Talk:Second Avenue Subway

Merging Second Ave and 2nd Ave Pages

I've merged the most relevant information and links from the 2nd Avenue page. The merged information was regarding the latest SAS developments. The links are from nycsubways.org, regaring the 2nd Ave subway project.

Public domain map

Second Avenue Subway with stations

All, I have tried to create a suitable public domain map to display the route. Please find my work at the right. Please let me know if you have any recommendations for changes before I add it to the article. Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to grey out the other lines? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Do you mean fully grey or just less colorful? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Less colorful. Enough not to distract attention from the Second Avenue Line. Whatever looks better to you. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the color saturation on the other lines by 50%. I've also added the T/Q line bullets to draw attention to the east side. Is this better? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would tone down the other lines even more. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the color saturation on the other lines are now down to 25% of the original. Is this better? I'm concerned that the colors are so muted that people won't be able to tell that they actually are supposed to correspond with the line colors that are in use. Also it is hard to tell the BDFV lines from the NQRW lines. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the colors are way too muted at this point. Perhaps lowering the brightness or overlaying a pattern on the additional lines would work better. When I first saw this image I thought it was based on a historical map of defunct lines. I'm fairly familliar with the NYC subway and I can barely make out the correct colors. The average Wikipedia user would have no idea which lines intersect with the new subway from this map. ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a labeling problem – all lines need to be labeled as to what service they are. When click to view it at 100% it looks pretty good...or at least that's what my untrained eye thinks. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the map doesn't show the 63rd Avenue station? I would think this is an important station to show as it is the southern terminus of the first phase, now expected to be complete in ~5 years.-Laikalynx (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation 'SAS'

Deleted reference in opening sentence for 'SAS.' This is believed to have been a remark initially created by the author of the article and does not reflect anything real. No mention has ever been made to calling the 2nd Ave Subway the 'SAS' and Wikipedia users should not jump the gun in doing such just to go on record as being the first. Dryamaka (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dryamaka, SAS is a valid abbreviation (see the photo caption here [1], and on other public documents I can't find right now). Your alternate, Second Avenue Express, is not -- notably because an express implies a local, and the Second Ave line does not have separate local and express service. I am reverting your edit. sme3 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not change until you can find those public documents, by all means, make the necessary edits, as you will then have established some ability to cite (keyword here is the lack of a legitimate citation). Express does NOT imply a local; they're two totally different scopes of service. A versus C; 1 versus 2, etc. I am reverting your edit. 81.159.139.17 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in a revert war, so I'll say this and leave it alone. First, I don't think an inline citation is needed for an abbreviation. SAS is referenced six times in the article (not counting the first sentence). SAS is used here [2], here [3], and in a number of blogs (which I do not include since they are not legitimate sources). SAX is not found anywhere. Further, (and unrelated) Express DOES imply a local. To use your examples, the #1 is the 7th Ave Local and 2 is the 7th Ave Express. There is no Second Ave Local. We can let the wiki-community reach a consensus, but the article cannot stand as it currently reads: SAS is used six times and never defined. If you would like to remove all acronyms, and change all six "SAS" occurences to spell out Second Avenue Subway, then that is fine. Otherwise, please find citations for SAX and back up your side of the argument. sme3 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

One track, completion in 2013?

This article says that the SAS will be only one track, and won't be completed for use until April, 2013. Should I suspect that the April 1 does not mean an April Fool's joke, and this article is for real? I leave the whole thing to some NYC editor who can figure out what is happening, and put it in this article for the rest of us.

• http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/04/01/breaking-second-ave-subway-slashed-to-one-track/ --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. Obvious April Fools joke is obvious. It's even given away with the last line! Sorry, man, but that's just bad. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Q train, what will run in Phase I and II?

I changed references to "extension of Q" to "reroute of Q" because the Q train is no longer terminated in Manhattan at 57th street and being extended to run to 125th, but since 2010 goes to Queens, so it would not be extended per se, but rerouted entirely. Has there been any new announcements about what will run temporarily ever since the V was nixed and the Q went to Astoria? JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. I haven't seen any new announcements about what will serve the SAS since the June 2010 service changes extended the Q. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious. That's actually why I came here, to find out what was up or any new info because I'd been wondering it since they moved the Q. Maybe just make that bit of Astoria one train then? No real reason that they had to run the Q there.JesseRafe (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The MTA website states that "additional service" will be provided to Astoria once the Q is rerouted to Second Avenue. The Astoria Line needs more than just the N on weekdays. Most likely, the W will be brought back into service. Yorkiano (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

One note, the MTA's Second Avenue Subway Capital Construction page still lists the Q train prominently. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Asps, I've seen that, and their map, but there's no date stamps (that I've seen) to indicate they've been produced or double-checked since summer 2010. JesseRafe (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yorkiano, bringing back a dead line? That's a pretty ballsy step... Maybe the G will actually run on Queens Blvd and they'll send the R up to Astoria? Both seem pretty out there. It's funny how anxious I am about this... JesseRafe (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)