Talk:Transportation in New York City/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Mass Transit only

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Collaboration of the Week 

message: "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)
replies: text: Wait, I see: it's PATH. Massysett 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Two of every three"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-formal section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  taxi medallion prices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "It is a system of superlatives" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Major Overhaul Feb 2007

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GAC|'''Nomination''']] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Staten Island Railway

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scope

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intracity???? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Subway" vs. "Rapid Transit System" 

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

text: 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)

text: Oppose [[WP:SIZERULE] Djflem (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[History of New York City transportation]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks to Epicgenius for this edit. Vcohen (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the SIR a subway? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Mass transit in New York City]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Transportation in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified