Talk:Roosevelt Island Tramway

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

Sourcing Question[edit]

The article on the Portland Aerial Tram claims that the Doppelmayr CTEC built the Roosevelt Island Tramway. Doppelymayr's web site doesn't list or indicate this is the case. Can this claim be validated by someone? If not, we should probably remove the statement that Dopplemayr did build it from the overview section in the article page. Theflyer 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) website (the firm managing the island's services), the Tram was built by the Swiss company called Vonroll in 1976, not by Doppelmayr CTEC. This Wikipedia article confirms it. Thistheman 18:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it's even mentioned in the middle of the article, under the "History" section. Thistheman 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll basiclly revert my previous edits that made the linkage to Doppelmayr and the Portland Aerial Tram after submitting this response and will post a comment over on Portland Aerial Tram about the inconsistency. Theflyer 20:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November, User:Rehrenberg posted the following question on the article page. It is moved here so we can work it out and update the article as appropriate. "Von Roll is now owned by the Austian company Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, who, on their webiste, makes no mention of having built it, yet on the site of competitor CWA Constructions (Swiss) [1], there is a least one photo and a description. Who's right?" Theflyer 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's on second?[edit]

This article cites a New York Times article by Billie Cohen to claim:

Prior to the completion of the Portland Aerial Tram in December 2006, it was the only commuter aerial tramway in North America.[1]

However, the Mississippi Aerial River Transit (MART) operated from May 1984 to April 1985, before the Portland tram. The MART was of a type known to wikipedia editors as a gondola lift not an aerial tramway, a subtle technical distinction that may be lost on many readers. Perhaps the claim should mention MART and contain an expanded footnote to explain the technical distinction like so: 69.119.27.73 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the completion of the Mississippi Aerial River Transit in May 1984 and the Portland Aerial Tram in December 2006, it was the only commuter aerial tramway in North America.[2]
The proposed rewording of what is currently the second sentence in the lead was placed into the article a few minutes ago. 69.119.27.73 (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cohen, Billie. "Next Stop: Roosevelt Island Tram", The New York Times, January 15, 2008. Accessed August 17, 2008.
  2. ^ The Mississippi Aerial River Transit was a gondola lift system not an aerial tramway system. See also Cohen, Billie. "Next Stop: Roosevelt Island Tram", The New York Times, January 15, 2008. Accessed August 17, 2008.

New Tramway?[edit]

POMA, the French maker of aerial tramways etc., says on its website (http://www.poma.net/en/xpage/index/view/id/17) (>historic >2009) that they built or are building the new Roosevelt Island Tramway. Has it been completed? Does it replace the old one? Is there anybody with some information on it? --AHert (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned old cabins[edit]

In September 2011, I mentioned old cabins of RI tram disposed at behind the Roosevelt Island Garage. They were placed in behind some fence making it difficult to photograph. Does anyone know, what is the future of the old RI tram cabs? GK tramrunner (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roosevelt Island Tramway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 08:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this article and have my first comments very soon. I still need to read over the article thoroughly. Before I start, though, I noticed that this article is currently assessed as start-class. I'm guessing this assessment is left over from before the article was expanded. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this review @Bneu2013. Yeah, I simply forgot to change the article's rating after its expansion. Epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - I have posted all of my comments for the article body. Since there are a lot of references, I am going to hold off on these in case some of them get changed/moved/renumbered, etc., while you address the remaining comments. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take a look at these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - just a quick reminder that there's just a few more comments that need to be addressed, and the article will be good to go! Bneu2013 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • Be sure to add inflation adjustments to all remaining figures that you think warrant this. I don't suppose you need to do this for post-2010 figures.
  • At first I had pondered whether or not the description section needs to go before the history section, but considering how it is worded, I think it is fine the way it is. Ultimately, I think either would work, but in its current state, it definitely ain't broke. You decide.
  • Not too familiar with Panoramio, but is File:Roosevelt Island Tram. - panoramio.jpg properly licensed?
    • I believe so. It's just an image hosting website like Flickr; people can choose whether to release their image under a free license. Panoramio no longer exists, but the image met the terms of the license at the time. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just wanted to make sure. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passes the Earwig test

@Epicgenius: - Once you finish the references and the other points I added, the article should be good to go. Don't forget about the inflation adjustments, the suggestion I made about including the original projected completion date, and the tense changes for the rescue cages. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have addressed all of these now, including the inflation, tenses, completion date, and page numbers. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Opening year is mentioned twice in the lead; suggest changing "having opened in 1976 to serve" to "having been constructed to serve" or something similar.
  • Suggest including when the Roosevelt Island Bridge was built and cutting "Just" at the front of this sentence.
  • After the 2010 renovation, the cabins were replaced with 110-person vehicles that could independently. - I feel like there's a word missing before "independently".
    • Oops. I meant to say "that could operate independently". Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an elevated terminal on Manhattan. - is this supposed to say "in Manhattan" or "on Manhattan Island"? Is "on Manhattan" commonly recognized to refer to the island, not the borough?
    • Likewise, I meant to say "on Manhattan Island". Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • Suggest a subheader titled "Background" for the first two paragraphs.
  • Comma after "Welfare Island" in first sentence.
  • If I'm not mistaken, the Queensboro Bridge opened about two years before the trolley ceased operations; fix as necessary.
    • Done (the Roosevelt Island Bridge opened in 1955, and I forgot to change it earlier). Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, was the trolley part of a larger network or system that has a Wikipedia article?
  • Out of curiosity, why was the subway line delayed?
    • The whole story is very lengthy and is described in the 63rd Street lines article, but basically the city was trying to construct a much larger line, went through a severe fiscal crisis, and was only able to complete a small portion of the line (which opened in 1989). Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, if it's that complicated, then I don't guess it needs to be covered here.Bneu2013 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

  • Link Christian Science Monitor.
  • Reword second use of "72nd Street" in last sentence of first paragraph.
  • The United States Coast Guard also needed to approve the project because it crossed the East River, a navigable waterway. - reword to something like "The United States Coast Guard also needed to approve the project because it crossed a navigable waterway" or "The United States Coast Guard also needed to approve the project because it crossed a section of the East River that was a navigable waterway." For the last one, if the entire East River is navigable, no need to include "section".
  • allowing construction on the tramway to begin.
Construction
  • Work on the route began in October 1974. - this certainly isn't a necessity, but is the exact date that construction began available? Was there a groundbreaking ceremony or something of sorts?
    • Unfortunately, I can't find a source for the exact date that construction officially started. I was only able to narrow it down to the first week of the month. Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That probably means there wasn't a ceremony. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree; I could not find evidence of an official ceremony. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was construction originally planned to begin? You might also want to swap this sentence with the previous one.
    • The delays actually occurred after work had already started. The original completion date was supposed to be June 1975, but the tramway didn't open for nearly a year afterward.Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, be sure to include the original projected completion date.Bneu2013 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not a necessity, but when were the cabins installed? I'd include this if you can find it.
    • Unfortunately, I could not determine when the cabins were installed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add inflation adjustments for monetary figures. Ditto anywhere else.

Opening and early operations[edit]

1970s
  • Link The New York Times.
  • Is ITT ITT Inc.? If so, link. Ditto VSL to VSL International if this is the correct company.
    • Probably for ITT (which used to be a large conglomerate back in the day, so this could be ITT Inc.) Definitely for VSL. I have linked both. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the haul cable have such a short service lifespan?
    • The haul cables were designed to be replaced every two years because, at the time, almost all other aerial tramways in the US served ski resorts that operated only seasonally. Thus, these resorts' haul cables could be used for years without having to be replaced. On the other hand, the tramway operated 7 days a week throughout the years, so the haul cables wore out much more quickly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. You could include a sentence about that, but its definitely not necessary. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "cable-replacement" need to be hyphenated?
    • As an adjective phrase, yes. As a noun, no, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1980s
  • In After the tram was closed in November 1980 for haul cable replacement, the replacement cable fell twice in one month I suggest changing second use of "replacement" to "new" or something like that.
  • Curious as to why some residents didn't like the repainting.
    • Some residents really liked the tram's iconic look and felt the blue cabin really clashed with their idea of the tram's appearance. It would be as if the Statue of Liberty was repainted bronze, since people associate the Statue of Liberty with its green color. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did RIOC take over the tram as soon as it was created? If not, I suggest including the date. I also suggest a more precise date for the creation of this agency if that is available.
    • Yes, RIOC did take over the tram when it was established. I don't know the exact date when RIOC was formed, however. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the tramway's liability insurance policy expired, the New York State Senate failed to pass a bill allowing the state to self-insure the tramway, - was this the insurance that expired in early 1986 mentioned in the previous paragraph? If so, I suggest moving the word "liability" to this sentence. You could also reword "When the tramway's liability insurance policy expired" in this sentence to "When this occurred".
  • The New York State Senate is not the only legislative body required to pass legislation; did something pass in the State Assembly but fail in the Senate?
  • RIOC fired staff members and installed token machines in an effort to cut costs. - did this occur when the subway opened?
  • Link "New York (magazine)".
1990s
  • Move New York City Council link from 21st century section here.
  • after the damaged cabin was repaired, the tramway reopened after a week. - change last three words to "one week later".
  • Was twice as many people used the Roosevelt Island subway station as the tramway true before January 1998?
    • Yes. As a general rule of thumb, this had been true since 1989. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st century[edit]

Early 2000s and increasing unreliability
  • Suggest rewording "lost $1.7 million annually" to "was losing $1.7 million annually".
  • the cable was 8 feet (2.4 m) too short - I'm guessing this was the initial replacement cable. Suggest elaborating.
    • Done. (It was indeed the original replacement cable.) Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the moving cage lifted by the crane? If so, I suggest rewording as necessary.
    • Actually, the cage was moved along the wires from one of the terminals. The crane was a separate thing altogether. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip refs 154 and 153 in third paragraph.
    • I couldn't find any mis-ordered refs in the third paragraph. I did, however, fix the order of two refs in the fourth paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This probably resulted from some edits you made elsewhere. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renovation and later years
  • Suggest rewording "Roosevelt Island" in Work was delayed because of challenges in bringing a large crane to Roosevelt Island to "the island", since it is used in the preceding sentence.
  • The late opening was also attributed to delays in obtaining permits for construction, since it appears that the crane logistics also delayed the project.
  • Change "to Cornell Tech" in the first sentence of the second paragraph to "here" or "this location" or something similar.
  • The reconstruction of the elevators at the Manhattan terminal was completed in April 2022 for $7 million. - the previous paragraph says the elevators were installed in 2019. Did they have to be constructed after only three years?
    • Sorry, what I meant to say was that the elevators were in the process of being installed in 2019. Due to the pandemic and other issues, the elevators were not finished until 2022. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

  • I feel like a lot of the content in the first paragraph belongs in the history section and/or duplicates content in the history section.
    • To my knowledge, the only sentence that's explicitly repeated is Von Roll manufactured the tram and its equipment, and subsidiary VSL installed the equipment. I've removed the info about the cabins, though, as these are mentioned both below and above. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that is largely what I was referring to. The sentence you highlighted is fine. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Route and stations[edit]

  • You might want to consider a better photo of the Manhattan terminal. It looks like the terminal is obscured by trees and the cars on the road.
    • Perhaps another NYC Wikimedian can get an updated photo. I'll ask around. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the bridge is much larger than the tramway is. Also, is there an airport nearby that increases the frequency of low-flying planes in the area?
    • Done. Regarding your question, the East 34th Street Heliport is about a mile to the south, and I think helicopters frequently patrol the area when the United Nations (which meets about half a mile south) is in session. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. You could also change "planes" to "aircraft". Bneu2013 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Popular Mechanics".
Manhattan terminal
  • The plaza was created in 1980 and renovated in 2007. - change "created" to "constructed" or "built". Also, this likely belongs in the history section.
    • I've done both. (Incidentally, I used that wording because there was originally supposed to be a bus loading area on the site. The bus loading area was never built, so the space was designated as a plaza instead.) Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of Oxford commas in first paragraph. Fix anywhere else.
  • The terminal is the equivalent of a six-story structure. - does this only refer to the height of the structure or other characteristics?
    • This refers to the height of the terminal's roof. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a road pass under the terminal, or just an area for buses?
    • Neither; the terminal overhangs a sidewalk. The original plans called for a widening of Second Avenue and a bus stop, but this was never built. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station originally had one elevator for wheelchairs and bicycles,[59][201] which was replaced with two larger elevators in 2022. - again, more information you might want to cover in the history section.
    • I reworded it. This sentence now mentions only that there are currently two elevators. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was a building ever planned atop the terminal?
    • To my knowledge, nothing definite was proposed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roosevelt Island terminal
  • and is located at 300 Main Street. Alternatively: "The terminal on Roosevelt Island is located at 300 Main Street, and abuts the Southtown section of the island."

Cabins[edit]

Original cabins (1976–2010)
  • Were the benches in the original cabins along the sides? Suggest elaborating.
  • Were the leather straps seatbelts/restraints or overhead hanging straps/safe holds for standees?
  • I'm guessing the hatch was an emergency exit? Also, were there other windows designated as emergency exits?
    • Yes, the hatch was an emergency exit. I do not think the windows were designated as emergency exits, as passengers would fall if they tried to escape from the windows, whereas they could be rescued by helicopters or rescue cages if they climbed through the roof. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the speed is mentioned for the new cabins, is this information available for the originals?
Current cabins (2010–present)
  • I don't think the article explicitly needs to say New cabins were added in 2010 here since it is covered in the history section. I suggest removing or rewording as necessary.
  • Why do the current cabins have a smaller capacity than the originals?
    • The sources do not say, but I assume it's because the tram didn't have to carry as many passengers after the subway opened. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move "standing-room only" link to the original cabins section.
  • Are the benches along the sides?
  • Link "grab bar".
  • Any information about the braking systems, hatches, emergency exits, etc. (anything that is detailed for the originals but not here)?
    • Unfortunately, I can't find reliable sources on this. (This blog post suggests that the cabins have four braking systems.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair. If you could find the original engineering blueprints for the cabins, they would probably contain this information. But without that, I would leave as is. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the rescue cage system still in operation for the new cabins? If so, consider splitting this information into its own subsection. If not, consider providing details here about the current rescue system and protocols.
    • Yes, I think the rescue cages are still used. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can confirm this, I suggest rewording from past to present tense. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would still change "broke down" to "were to break down" and "could" to "can" in the final sentence. Did you mean to make this change? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Oops. I've fixed this now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structures and cabling[edit]

  • As such, both cabins operated during off-peak hours even if there was a lack of demand, and the entire route had to be taken out of service if one cabin broke down. - does this mean that the trams continued to move at all times while in operation, and did not stop to allow passengers to enter or exit, similar to ski lifts?
    • Actually, they did stop to allow passengers to exit and enter. Each cabin had its own track; it was just the haul cable that was shared by the two cabins. This would be kind of like a funicular system where two funicular trains on separate tracks are attached to the same pulley. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "counterweight".
  • The cabins are also powered by their own engines. most likely belongs in the new cabins section. Also, what type of engines?
    • I've moved the info, but I could not find a source specifying the type of engine (other than that it's electric). Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order all references in this section into their proper order.
  • How high are the shorter towers?
    • They're between 150 and 200 feet high. Unfortunately, I forgot precisely where I saw this. This source kind of backs up the 150-to-200-foot height but also claims that the central tower is 300 feet high (which includes the foundation). Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can't find it, then I suggest leaving this out. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the "cabin entrance guides" original?

Drive system[edit]

  • The main drive unit had a 1,700 horsepower (1,300 kW)[229] or 2,000 horsepower (1,500 kW) motor. - reword to something like "The main drive unit had a 1,700 horsepower and a 2,000 horsepower motor." or something appropriate. Also, did both motors run simultaneously or was one a backup? Was one of them part of the auxiliary drive?
    • Actually, it was a single main drive unit; sources couldn't even agree on whether the motor was 1,700 or 2,000 hp. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No information about the auxiliary drive unit.
    • I've added what little I could find about it. You'd think people would have written more extensively about such pertinent info like the drive units, tower heights, and cabin specs, but I guess not. (There is also this report, but I can't access any copies of that report.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operations[edit]

  • Consider listing the time zone here.
  • The tram is wheelchair accessible, and bicycles are permitted on the tram. - suggest changing second use of "tram" at the end to "cabins".
  • but it shut down if crosswinds exceeded 40 miles per hour (64 km/h)[232][233] or 45 miles per hour (72 km/h). - is this discrepancy because the sources do not agree on the windspeed that it shut down? If so, consider adding "either" and a footnote about this. If it was a speed between 40 and 45 mph, reword as necessary and combine sources in a footnote that reads "Attributed to multiple references" to avoid excessive citations.
    • It's the former; this is another case in which sources couldn't even agree on simple stuff. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thunderstorms and lightning could also shut down the route. - I don't suppose you need to mention this, but there is most certainly some kind of grounding system for lightning, right? If you do decide the mention it, the cabling section would probably be the best place.
    • Probably. But again, sadly this was not something that came up in any of the sources that I read. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the time, most aerial trams in the U.S. served ski resorts. - I'm guessing this is likely still true.

Fares[edit]

  • Change period after "buses" to comma; looks like a typo.
  • Children who were 5 years old or younger were allowed to ride fare-free until 2010, when RIOC stopped charging fares based on age. Ever since the tramway reopened in 2010, children under 44 inches (1,100 mm) have been allowed to ride fare-free regardless of their age if they are accompanied by a paying adult. - Suggest rewording to "Children who were 5 years old or younger were allowed to ride fare-free until the 2010 closure, when RIOC stopped charging fares based on age. Ever since the tramway reopened, children under 44 inches (1,100 mm) have been allowed to ride fare-free regardless of their age if they are accompanied by a paying adult." Also, were fares determined by age prior to 2010 for other age groups? For example, did seniors get a discount?
    • Done. Also, yes, seniors and disabled people have always received a discount; that was not changed during the 2010 closure. The senior/disabled fare is half the regular fare. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall, some articles about paid public transit facilities include a brief table that includes the cost over time and their inflation adjusted prices. You could do that here.

Ridership[edit]

  • You might want to consider swapping By 1989, the year the 63rd Street subway line began serving the island, the tramway saw 5,500 daily riders on average. and Within a month of the subway's opening, the tram's weekly ridership declined from 35,000 to 20,000., rewording as necessary.
    • The 5,500 figure was just before the subway opened. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing the 10,000 passengers a day figure was short-lived, considering that an annual average of this many would amount to about 3.65 million passengers.
    • That is correct. I think many of these passengers may have traveled from other parts of the city just to ride the tramway; the route had to limit ridership to residents after a few weeks. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the daily ridership figures during the strike, it looks like ridership declined after 1998, but increased between the strike and the renovation. Why was this?
    • I'm not sure. I surmise this may be due to increased development on Roosevelt Island, though I don't know for sure. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the renovation was complete, daily ridership increased to 6,000,[176] and annual ridership was about 2.2 million - considering that ridership was at 2 million annually before the closure and renovation, this is not actually a huge increase (2 million a year is about 5,500 a day). I suggest adding an adjective like "slightly" or "modestly" to the sentence.

Impact[edit]

Critical reception[edit]

  • Was Michael Winkelman the same Michael Winkleman who was an actor? If not, is he possible notable?
  • Suggest linking "nearing bankruptcy" to History of New York City (1946–1977)#Fiscal crisis of 1975. Also, did this financial crisis affect the construction of the tramway?
    • I've added the link. It didn't really affect the tramway's construction, since the tramway was built by the state, but the state government also had financial issues around this time. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove second link to "Paul Goldberger" in this section, and move "The architectural critic" to the first use. Suggest cutting first name in second use also.
  • Link "Financial Times".
  • Did the notable riders regularly ride the tramway?

Impact[edit]

  • Other films that have used the tramway as a setting include Spider-Man (2002)[260][263] and Dark Water (2005). - were any scenes actually filmed on the tramway, or just set there?
    • Dark Water was definitely filmed there. I'm not sure about Spider-Man, though that article says the Queensboro Bridge was used as a filming location. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its been a while since I've seen that movie, but from what little I remember there is a strong possibility that it was just a set. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Publication date is off by a day for citation 9.
  • Add |via=TimesMachine on citation 13.
  • Capitalize "n" in "newspapers.com".
    • I commonly use the lowercase |via=newspapers.com. Is that incorrect?
      • I don't know, but I've usually seen it capitalized. The article uses the capitalized version. If you've had other GAs and FAs pass with the lowercase, then I guess you can leave it as is. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I was asking because many of my GAs and even several FAs, such as New Amsterdam Theatre and Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower, use the lowercase |via=newspapers.com without any issue. I wouldn't have an issue with capitalizing it, but if lowercase |via=newspapers.com is not actually incorrect, I would prefer to use the lowercase version. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't guess the lowercase is incorrect then. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For articles clipped from Newspapers.com, be sure to use the page number from the article, not the number that Newspapers.com says. This is the common practice, if I am not mistaken.
    • I will fix these in a bit. Almost all of these issues are with Daily News cites, which are notorious for this, so it will take me time to fix. Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bneu2013, I have now fixed all the page numbers. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add |via=Google Books for citations 25, 59, 104, 191, 223, and 226.
  • Add |agency=United Press International to citations 47, 82, and 90.
  • Citation 49 is dead.
  • In addition to the |via= parameter, add volume and issue to citation 59.
    • Done. (I also added the actual title and the author, since this was a magazine, not a book.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be the link to citation 62; the title is just missing.
  • Looks like citations 81, 82, 85, 95, 96, 97, 126, 127, 159, 206, 259, and 265 are supposed to be each two separate citations. 100, 178, and 262 look like they should be three.
    • I bundled these together per WP:CITEBUNDLE to prevent the citations from overwhelming the main text. Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this because of the length of the individual citations? Because there are plenty of double citations that are not bundled together. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. Some citations are also used multiple times and support different parts of the text, so I didn't bundle cites in these cases. I only bundled citations when these citations all supported the same text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add |agency=Associated Press for citation 141.
  • Semicolon after "Treasures" in the title for citation 117, since the following text is essentially a subtitle.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like you accidently placed it before "Treasures". I went ahead and fixed it for you. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space after semicolon in citation 120 and 123 titles; this appears to be a typo on the part of the digitization.
  • Is "Tramsfers" a typo in citation 132?
    • It isn't. The Daily News often puts puns into headline titles. Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Period after "Jr" in citation 138 name.
  • Accent mark on "a" in "Sanchez" in citation 158.
  • No need for "The" in front of "Associated Press" in citations 100 and 161.
  • Inconsistent use of "NY1" and "Spectrum News NY1" in work/publisher parameter for this source.
  • Wrong publication date for citation 189.
  • Inconsistent use of "Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation of the State of New York" and "Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation" in publisher parameter for sources from RIOC's official website.
  • "The" in front of "Wall Street Journal" in citations 207 and 236.
  • Add scale for maps if available.
    • Unfortunately, these maps aren't precisely to scale (the bus map is almost to scale but exaggerates or downplays street widths, while the subway map is not to scale at all). Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "TIME.com" to "TIME" in citation 210.
  • Add volume and issue to citation 226.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Issue is still missing. Is that because it is from more than one issue? Bneu2013 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. Strangely, I did put in the |issue= parameter, but nothing is showing up. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I don't know what that's about, other than the template is probably not designed to support more than one issue. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication date is one day off for citations 228 and 235.

@Epicgenius: - Just a few more comments to address here and the article will pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot about these - will take care of them shortly (within the next day). – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 00:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Roosevelt Island Tramway
Roosevelt Island Tramway

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Roosevelt Island Tramway; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Prefer ALT1 as it is interesting, confirmed and in the article - I found it cited on p.114 of the reference. That hook is found in the first part of the Route and stations section. Earwig does not alert to any issues. The article was promoted to GA by EG and nominated within the allotted time so it qualifies. It is neutral and cited/references and the QPQ is done. The image is clear, free, renders well at this size and it is interesting. Bruxton (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roosevelt_Island_Tramway&oldid=1204204925"