expand it even more, maybe one day it will be a FA. Please post comments here or on my talk page. Herenthere (Talk) 23:09, 13 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)

Average distance between stations

(Coming from a person who has never been to NYC) What is the average distance between the stations on the lines on Manhattan? Robbie aka Zoqaeski 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's about a 1/4 to 1/2 mile (~10 city street blocks) between the stations. hope that helps you. BWCNY 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Sections - Trains & Rolling Stock

It seems that the Trains section and the Rolling Stock section are duplicates.

Should these be merged those together?

Acps110 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You brought up a point that I overlooked while reorganizing the article. To me, Trains is a section that describes the attributes of a typical train length and details. The Rolling stock sections is more of a technical section. I guess we could merge it, does any1 feel they can make a section that can be both for novices and train aficionados? Herenthere (Talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Will combine Trains and Rolling Stock sections into new Rolling Stock to be placed after Station facilities...Herenthere (Talk) 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks for that merge! Acps110 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, anything to make this a FA! -Herenthere (Talk) 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of stations (part 2)

1 more on May 13, 1968: 148th Street

• 483 on May 14, 1968 [2]

3 closed on September 10, 1977: 168th Street, 160th Street, Sutphin Boulevard

• 465 in early 1980s: [3], or 458? [4] 430? [5]

2 closed on April 13, 1985: Queens Boulevard, Metropolitan Avenue

• 463 betwen 1988; also erroneously after [6] (also 462? [7])

3 more on December 11, 1988: Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway), Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue–JFK Airport, Jamaica–Van Wyck

• 466 on December 13, 1988: [8]

3 more on October 29, 1989: 21st Street-Queensbridge, Roosevelt Island, Lexington Avenue–63rd Street

• 469 before 1995: [9] (also 459? [10])

1 closed in 1995: Park Place

• Currently 468 according to the MTA: [11]
  • 422, "combining those connected by transfers" [12]: I got 424, working from the map, but I included Cortlandt Street and Aqueduct Racetrack, counted Bleecker Street and Broadway–Lafayette Street as one, and did not combine MetroCard-only transfers.

I will add more as I find more. --NE2 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fare

I made my way to this article by way of the NYC transportation project, and in light of that I have one area for improvement I see. In the "Fare" section, it starts by saying "From the beginning until 1948, the fare for a ride on the subway of any length was 5 cents" From the beginning is extremely vague, especially considering the subway system's long history. Did the five cent fare start when Alfred Ely Beach built the 312ft section in 1869? 1940, when two independent systems were bought by the city? Just could use some clarification. Seems like a great article otherwise! (Petruchi41 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Beach's subway was a prototype and thus not part of today's New York City Subway system. (I don't know what was charged then.) Most documents identify the "beginning" of the subway system as the 1904 IRT subway, and that's the reference point for the start of the five cent fare for the subway (remember there were also the elevated lines that were not part of the subway at that point). I clarified the section and there is a subarticle that describes the history of fares. Tinlinkin 06:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From what i've heard, Beach charged a whole 25 cents.Metropod 05:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

10 cents were charged on at least parts of the system(s) until the Culver Line was completed to Coney Island in 1920. --NE2 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

HELP! I trashed half the article.

I tried to edit part of the article, but my browser seems unable to load the end of the page. Could someone take the end part of the article and paste it back in from the previous revision?? Thanks, Optimusnauta 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm pretty sure that this is a known bug with some browsers; try using the latest version of Mozilla Firefox. —CComMack (t–c) 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Optimusnauta, it's okay-it has happened at least once to other users here. Download the newest version of Firefox or IE. Your problem happened to me once: I was editing a very long article, and I accidentally chopped off like half of it. My current Firefox 2.0.0.2 doesn't have this problem anymore, but I still check in Show Preview to make sure everything is there. Herenthere (Talk) 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Significance of express service

Are there any subway buffs out there who can speak to the significance of the four-track, local and express service that is common on the New York City Subway? It is my understanding that this is somewhat unique in the world, and that the vast majority of subway systems provide only two-track, local-only service. If this is the case, this ought to be in the first paragraph, following the mention of the uniqueness of the 24-hour service. The Interloafer 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct ... it is rather unique. Based on my experience, most subway systems have only 2 tracks. The reason is that is typically expensive to build the extra-wide tunnels required, especially when most subway systems have bored tunnels (ex: Hong Kong) or cut-and-cover under narrow roads (ex: London). In New York City, the cost was not a significant issue because less-expensive cut-and-cover was used under wide avenues, which made it feasible to build 4 tracks. Some systems skip-stop stations (ex: Philadelphia has A and B trains during rush hour that skip alternate stations), but this is typically not done because of operational constraints, and it tends to confuse passengers. Please note that all of this is my opinion, and is not suitable for Wikipedia because it would be original research. If someone could find a verifiable reference saying something similar, it would be a worthwhile addition to this article. PS - I have moved this comment section from the beginning to the end of the Discussion page because its is Wikipedia policy to add comments at the end. Truthanado 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed that the article didn't really give a lot of credit to the 4 track system until now, only mentioned the Overview section. I don't believe that there are other underground rail systems that use this type of config, but I hope someone can also help verify. Herenthere (Talk) 01:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, giving a "why" might be original research. A very good guess is "volume, volume, volume." We can mention the fact, though. Remember that a distinction is made between a line that happens to be four tracks and a "true" local-express service, with separate local-only and local-express stations. I can think of two other places that have true local-express service: the Broad Street subway in Philadelphia and the North Line L to Howard in Chicago. Also, there are many many three-track elevated in New York City with expresses in direction of heavy travel. Additionally, some standard railroads have four track mains: ex-PRR from New York south, MNCRR north from Grand Central, LIRR from Penn to Jamaica. -- Cecropia 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Paris article describing the RER you will notice they are mentioning four tracks may be one of the ways of increasing capasity on the congested RER A

In Germany, the Düsseldorf - Krefeld Stadtbahn line has a rush-hour express service (U70) in addition to the regular local service (U76). The line has only two tracks however, so the NY configuration of special express tracks could still be unique. --Wwwdigi (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Target Audience

I came to this article hoping to get a general overview of what the train routes look like, etc, so that when I get around to visiting NYC, I will have a sense of how to get from point A to point B.

The third paragraph's mention of flying junctions would be interesting if I already knew the system inside and out, as would the detailed discussion of the color scheme later in the article. However, I'm not sure that's the right target audience for this article to be written for.

I think some of the railfan trivia might best be moved into other article(s), perhaps ones that have not yet been created.

JNW2 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which target audience you are talking about, because Wikipedia is intended for all audiences. If you are expecting a transit guide, Wikipedia's not the place for that. If the lead section contains unexpected technical jargon, now that's a legitimate concern. Tinlinkin 06:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

JNW2, you might want to consider visiting the Wikitravel New York City site for info on how to get around, or consider visiting the external links provided at the bottom of the NYCS article (especially the MTA website). With regards to the "target audience", this article is continually under improvement; you would have to excuse some of the irregularities at the moment. -Herenthere (Talk) 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time for several reasons. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are many citation needed tags. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability or consider removing them until you can find a reliable source for the information. Additionally, the logo in the infobox needs a fair use rationale and the trivia section needs to be removed. Once you have addressed these issues, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reordering

I put the overview back before the history section again, as it previously had been. Putting the history section first seems logical from a chronological standpoint, and seems natural to those of us who know the history of the system. However, someone reading this article for the first time, who is completely unfamiliar with the system, would get easily lost in all the names and technical concepts presented so quickly. They, the general audience who are using this encyclopedia as their introductory reference on the subject, should be served here.

In truth, had I more time, I'd rework the intro (before the table of contents) into a single paragraph, and move some of the info there into an expanded overview. It's just good style to build on levels of detail. First the most basic, almost dictionary-like definition. Then put the more filled-out, but still general info. Then put the series of sections on particular topics, i.e, history, nomenclature, rolling stock, etc.

Just my $0.02 - oknazevad 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Many of the New York City Subway articles, not just this one, suffer from the same flaw. The editors working on them are generally subway geeks—pardon the term—and they tend to be written from an expert's point-of-view. A lot of the articles really lack the perspective that a generalist would be looking for. Marc Shepherd 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I am partly to blame. Earlier this year I had suggested a major modification to the article (Proposal to reorganize article), and I intended to somehow merge the Overview section with the Intro, which seemed awkward since it seemed like it was linked to the intro. However, I could not find a way to rework both sections without making the intro too long, so I left the Overview in its position after the History. I still think the Overview is still somewhat out of place (with regards to some info) and I would like to take this opportunity to ask if it should be merged into the intro. -Herenthere (Talk) 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Confusing

Together with its bus operations, it is the most extensive public transportation system in the world, with 468 reported passenger stations,

Um... Together with the bus operations, there are exponentially more than 468 stations! 468 is obviously referring to the number of subway stations, but it can easily be read as that subway and bus combined have 468 stations. -newkai t-c 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrdlu junction

What does this mean: "Among the ten busiest systems in the world in terms of annual passenger traffic, it is the only one to hold such a distinction, setting it apart from cities such as London, Paris, Tokyo, and Moscow." What distinction? How is it set apart from the systems of London, Paris etc?Shrdlu junction 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence before it: The subway is also notable for being among the few rapid transit systems in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
-Herenthere (Talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

HManat32's removal

The past 3 edits by HManat32 removed the image of the token and the video of the 7 train arriving without giving an explanation in the edit summary. Should we add it back? -Herenthere (Talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The video seemed to clash with the fare chart. It just needed to be moved, not canned. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 17:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just put it back. I've also removed the table, per the discussion on the project talk page, namely, that substantive content is not supposed to be buried in templates. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

M42

i dont see anything about the secret basement. i learned about it on the history channel, so i think it relible.Д narchistPig (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about it in the Grand Central Station article (it's related to the building, not really the NYC subway system I don't think). DMacks (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaints

I notice the "Complaints" section mentions both overcrowded subway lines and the inaccuracy of the subway map. However, it doesn't mention as another complaint the limited transit options for those who live in eastern Queens and Staten Island (with respect to both subways and bus service). Also, the subway map section doesn't mention the fact that eastern Queens past the subway line is pretty much squashed into nonexistence on the map displayed in the subways, despite the fact that it's almost as large as the subway'd part of Queens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.157.216 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Come back with a reference, and in it goes.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Power supply

How voltage and power type are use on the New York City Subway?? Sorry, but I am from Poland and I don't goot speek english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.149.150 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image for deletion

I propose the deletion of image from the Photography section of Safety and Security, because it does not aid in the understanding of the article's subject and is unnessessary. M173627 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning and I would like to further add that it may lead some readers to believe this is a typical person to be inspected by the police, which amounts to profiling. It should be deleted or at least removed from this article.

Sufitul (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. It doesn't convey the meaning of that section. Acps110 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the picture in this context does indeed seem a bit odd. Thanks for removing it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)