Talk:Transportation in New York City/Archive 1

Mass Transit only

This article seems like it means "Mass Transportation in New York City" -- there is nothing about bridges and streets. Should small sections like this be added that link to the main articles? --Quasipalm 19:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

US Collaboration of the Week

The Transportation in New York City article is nominated as the United States Collaboration of the Week and deserves recognition for all the work that has been done to get this article up to snuff, and maybe ultimately to Featured article status. It's got potential: a compelling topic; thorough coverage of the material; better crafted sections linking to main articles; interesting pictures. Now all it needs is votes! As of now, West Viriginiadsfibsdfbsuifbyduiofgbuifgusydfgouigg has 12 votes, Rhode Island has 11 and TransNYC has just 3!?!? Rhode Island? West Virginia? Fuggedaboutit! Show your support and vote! C'mon, this is New York we're talking about. Once these other articles have been honored we need to have the votes for future recognition. Alansohn 13:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Two of every three"?

"Life in the city is so dependent on the subway that New York City is home to two of only three 24 hour subway systems in the world."

So NYC is home to two subway systems? Can somebody explain this? Massysett 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I see: it's PATH. Massysett 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to count PATH as a "subway" system. I don't think I could find 10 people in New York who consider PATH as a subway system, or even a subway line. I suppose one can't really think of it as commuter rail, though, or even light rail. —Larry V. 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article paints a very one-side picture of how wonderful NYC transit is, while completely ignoring the very real problems NYC transit has. A more balanced view of things should be presented. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote up the following on the collaboration vote page; I'm copying it here for reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmmmm. I was asked to come here and vote for this. Well, OK, but you may not like what I've got to say. I think it's a terrible article. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a public relations puff piece. It tells a one-sided story of how wonderful NYC transit is. It completely ignores the fact that the subways are crowded, noisy, often dirty, and sometimes dangerous. The outer boroughs are poorly served (especially if your goal is to go anywhere except into Manhattan). We've only recently managed to get any kind of rail service to JFK, and it's still not a single seat ride, and there's still nothing to LaGuardia. They've been promising to build the 2nd Ave subway all my life, and still no progress (yes, I know about the most recent promises, but when I say progress, I'm talking holes in the ground, not words on a page). The pictures, while fine examples of artistic photography, show a carefully selected view of the cleanest, newest, and spiffiest. The Taxi section paints an idealistic view of things as well -- real NYC taxis tend to be run-down, furnished inside with bullet-proof partitions and a decor which is best described as "industrial", and regardless of the rules, the drivers often refuse fares to sections of the city they don't want to go to.

Yeah, I know, it's not all quite as horrible as I make it out in the above paragraph, but neither is it the fantasy land this article makes it out to be. The entreatment to come here and vote said, It tells a fascinating story, and I think that hits the problem right on the head. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to provide information, not tell a story. I think the authors of this article got so caught up in telling a good story (which they have), that they lost sight of the fact that they're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article.

---

I'd like to add that you're not being asked to vote for this article to become a featured article -- you're being asked to vote for it to become part of a collaboration for improvement. I agree with you that some of the warts of NYC transit should be noted, but I don't see this as a reason not to vote, i see it as a reason to vote. --Quasipalm 19:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course we need to keep articles like this from sounding like an advertisement of the NYC visitors/convention bureau. If this article becomes COTW, I can contribute some about the construction of the highway network, during the era of Robert Moses (not always favorably viewed). And, it sounds like you have much to add to the article, with a different, more critical (and needed) perspective. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're unsatisifed with the article, all the MORE reason to vote for it. I disagree that it's a "puff piece". The article is built on statistics and comparisons drawn with other American cities to help the reader understand what's unique about the NYC transit system. An endless bitchy tirade by an irritable New Yorker who wants to complain about the lack of a one seat ride from JFK should try the "one seat ride" out of LAX or any other big city American airport: 4 hours of auto gridlock. There's something a little arrogant in your position. Why don't you read the transportation section in the Houston article before you make your judgements. Houston is an unbelievably polluted mess. Of course, the authors there white washed the whole thing, going so far as to cheerfully describe traffic and sprawl as positive signs of growth. The NYC article doesn't come even close to this kind of posturing. Anyway, better yet, fix the egregious flaws you see. Why waste space describing the subway system's complexity and unique features that make it different from America's multidudes of more gleaming, shinning, comprehensive, swift, well-financed, trouble-free subways -- better to just have three spiteful pissy paragraphs about grime, graffiti, smell, noise, passengers with bad BO, the dirt of the floor, the smudges on the windows, and how you got on an express instead of a local and missed your stop this morning. We're all fascinated and would much rather hear about this than how the only transportation system in the country that isn't majoritarian auto-based makes life in NYC possible. Mfk91 22:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Cabs

21Jan2006. Below is from: "http://www.barrypopik.com/article/997/taxi-the-word-taxicab-and-the-yellow-color" Taxi (the word "taxicab" and the "yellow" color) It has been said that Harry N. Allen coined the word “taxicab” in the fall of 1907, and that he also introduced the color “yellow” to his vehicles. I think that’s wrong on both counts.

Paris and then London both had “taxicabs” before they were introduced to New York in October 1907. The word “taxi” is short for “taximeter.”

Harry Allen’s cabs were red. The W. C. P. Taxicab Company introduced the yellow cab in New York in the spring of 1909." Sources are quoted and the 1909 date does pop-up elsewhere and conflicts with main article. CJ.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taxicab" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.16.66 (talk • contribs)

Semi-formal section

Hi,

I've just added a new section on semi-formal transportation in New York City. I'm VERY surprised that no one has posted about the semi-formal sector of the NY transportation industry. Feel free to ask more questions. I can probably provide an entire article about Chinese vans fairly quickly as I tend to take them from time to time despite my utter lack of Cantonese or Mandarin skills. Abenamer 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd *love* to see detailed information about where dollar vans stop, how much they cost, how to identify which ones are legal, and any sort of schedule or hours of service they might keep.

taxi medallion prices

A NYC taxi driver told me you have to pay around 100,000 $ for a medallion license alone, but then can keep it for your lifetime. Are these facts basically true? --Abdull 03:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search on "nyc taxi medallion price" brings up several recent articles that say the going rate is about $200,000; otherwise, yes.--agr 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel

Apparently, the bridge is arguably one of the most influential in US History. Seems like the vehicles on it are now powdered by weasels, not powered by diesel. I didn't know how to re-word this, so added a template.--martianlostinspace 10:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Avenues

The article states that the avenues run from 1st avenue in the east to 12th in the west. This is not entirely accurate since there are avenues A, B, C, D to the east of first for a large section of Manhattan below 14th Street. Also, the article states that the streets run from 1st street downtown to 220th street uptown. There are actually dozens of streets further downtown beyond 1st street.

"It is a system of superlatives"

Wow, a bit like this article - it's one of the most sycophantic things I've read on wikipedia. Isn't there meant to be some sort of balanced representation? Maybe we should look at this from someone elses point of view. Or maybe that of a neutral third party, that'd be novel. Prehaps the wikipedia community could invent some kind of acronym and policy describing this process?

Hmm, maybe it's not worth getting my hopes up. 137.222.136.208 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Feb 2007

This article has undergone extensive changes in the last two weeks. Although the article was previously rated (with a "B" grade) by WikiProject New York City, I've removed the rating pending a new one because of the major additions and edits to the article since that rating.Momos 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 01:06, Sunday 11 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass: Well-written: Pass Factually accurate: Pass Broad: Pass Neutrally written: Pass Stable: Pass Well-referenced: Pass Images: Excellent I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. My one recommendation for improvment is to remove/shorten-width-of the table at the start of the article - it aligns to far to the left, and harms the appearance of the article by compressing the parallel text. Otherwise, Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work! Kindest regards, anthonycfc [talk] 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

Shouldn't there be a section on the Staten Island railway? There's only a one-line mention of it in the article. Or is SI not official part of New York City? JRG 10:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the oft-forgotten one. The SIR is like a de facto extension of the New York City Subway. If you have one or two sentences in mind, we could see how they fly. Tinlinkin 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Section? I figure the current mention and link are enough: "The city's 26 subway lines run through all boroughs except Staten Island, which is served by the Staten Island Railway." This Transport article is already very big, and the various railroad lines are well covered in their own articles. Lines with similar traffic levels should only get their own sections if they have no article of their own, and if there isn't enough information then the place to add things is in the linked SIR article. Jim.henderson 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul July 11

Goodness, that was quite a change, early this morning. On the whole I approve of the deletions of matters covered elsewhere, except that links or "main article" flags should have replaced the deleted texts. On the whole I disapprove of the additions. The history section, for example, belongs in another article or at least not at the top of this one. Anyway on the whole it's an improvement which, as always, still needs some tweaks.

Oh, small point. As I understand it, only two or three million people work in Manhattan, and jobs in outer boros are not ten or even five times more numerous, so "tens of millions" of commuters seem unlikely. Jim.henderson 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite a change. My thoughts on the change: (perhaps biased because I was the author of these changes) there was too much technical and un-informative info in the article in general. the layout, prior to revisions, simply was a list that named one item of transportation after another. Kepping in mind the notions of an encyclopedia format, I thought it would be wisest if there would be a section devoted to the background of the topic of transportation, which, considering the amount of background information that was prevoiously written in each section (like the tunnels/roads in the 'roads' section before edits described the opening of each tunnels, and even described Roosevelt driving through the Queens-Midtown tunnel upon completion in 1950), it made sense to consolidate this information into one section, so that way the actual descriptions of the modes of transport would be to-the-point, concise, and without diversions. Speaking of diversions, it was necessary to remove the 'other infrastructure' sec., becuase, water tunnels have little to do with the methods people use to get to their jobs in Manhattan.

I guess It would make sense to leave or add more 'main article flags' where needed, as some might expect the text to still be there for some reason.

And, i believe that what I have added over the past few days is not a final draft, let alone featured-content worthy; i do expect "some tweaks" to occur in the future. It is important to note, however, that the 'history' section in general is incomplete, however, it discusses content from 1500-1750, cited from actual research I have done in books (see References). Other parts are simply cut and pasted form other sections where it was needed or was a diversion.

sure, 'tens' of millions, perhaps, is inacurate. 'millions' ?

P.S. Should User:Momos help us here? He was responsible for the earlier draft, which, by the way, had a "good article" status. I would not want to remove that label with my edits!

Peter 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've admired his work elsewhere but his contribs page says he's been inactive for weeks. Yes, consolidating the history bits was definitely the way to go. It's just that they went to the wrong place: the head of the article. So far as I see, the article for an extant thing like Grand Army Plaza or railroad should say first what it is, then what it does (well, often that's the same thing), and only after those jobs have been done in considerable detail, should the article get into how it started and how it became what it is today. So, in this case the whole well crafted history subsection with Stuyvesant and Roebling and those guys belongs at the back rather than near the front. The rest of the "background" section is in its proper place, since it's about what the thing does. And Governor Roosevelt (either of them) shouldn't have been in this article in the first place, but in some of the linked ones.

A less important point, hardly any articles actually need four levels of subsections. There's probably a reasonable way to flatten out one level of the heirarchy. Alas, when I see good work it intimidates me. Mustn't get caught giving grammar advice to Shakespeare; y'know. Seeing "plaes" in the bridge and tunnel section emboldened me, however, to redo that section a fair amount, with a slight upset of the text vs picture layout as the only obvious adverse result. Oh, and it didn't take three centuries for New York shipping to become world-class. Only two. Picky, picky.

As for the water tunnels, they transport the majority of freight into the city but, ah, that's an awfully picky way of looking at it. Anyway I'll make no further changes today or tomorrow except if someone messes it up, but maybe pick something to improve on the weekend. Jim.henderson 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this new version might need some pretty serious editing for grammar and readability. A lot of the new information is interesting and relevant, but the form it's in now is a bit less than ideal. As to the commuters/day, isn't it explicitly stated in the article that it's 7.61 million riders of bus and subway per weekday? The bus and subway would seem to account for the vast majority of commuters, so would 'approximately 8 million' be good to replace 'tens of millions'? Aesshen 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is hard to describe both geography and engineering in one comprehensible sentence, so thanks for clearing that part up in the 'tunnels' section, Jim. I dont know what i was thinking, but when "curvature of the earth" popped into my head, i lost it.

There is a first time for everything, therefore, in this instance, i believe it would be the most sensible if the history section were to remain in the front of the article, becuase, just as transportation was important for ny's devopment, so is the information about how this occured in the first place, as is needed in an encyclopedia. However, i would agree that the entirety of the background section, not excluding the 'history' section, schould be reduced in size.

by the way, when i said that i deleted the 'other infrastructure' section, it was because it discussed water tunnels, as in the pipes that link 13 resivoirs to 9 milion sinks in the city, and not the vehicular road tunnels that link 9 milllion houses to 13 million office buildings in midtown. look at the history of the article if confusion remains, please.

Indeed, the entire article needs a great deal of looking over. I am not done working on the 'backround' section, and I will return to working on the 'history' section, so it is both shorter, more readable, and more sensible. And i will try to avoid writing 'plaes'.

Indeed, also, the commuters number of 8 million seems fairer than 'tens of millions', however, i do know that there are at least 17.3 million people just in the metropolitan area alone - a number that could greatly increase the number of commuters.

Peter 03:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by all means let's have a nice big history of NY transport covering three centuries or more. There's no mention yet of the car floats, for instance or lighterage or Ben Franklin's Post Roads or the Tenth Avenue Cowboys. However, there is a time and place for everything, and the present article is not the place for a history to be either big or prominent. The current "background" subsections are about size and shape, and that's what the first section should be called or something synonymous like "Scope and Balance". If it includes a paragraph of matters more than a quarter century old, that's a lot for an intro. Move the history section to near the end of the article, and build it up there. Probably in a few weeks it will be tens of Kilobytes by itself and belong in its own article. Oh, and fresh water arriving in pipes from the Catskills is freight. A tonnage of freight that outweighs everything that comes by truck. But, it's got its own article and doesn't need length here. Jim.henderson 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Please see History of the New York City Transportation System, the new article which is essentailly cut and pasted all extra information form the former 'history' section. The present 'history' section, however, remains a complete, albeit heavily condensed, version of a history of events for the transportation system. I now agree that making the new article was the logical move- it allows further refining and editing of the editing section, a section i see as critical to the overall artie concerning the citys' infrastructure.

Peter 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope

The article has gone well beyond its named scope to include the metro area. Perhaps it should be renamed "Transportation in the NYC Metro Atea." That would be more accurate. Newark is demonstratively not in NYC for example. Fine to include it - jsst rename the article.Student7 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has. If it appears so, it's because the article needs to talk about feeder systems into New York City. But unless you can site examples, I think the current scope is OK. Tinlinkin (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Intracity????

The scope of subjects covered under this header seems to cover more than an "ïntra" area, but rather all transport to as well as within the city? Is there something less confusing? Modes? Means? Systems? Any major opposition to change here?Djflem (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Subway" vs. "Rapid Transit System"

The text contains this sentence: The New York City Subway is the largest rapid transit system in the world when measured by track mileage (656 miles, or 1,056 km of mainline track)

This sentence does not seem correct, as the NYC subway is dwarfed by Tokyo's rail passenger network, the great majority of which is "rapid transit" according to the wikipedia definition ("electric passenger railway in an urban area with a high capacity and frequency, and grade separation from other traffic"; note that "commuter rail" in Japan is very different than "commuter rail" in the sense usually used in the U.S.).

If the term "subway" were used instead of "rapid transit system," then perhaps it might be more accurate, although even then it's still not really all that clear. For instance, the NYC subway includes a lot of elevated track. Is this meaningfully different than a subway system seamlessly interlined with surface rail lines at its ends (using the same trains and operating practices, but the track and stations owned by different companies), as is the practice in Tokyo?

Maybe it's best to just avoid the claim entirely, using something more obviously true like "The NYC subway is one of the largest rapid transit systems [or subways] in the world when measured by track mileage."

--Snogglethorpe (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of New York City transportation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The latter is a more comprehensive article, and this is an incomplete history page anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(And just a clarification to my proposal – forbidding WP:SIZERULE, the history page is only 5,000 bytes, and is missing a lot of crucial info, so it is of note that should this be kept as a separate article, more info needs to be added) Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Forget my merge request. The History of New York City transportation article is actually double the original size now. The original size was 19K bytes, not 8K bytes. Epicgenius (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose on grounds that this article already exceeds WP:SIZERULE, which is becoming more important as more readers use smartphones and other small computers. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose [[WP:SIZERULE] Djflem (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the SIR a subway?

This article has a section titled "MTA subway systems". The section lists two systems: the NYCS and SIR. This means that the SIR is a subway.

The section also says that "the city is home to two of only four 24-hour subway systems in the USA", meaning the two are the NYCS and PATH. The SIR runs 24/7 as well, according to the same section, but it is not listed as a 24-hour subway system. This means that the SIR is not a subway.

One of these statements seems to be wrong. Vcohen (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Epicgenius for this edit. Vcohen (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mass transit in New York City

The article mass transit in New York City mirrors Transportation in New York City for the most part. Most of the information (e.g. modes of transit, major terminals, expansion plans) is in the article Transportation in New York City. epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

in fact, the only sections in the "Mass transit..." article that are also not in this article are the "Ridership" and "Fare collection" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. Almost everything is the same, and redundant articles are not needed when they are covering the same topic.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transportation in New York City. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202175308/http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us:80/lirr/pubs/aboutlirr.htm to http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/lirr/pubs/aboutlirr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023064520/http://www.nyc.gov:80/html/planyc2030/html/plan/transportation.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/transportation.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transportation in New York City. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626061239/http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/A_guide_for_perplexed_wouldbe_ecofriends/730.html to http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/A_guide_for_perplexed_wouldbe_ecofriends/730.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170501154444/http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/new-york/nyc-launches-ferry-service-queens-east-river-routes-article-1.3122046 to http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/new-york/nyc-launches-ferry-service-queens-east-river-routes-article-1.3122046
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/lmlink/feasibility.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128134621/http://www.worldinteriordesignnetwork.com/news/john_f_kennedy_airport_in_new_york_commences_terminal_4_expansion_project_101124/ to http://www.worldinteriordesignnetwork.com/news/john_f_kennedy_airport_in_new_york_commences_terminal_4_expansion_project_101124/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)