Talk:Fulton Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Stations / in New York City (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


What was the exact reason why Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets (New York City Subway) was merged into this article and not the other way around? Is "Fulton Street Transit Center" the current name of the station or station complex? I don't think so. I would move it back to the aforementioned title until the complex is rechristened and construction is complete. Tinlinkin 13:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours truly NE2 is who moved it. He moved dozens of articles claiming he is replacing the en dash with the hyphen but removes the suffixes with the division and line monikers. This guy is really sneaky, and it's making me sick. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 18:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Fulton Street Transit Center appears to be the common name for the complex. I tagged it for merging for about a week but no one objected. --NE2 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one problem: the proposed complex is not complete yet. Therefore, the so-called common name would be Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets (New York City Subway). --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You may be right that it's not technically the "Fulton Street Transit Center" yet, and maybe we should have waited until it was completed. But you're wrong about "Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets": [1][2] --NE2 02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this was a merge, not a move. I think the question of merging should be discussed separately from the question of naming. If it gets moved back, should it stay merged? --NE2 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the merge. But the merge should have been to the existing station (complex), which was at "Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets". I'm not comfortable with using future names for current situations. If you are unhappy with "Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets", could you suggest a better name? (The individual station platform names are also unlikely to change, though it's always possible--a waste of money if that's done...) On the other hand, since this is a future structure, it may be better to keep the articles separate in order to avoid confusion. Tinlinkin 03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau: [3] --NE2 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But don't forget that Nassau Street is a street too. Using "Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau" is confusing, "Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau Street" sounds long-winded. "Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets is right because Nassau and Fulton Streets are both streets (respectively). --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't create article names by changing around the real names into a neologism. --NE2 01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not a neologism. We are just combining two nouns (which are the streets) to make the name as short as possible. The MTA uses it as well as a whole bunch of other sites. Look them up for yourself. The name is unwidely long as Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau Street. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The MTA uses it twice, both times while talking about the Staten Island Railway, and with a slash between Broadway-Nassau and Fulton Street, making it clear that they're treating it as two names. Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau and Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau is used much more: [4][5] --NE2 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if it's not fine to leave off suffixes, why Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer? --NE2 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not left off, the real title is at Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway). And we should not make the name confusing to others. Plus, it doesn't look good, there is also a Fulton Street and a Broadway in Brooklyn, and even though there is a Nassau Street in Manhattan and a Nassau Avenue in Brooklyn, the "Street" is left off in the title. Sure we may know what the name of the complex is, but do you think others may know, especially non-New Yorkers who don't know of the subway? I don't think so. The google search i performed shows a whole bunch of other sites, we shouldn't always be limited to the MTA. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the street suffixes. Why isn't it Jamaica Center-Parsons Boulevard/Archer Avenue? --NE2 03:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Fulton Street is the primary name (i.e. used for 3 platforms vs. 1). "Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau" (maybe "Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau Street") is my preference if we need to consider which name is used the most. (But I don't want my opinion to be the deciding factor here.) Tinlinkin 07:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK if I start separating the text of the future structure from the existing station? Tinlinkin 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it makes no sense to have something that doesn't exist yet. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge was a mistake, and should be reverted. The Fulton Street Transit Center is a project. The project and the station need to be clearly distinguished. The project has a fixed duration, and will end. The station will endure indefinitely. Marc Shepherd 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't normally split stations from projects. For instance, 59th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) talks about the project to add express platforms. Now, if this article got too big, it might be a good idea to split it, but it's currently not. --NE2 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There are at least two distinctions. First, the Fulton Street Transit Center includes work at other stations besides just the Fulton Street–Broadway–Nassau complex. In that respect it differs from the addition of express platforms at 59th Street, a project that was localized to one station. You may have been laboring under the misapprehension that the Dey St. Passageway was going to create a new free transfer inside of fare control, but I've addressed that below.
And in the second place, that is no justification for altering the name of the station from the usual naming convention. Marc Shepherd 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with you on the name, although some of the mockups do shows normal signs that say "Fulton Street Transit Center". Essentially the idea of this merge came when Imdanumber1 was moving it to "Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets", despite the common name being "Fulton Street-Broadway-Nassau", and I tried to "think outside the box". (There is no "usual naming convention" in this case, since the map, schedules, and signs all display the individual names.) --NE2 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the FSTC and the station complex are beginning to be referred to interchangeably. That's why I didn't originally think it necessary to unmerge. I'm still with my original feeling, but less so now. Tinlinkin 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fare control[edit]

What's up with this sentence?

In addition to work on the four linked stations, including a large entrance building at Broadway and Fulton Street, the Dey Street Passageway is being built outside fare control to connect to the Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line) station, and a passageway inside fare control will connect that station with the World Trade Center (IND Eighth Avenue Line) station.

I recently read a NY Times article online that showed a animation of the station complex. (2 months ago?) (Illustrations are not archived, therefore there's no way to retrieve it.) It demonstrated a person going from the IRT Broadway-7th Av. platform to the BMT Broadway platform without going outside fare control, if I recall correctly. Am I correct? Tinlinkin 13:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything that describes whether it's inside fare control. The video may have been outdated though. --NE2 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would the MTA connect the existing 2, 3, 4, 5, A, C, J, M and Z lines while having the N, R, W, and E line connection separate? The transfer is supposed to be amongst all those lines. That is why "outside fare control" makes no sense to me. (Maybe it's bad writing, I don't know. The present NY Times sources are from June 2006 and the article I read was much more recent than that. I will search the archives for the exact article I read.) Tinlinkin 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the article: from January 2007. I currently don't have TimesSelect, but I always think about subscribing. Tinlinkin 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You might have access through your local library; mine gives me back to 1980. Anyway, that article doesn't say whither the passageway will provide free transfers. Building it outside fare control would allow non-subway passengers, such as people coming from PATH, to use it. --NE2 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The MetroCard has the ability to allow free transfers without requiring platforms to be connected by fare-controlled passageways. Presumably this is what the MTA plans to do here. A big advantage of electronic payment systems is that they allow complex stations like this one to be built without a maze of twisty passages, all alike.--agr 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not thinking about the MetroCard (even though I know about the out-of-system transfers), but after reading your comment, I agree with you. After taking a closer look at the Dey Street Passageway, I think I understand the configuration better (with [6] and [7]). The Dey Street Passageway seems to be designed for easy paassage from the World Trade Center site into the Fulton Street Transit Center building, not a fare-controlled passageway. Otherwise, an entry to the subway system would have to be built near Church Street and the FSTC building would seem illogical. I apologize for the confusion I casued. I was thinking of my preconceived notions of fare-controlled passageways. [As a sidenote, I remember there was a fare-controlled underpass at Cortlandt St. station in which I looked at the "Trade, Treasure, and Travel" artwork. I think that is under Dey Street, but I'm not sure.] Tinlinkin 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference is Chapter 3 of the FEIS , p. 3-21: "The Dey Street Passageway is currently proposed to be an unpaid connection between the WTC site and the FSTC, and, as such, is expected to serve a larger volume of people than if it were strictly a paid-zone to paid-zone transfer...." PDF here Marc Shepherd 15:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference; it confirms my conclusion about pedestrian traffic (in a manner of speaking). What is the link for the entire document? Tinlinkin 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The full document is at If you slog through the whole thing, you can see they did consider putting that passageway inside of the paid zone. I suspect they concluded it would be a seldom-used transfer. For most plausible transit trips, there are more convenient places already available to transfer between those lines. Marc Shepherd 12:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate project and stations[edit]

Okay guys, we need to repair the damage that was done to the station complex article and the project article. For the project article, the station should remain as is: Fulton Street Transit Center. But for the station article, I have really become indifferent with the station names for the articles, but would otherwise go with the following:

  • Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Streets
  • Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau Street
  • Broadway-Nassau Street/Fulton Street

If you have any more choices, please discuss before taking action because things are all out of order.

Imdanumber1 (talk contribs  email) 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I support anything that mentions Fulton Street first, with my preference being "Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau" without or with "Street" appended at the end. As for splitting the Transit Center, the FSTC refers to the station building serving the station, so I don't want to separate it–but if a split provides clarity that a combined article wouldn't, I could be for it. Tinlinkin 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I support Tinlinkin's naming suggestion: Fulton Street/Broadway–Nassau. I see no need to append "Street" at the end, and the people who built the station in the first place didn't either.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the FSTC seems to use that name in two ways. In the first place, it describes the whole project, including two new buildings, the Dey Sreet underpass, and the new E/R-W connector. In the second place, it describes the main station building on the east side of Broadway between Fulton and John Streets. It certainly does not describe the whole Fulton/Broadway–Nassau complex. There are several station entrances whose renovations are already complete, and those entrances have the traditional names, not "Fulton Street Transit Center."
So, to fix this mess, I would recommend that Fulton Street/Broadway–Nassau" is the station complex, and "Fulton Street Transit Center" is the project, comprising a broader program of work that goes well beyond the station boundaries. Marc Shepherd 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for Marc's proposal, but I'm still concerned about the name suggested. I have, however, become indifferent with the naming, but I think we should identify Nassau Street as what it is: a street. –Imdanumber1 (talk contribs  email) 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the foregoing discussion, the description of the stations has been moved to Fulton Street/Broadway–Nassau Street (New York City Subway). Marc Shepherd 20:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the en dash with a hyphen. According to WP:NC#Special characters, en dashes are not to be used in article titles.–Imdanumber1 (talk contribs  email) 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, there are a good deal of NYCS station names with en-dashes in the primary name. Quite a few of these were created by LarryV, who is an admin and presumably knows what he is doing. Marc Shepherd 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Manual of Style on capitalization in article names and sections[edit]

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article titles

Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects). patsw (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First image: fantasy or reality?[edit]

Should the first image be the architect's rendering of the Transit Center which is certain not to be built in the form depicted, or the current reality at the site? I advocate the reality as the first image in the article. patsw (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no alternative right now, because the MTA has not decided what will replace the design shown in the image. The lead section, however, ought to explain that the project is in limbo, and not likely to be built as originally announced. Right now, that information is buried lower down in the article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I went bold and rewrote the introduction to reflect the reality. The intro is concise, the detail is in the footnotes. That ugly photo is what's been there since 2006. patsw (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you may well have gone too far in the opposite direction. As I understand it, the Fulton Street Transit Center refers to the whole set of interrelated projects, including station rehabs, new entrances, the E/W connector, straightening the A/C mezzanine, the Dey Street Passageway, and the Corbin Building incorporation into the station. The only thing in limbo is the station building on the southeast corner of Fulton and Broadway. To describe the entire project as being in the past tense seems to me incorrect. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I put things back into present tense and clarified that the "center" is inactive, the "project" is on-going. The article going forward needs to have that "center"/"project" duality maintained until the above-ground structure gets a definition and a schedule. patsw (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References to the E line[edit]

what are all these references to the E Line at the Fulton Street Station? The final stop for the E line is the World Trade Center Station/Chambers Street Matthewbrownny (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fulton Center complex is a collection of various downtown stations in the same locale, but it does not mean that all of the stations will be connected with free transfer passages. Some basic goals of this project are:

  • Simplify the navigation/transfers between the trains stopping at the Broadway-Nassau-Fulton Street station (2)(3)(4)(5)(A)(C)(J)(Z)
  • Provide seamless horizontal navigation throughout Lower Manhattan, connecting various transit hubs and subway stations and various points, such as the World Trade Center site and the WFC.

The E indeed terminates at the World Trade Center station, but it is intended that sometime in the near future, that a free transfer passageway would be created to link to the BMT Cortlandt Street station. It would be still part of the Chambers-Park Place complex.

Note that the 1 is NOT mentioned at all. The 1 travels under Greenwich Street, a little further inside of the WTC site. During the planning of the FSTC (Fulton Center) in the early 2000s, the future of the IRT Cortlandt Street station was uncertain, due to the delayed redevelopment of the site. It was intended that the station would be reconstructed AFTER substantial completion of the WTC site. The 1 station would link with the WTC Transportation Hub, which will be the new terminus of the PATH in Lower Manhattan. Underground concourses, constructed in the footprints of 3 and 4 WTC and the Transit Hub will connect to the Dey Street Passageway, which is part of the Fulton Center project. Hmanck (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

M train[edit]

I don't think the M train, which is being merged with the V train next month, will stop at this station when it's built. Anlasbry (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. The templates used by this article and many others will be updated at the end of June with the new routing of the M train. That will fix all the articles at the same time with only one edit. Acps110 (talkcontribs) 23:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


A project of such a scale does not go without controversy. I do have a list of problems that the public had, but I would like to collaborate, so that we can create a section that is properly styled.

  • Cost overruns, budget
  • Not on time
  • Necessity of the Fulton Building?
  • Demolishing buildings, relocating businesses
  • Disruption of road traffic (Dey Street)
  • The Dey St. tunnel has drew criticism for not allowing a free transfer

Hmanck (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Try to ask here. Vcohen (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Is there a plan, map, or diagram of the complex? It is not easy to visualize. Jd2718 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jd2718: here is a diagram. Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Vito Acconci?[edit]

Was browsing Vito Acconci's website the other day and found an design he did called "ATRIUM, FULTON STREET TRANSPORATION CENTER". He dates it 2004. Acconci Studio Website - Fulton Project It bears a striking similarity to the Grimshaw / Arup / Carpenter design.

I also checked the respective pages for Grimshaw and Arup, but they don't mention Acconci at all.

Anyone know what's the story here? Perhaps there was an early conceptual competition (similar to the world trade center)?

Padams20 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)