Talk:Second Avenue Subway

Time to Split (2)

The article continues to grow - I don't have the word count tool, but it's up about 20% since January, or about 20k words. I suggest breaking out the construction into a separate article - that will be the most stable unless/until they start a new stage. After that, as noted above, a separate history article makes sense. I do not have time to start now, but if no one else does, can jump in later this season. Jd2718 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• The article is only 17,687 words, so I don't know where you got the 20k figure from. In any case, I oppose a full split because it's unnecessary, but maybe the historic-proposals section could be split, with some context about the current-construction section. I say "maybe" because I am planning to make this a good topic, with the main SAS article being a good or featured article, and I'd rather not have a page split lead to this article's degradation or even demotion. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• I have created a draft in my sandbox. epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC) The split has now been carried out. The article is now at History of the Second Avenue Subway. epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  (I have no idea what I was thinking in September 2017. A 17K-word article is far too long per WP:SIZERULE.)

  Anyway. I do think the article should be condensed a bit as Phase 2 proceeds, particularly the construction details pertaining to Phase 1. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think the stuff cut should be moved to the history article? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. The issue is that the history article is itself getting long. Perhaps we should split it up into a few articles, e.g. Early plans for the Second Avenue Subway (covering the earliest plans up to the 1990s) and Construction of the Second Avenue Subway (covering the 1990s plan and current construction).

  I was contemplating an article for the history of the SAS during the 1960s and 1970s, which was part of the Program for Action, but that may be too niche. There is definitely plenty of coverage about the Second Avenue Subway (Program for Action), though. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per WP:SNOW and the arguments made below. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Second Avenue Subway → IND Second Avenue LineIND Second Avenue Line – for consistency with the other NYC subway lines. While it is referred to by news media as "Second Avenue Subway", this is pretty awkward wording as "subway" is usually used to refer to an entire subway system, not a single line. I am also willing to use Second Avenue Line for this same purpose. That, or the other articles referring the subway lines with their company names ($1 $2 Line) could simply have the company name dropped in their title (so $2 Line). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, it's inconsistent. No, that is not a reason to move from what is clearly the name used by everybody, including reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME, as stated above. We don't automatically name articles with the official name, COMMONNAME takes precedence. A good past rail-related example is here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to wonder if changing to "second avenue line" would be better than the title I initially proposed. A bigger question is whether we should drop the company names (IRT, BMT, IND) from the other train lines for conciseness. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, that would be even more confusing. This term can also refer to the IRT Second Avenue Line (elevated) and the M15 (New York City bus) (formerly the Second Avenue Line). The current title may technically not be a subway system, but it's still descriptive enough. If the company names were not used, the line would be called Second Avenue Line (subway), which is not shorter than the current name. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Second Avenue Subway" is the commonly used term and far more recognizable due to the history behind it. There's no reason to change it. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 9:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME which this proposal ignores. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While the internal name for the line is the IND Second Avenue Line, the common name used by nearly all media is "Second Avenue Subway". "Second Avenue Line" as a title is even more ambiguous; there is both a former elevated line and a surface transportation (bus) line with this name. There are several other instances in which different companies did use the same line name, e.g. IRT Sixth Avenue Line, IND Sixth Avenue Line. Barring that, I don't see the reason to drop the company name from other lines.

I do sympathize with the nominator's intent, having made an ill-advised request to move Atlantic Terminal some years ago. But there isn't really an overarching need for title consistency here. If the concern is that inconsistent titles may lead to red links, then there is not an issue as IND Second Avenue Line already redirects here. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius You mean World Trade Center station (PATH). But yeah I see. I am guessing if MTA and media be inconsistent with naming so be it. We aren't prescriptive, we are descriptive, and if "second avenue line" or "IND second avenue line" becomes more commonly searched in the future, then a move can be made there. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Grand Central spur

@Jd2718: Regarding your recent revert, page 17 of the MESA says: "The Grand Central Terminal spur service could not achieve competitive frequency due to capacity constraints on the Second Avenue route." In other words, there was not enough track capacity. (The MESA also mentions "competitive travel time", which I forgot to add.)

In regards to your edit summary, though, I'm not seeing where it takes up two lines of space. On my 1280x1024 display, the info shows up on the same line as the sentence before it. Perhaps we can reword this to "due to a lack of track capacity or time savings"? Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a claim, not a fact, it needs to be identified as such, which would stretch the text (currently just over a full line) to a bit longer. More than one line, less than two lines. It is a fact that they made the claim - not a fact that the claim is true. On the other hand, that the spur was considered, but dropped, is absolutely a well sourced fact. Jd2718 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make any sense

Quote from the article:

"The T will be colored turquoise since it will use the Second Avenue Line through Midtown Manhattan."

Huh? This is a nonsense sentence. 2600:1017:A406:145:6C48:9CBD:2B07:D313 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I will delete it as the next section explains the same thing better anyway. T (New York City Subway service)#Planned_Second_Avenue_Subway_service appears to be the context. Ttwaring (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted this, with some clarification. The color turquoise is going to be assigned to routes that use the Second Avenue Line through Midtown. That's why the Q isn't being colored turquoise, for instance. I thought it was pretty clear what the sentence was saying, but I guess this needs to be spelled out explicitly, so I've adjusted the sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Updated diagrams and map

Hi all, are there any talented illustrators / artists who can show the proposed crosstown extension to Broadway/125th? Turini2 (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)