Talk:Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway

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

untitled[edit]

Very nice and detailed article. I made minor changes and reformatted to adhere more to Wikistyles. Keep up the good work! Cecropia 07:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2nd phase of the IND[edit]

Starting uptown on the A train at 145 Street, get off the head car and look into the tunnel. You will see a bellmouth heading towards the Bronx. It seems Mayor Hyland wanted the A and C lines to go to the Bronx also. This is documented in the NY times fantasy map of 1929. I don`t know if there is a pocket N/B between 155 Street & 145 Street.

174th Street yard on the C line and beyound 168th Street, the IND was supposed to cross the Hudson River, along with yet to be determined R.R.lines on the 2nd level of the George Washington Bridge. The IND was to go to Fort Lee, N.J.

At East B`way on the F Line, there locked stairs at the north end of the station that was supposed to lead up to where the Worth Street subway was to have a transfer station at. Nothing of the station was built. From one end to the other there is an empty space paralelling the station below. I`ve been up there several times.

Between Canal Street and Chambers Street - World Trade Center on the E are 2 tunnel pockets for the proposed Worth Street Subway. There is probably an underjump in place. I don`t know if any tunnel was constructed beyond these pockets.

2nd Avenue on the F and V - Above the station provisions were made for a 4 track express station for the 2nd Ave subway. This is the only construction of the 1931 2nd Ave subway that I know of. The 2 layup tracks were to go under the East River on the true north side of the Willamsbrug Bridge. The Worth St. Tunnel was to be on the south side. The lines were to meet up at the South 4th Street station which is above the Broadway station on the IND Crosstown G line in Brooklyn. The 1st plan was to be a 8 track station above Broadway station on the IND Crosstown G line. As we know it was scaled back to 6 tracks and a shell station was built above it. Interestingly, the South 4th Street station tunnels extend for apx. 130 feet which is outside of the G line's property.

Also at the Utica Avenue/Fulton Street station on the A and C lines, a shell station exists above the station.

At Bedford/Nostrand Avenue station on the G - Below the G line is a subway tunnel built by the BRT for a planned extension of the Franklin Avenue Shuttle to Queens Plaza/Queensborough Plaza following basically what is now the IND Crosstown G line. This was supposed to be a combination of Subway & Elevated. Joe Brennan confirms this on his website, plus I know 2 maintainers who rediscovered the tunnel in 1965. All the top T.A. brass were down there. They have no blueprints on this tunnel.

The A and C lines between Broadway Junction & Liberty Avenue - 2 tunnel pockets at Jamaica Avenue for a proposed Jamaica Avenue Subway. Underjump was probably built. Nothing on model board at the East New York tower to show this.

I've posted in the past of 76th Street and 66th Avenue/Queens Blvd, so I'll just mention them to keep things in context. If I have left anything out, feel free to include them. Special:Contributions/96.250.192.111|96.250.192.111]] (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Barry[reply]

Provisons for the IND Second System[edit]

I found lots of provisions was actually built or started for the IND Second System (A more detailing list)....

Built-but-never-used upper level station above the active Roosevelt Avenue platforms on the E, F, G, R, and V lines, and the bellmouths east of the station, next to the local tracks.

Bellmouths east of 63rd Drive-Rego Park on the G, R and V lines.

Unused trackways on both sides of the Woodhaven Blvd station on the G, R and V lines.

Bellmouths existed south of the Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd station on the E and F. These are now used for the going towards Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer, via Archer Ave. Line.

The 2 level, 8 tail/relay tracks east of 179 Street on the F.

The tail tracks after 205 Street on the D line.

North of Grand Street on the B and D.

Express tracks east of 2nd Avenue on the F and V.

Blow-out in the tunnel south of Canal Street on the E.

Unused trackway on the northern end on the upper level at East Broadway on the F.

2nd Avenue end of the 2nd Avenue station on the F and V.

Upper Level station shell above Utica Avenue on the A and C.

Upper Level station shell above the Broadway station on the G.

Behind the walls at Nostrand Ave on the Lower Level (C Train level).

Hillside Ave, around 212th Street. A station shell built over there. Somewhere I read, that the skylights was built on the islands or on the sidewalk.

Around Alley Pond Park, (I forgot where) with some tunnel and maybe a portal built there.

Between 7th Avenue and Church Avenue on the F and G. There is a bellmouth on the express tracks level, which would be the start of a line to run down Ft. Hamilton Pkwy, and eventually going to Staten Island.

Extention of the A and C lines east of the Euclid Avenue station, which was to connect with the route coming south from Van Wyck Blvd and going to Springfield Blvd.

The middle track at Bedford-Nostrand Avenue on the G.

Bellmouths east of the Lexington Avenue/63rd Street station on the F train.

Middle trackway at Classon Avenue on the G.

A bellmouth south of the West Fourth Street–Washington Square station on the F and V trains, next to the Queens-bound local track.


Other provisions for lines that is not part of the IND 2nd System, but on other existing IND Lines:

Tail tracks east of Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer, on the upper level (E Line).

A Bellmouth east of the 21st Street-Queensbridge station on the F.

Bellmouths east of the Broadway Junction station on the A and C lines.

--96.250.192.111 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Barry[reply]

IND Fulton Street Line extension provisions[edit]

A skylight is rumored to exist at the northeast corner of Pitkin Avenue and 80th Street, supposedly for the cancelled IND Fulton Street Line extension.

I just saw that on Google Street View of that alleged skylight tonight. Should I provide a link? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on subchat and search 76 st, the people think that it is for CON EDISON, but maybe i am being confused with a different one. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

Come on Melbourne... There are any number of cities with planned extensions or similar proposals. Either we have a shopping list of all the world or this section should be deleted. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Removed the section. – Fitnr 14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staten[edit]

is there proposals historically to extend the subway to Staten Island similar to NJ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.218.94 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was proposals for a Staten Island Tunnel that would have joined the Staten Island Railway to the subway system via the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with this proposal from 1932[edit]

I think that a similar template to the 1929 should be done with this plan. At least these proposals should be detailed. [1]</ref> --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: Maybe you can send the data over to me first, using the Email function, and I will make a table. Or, you can make a bulleted list with basic info, such as in the 1940 and 1968 sections. Epic Genius (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. I'll begin this review ASAP. Thanks! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to take on the review. I will gladly work with you to fix any problems and to improve the article.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: I've spotted something of immediate concern. Earwig's copyvio detector has detected basically a huge portion of text taken straight from another website. Is this true? Also, I have finished both the prose and source reviews. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I did not write this major section of text, and it does look like it. I won't have time tonight to deal with that, but I will start rewriting the text. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See prose review below.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See prose review below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. I don't see anything uncited.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). See source review below.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Broad coverage shows main aspects of topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Doesn't seem to go out of topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No obvious bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Comments are addressed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Captions are good and suitable.
7. Overall assessment. All comments addressed

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use checkY or  Done If the change was only partially done use checkY, and ☒N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

  • Lede should definitely be at least two paragraphs, maybe three.
 Done
  • "to construct new subway lines in addition and take over existing subway lines and railroad right-of-ways. "
Change "and take over" to "to taking over".
 Done
  • "These lines are the IRT Lexington Avenue Line, IRT Pelham Line and IRT Jerome Avenue Line. The Manhattan Bridge line described below later became the BMT Fourth Avenue Line, the BMT West End Line, the BMT Sea Beach Line, and the Nassau Street loops"
Use the oxford comma throughout the article or don't. Stick to one.
 Done
  • "None of these lines were actually completed, except for the 95th Street extension on the Fourth Avenue Line.[7][9][10] However, some of Hylan's planned lines were built to completion. Completed lines included:[7]"
I'm confused. Were the lines built to completion or not actually completed?
 Done
  • "It would include a new 34th Street crosstown line; a Second Avenue Subway line; a connection to the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway; and extensions of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, IRT Flushing Line, and BMT Astoria Line."
I think commas would be the correct usage here instead of semicolons.
 Done
  • "On July 17, 1962, the NYCTA announced that it had asked the city for money to build a $190,000,000 high-speed, non-stop subway line from Midtown to the Bronx The line would have only operated during rush hours."
Add a period after Bronx.
 Done
  • "In 1963, three major commuter groups in New Jersey made expansion proposals. One of them would have involved an extension of the IRT Flushing Line under the Hudson River with a three-track tunnel and then connect with the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad"
Why is there repetition/restating of information from the New Jersey expansion section to the 1940-1999 section? You should probably use one or the other.
 Done
  • "3 Train Extension to the Bronx (Ogden Avenue & University Avenue) In January 2014, Richard Garey (Architect) and Ed Garcia Conde (Journalist) announced a new plan for extending a the 3 train from its current terminus at Lenox Terminal into the Bronx. Re-construction of the Third Avenue El (Bronx)See Nelson Rockefeller's "Metropolitan Transportation - A Plan for Action" page 35."
References should be at the end, and these sections should be expanded.
 Done Someone added this without my knowing. These are not real proposals, and these do not belong in a wikipedia article. I don't know how I didn't see that earlier.
  • "In 1996 the Regional Plan Association conducted a study "
Make sure to use conformity with commas after subordinate clauses. In some places it is used, in others it isn't.
 Done

Source Review[edit]

Please fix references 70, 73, 74, 78, and 90.They are all dead according to Checklinks. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Comments[edit]

@MrWooHoo: Thank you for the review. While I am not the nominator, I noticed that for #6a, File:1929 IND Second System.jpg and File:1939 IND Second System.jpg are both in public domain because No copyright notice, which was required in the U.S. until 1989, so it's public domain. So, if you were to publish an image today, it would automatically be your copyright, but since this was before the copyright law was passed, it would be public domain, according to our article on the copyright notice: Works published before January 1, 1978, are governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Under that law, if a work was published under the copyright owner’s authority without a proper notice of copyright, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrWooHoo: Have there been any updates to the review yet? epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I'm so sorry. I've been super behind on this. I'll work on it this weekend. Thanks for the reminder. MrWooHoo (T • C) 04:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem, really. I was just worried that the review might be closed early. epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrWooHoo: I have worked to fix the problems that you have mentioned. I have reduced some of the copyright violations. A lot of what the copyright violation detector says are violations are the uses of the full names of lines, such as IRT White Plains Road Line. Could you please respond? Thank you.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: That's totally fine. I will pass this now. Thanks for being such a good nominator! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrWooHoo: Thank you for taking up this review even though you have a lot to do. I really appreciate it. Have a good day.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Proposed expansion of the New York City 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: 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) 04:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utica Avenue Subway[edit]

@Epicgenius: Do you think that it is notable enough to have its own article, or would construction on the line have to be planned?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, I don't know. If there have been several notable proposals, then yes, it should be its own article. If it was just the Second System and de Blasio's announcement, then no. epicgenius (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is the IRT one from the 1910s, which more research can be done on. There is the 1929 and 1939 plans. There are reoccurring plans in the 1940s and 1950s. There is one from the Program for Action. For this one, a report was done (someone on subchat has it). There were several proposals. More research would have to be done on some of the specific plans.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, All right, I guess that might be enough for now to create a draft article. epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of South Ferry project in this article[edit]

@Tdorante10, Epicgenius, and DanTD: I don't think it makes sense to have the South Ferry station project in this article as it is not an extension, but a replacement of a station. Do you agree?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, I agree, we should remove it. epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for the Interborough Express?[edit]

The proposed rail line is getting a lot of attention. I know it has a section in the article, but with this being a pretty big and fairly doable proposal (given the existing rail line), would it make sense to make a draft or even article for the Interborough Express? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was thinking of creating one myself Esolo5002 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_expansion_of_the_New_York_City_Subway&oldid=1204410809"