Talk:IND Queens Boulevard Line

Text pasted from the IND article, might be useful to merge if there are details not covered already. Kaisershatner 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This subway is a four-tracked subway that begins at Queens Plaza Station in Long Island City, Queens, the meeting point of the Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown Subway from Brooklyn, and the 53 St. Crosstown subway from Manhattan. From here the line is 4 tracks under Northern Blvd. to 37 Av., where the line splits into two, with the two local tracks swinging north under Steinway St. (not a coincidence!), and then east under Broadway to for several dozens of blocks to Queens Blvd. The two express tracks continue under Northern Blvd. until this thoroughfare intersects with Broadway. At this point the express tracks and local tracks rejoin once again forming a 4-track subway under Broadway and Queens Blvd. The line continues under Queens Blvd. to Van Wyck Blvd. (now the Van Wyck Expressway and its service roads). Here the line splits into two branches, one as a 4-track subway under Hillside Av. and runs to 179 St., and the other to the new Archer Av. Subway (opened in 1988). This branch to the Archer Av. Subway was originally a dead end known as the Van Wyck Stub. The Queens Blvd line today is New York City's second most crowded subway line.

All the information given here is more or less already in the article. In addition, the 53rd Street Line is not a separate line, but simply the western end of the Queens Blvd Line. —Larry V (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Service history

Local west of Forest Hills, 1933-present

• E 1933-1937, to 8th local
• EE 1937-1937?, Forest Hills to Crosstown local (rush hours)
• E 1937-1940?, Jamaica to 8th local (non-rush hours)
• GG 1937-1940??, Forest Hills to Crosstown local (rush hours)
• GG/G 1940-1995?, Forest Hills to Crosstown local
• G 1995?-2001, Forest Hills to Crosstown local (weekdays)
• G 2001-present, Forest Hills to Crosstown local (non-weekdays)
• V 2001-present, Forest Hills to 6th local (weekdays)

Local-express, 1937-present

• E 1937-1940?, Jamaica to 8th local-express (rush hours)
• E 1940-1988, Jamaica to 8th local-express
• E 1988-present, Archer to 8th express (local-express non-weekdays)

Full express, 1940-present

• F 1940-1950, Parsons to 6th express
• F 1950-196x, Jamaica to 6th express (express east of Parsons rush hours only)
• F 196x-1988, Jamaica to 6th express (rush hours; later midday express west of Parsons)
• F 196x-1988, Jamaica to 6th local-express (non-rush hours; later non-weekdays)
• F 1988-ca. 1990, Forest Hills to 6th express??
• F ca. 1990-2001, Jamaica to 6th local-express
• F 2001-present, Jamaica to 63rd local-express

60th Street Tunnel, 1955-present

• QB 1955-1961, Forest Hills to 60th local (weekdays)
• RR 1961-1967, Forest Hills to 60th local (weekdays)
• EE 1967-1976, Forest Hills to 60th local (weekdays)
• N 1976-1987, Forest Hills to 60th local
• R 1987-1988, Forest Hills to 60th local
• R 1988-ca. 1990, Jamaica to 60th local
• R ca. 1990-present, Forest Hills to 60th local

Notes

[1] should help with the effect of the line. --NE2 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Queens Boulevard "sights"

Various things to see on the Queens Blvd line, from Manhattan: QUEENS PLAZA express 5th track between express tracks. Used to turn G train in offpeak.

36TH STREET local Express tracks dive down, continue along Northern Blvd as local tracks turn into Steinway Street and then Broadway. The express run is thereby shorter and straighter, at a point where narrow streets would have forced two levels for 4 tracks anyway.

STEINWAY STREET local 46TH STREET local NORTHERN BOULEVARD local Notice heavy columns across one part of Northern Blvd station, where N Y Connecting Railroad to Hell Gate Bridge crosses over.

Above 3 are local only, 2 tracks. Express actually comes under local tracks in western half of Northern Blvd station, and can be seen rising back up shortly east of station.

65TH STREET local ROOSEVELT AVENUE - JACKSON HEIGHTS express Unused 2-track terminal station on upper (mezzanine level) starting at east end of operated station, 2 trackways run out to east above main track level in use. Terminal rebuilt mainly into transit police station.

Unused trackway for westbound local trains begins at outer wall just east of station, rises up to same level as 2 trackways mentioned above making 3 trackways on upper level.

At 78th St, 3 trackways on upper level curve to south, ending at "temporary" wall at edge of constructed subway. On lower track level in use, a fourth local trackway for eastbound local trains is seen also curving to south and similarly ending at a wall.

The 4-track subway running south was a plan for a line to the Rockaways and south Jamaica proposed in 1929. Get out the atlases: via private property at 78th St now used as a playground, west in Garfield Ave, south in 65th Place, private property, Fresh Pond Road, then east in the LIRR, etc.

ELMHURST AVENUE local GRAND AVENUE - NEWTOWN local WOODHAVEN BOULEVARD - SLATTERY PLAZA local Designed for conversion to an express station. Outer walls curve out so the local track could be rerouted if desired.

63D DRIVE - REGO PARK local Unused trackway for westbound local trains begins at outer wall just east of station, rises up to an upper level. Crosses over tracks to curve south, ends at edge of construction. At that curve, another unused trackway for eastbound local trains curves off outer wall. This was another way to get to the Rockaways and south Queens in the 1929 plan, running right to the LIRR Rockaway line.

67TH AVENUE local 71ST AVENUE - CONTINENTAL AVENUE - FOREST HILLS express Longest station name on the subway. East of the station 2 tracks start, between local and express pairs, dive to a lower level, and widen to 4 tracks. So two levels of 4 tracks each run to past next station (station on upper level only!).

75TH AVENUE - PURITAN AVENUE local Lower level back to 2 tracks east of station, curves to northeast (right angle to main line) just before next station, coming alongside 2 other tracks curving from another lower level from the east, making a 4 track line to Jamaica Yard.

UNION TURNPIKE express Mezzanine cut in two by Union Turnpike itself crossing under Queens Boulevard. 2 track lower level curves in from yard lead within station limits and runs under main level. East of station, yard tracks come up between local and express pairs, whole line reduces to one 4-track level.

VAN WYCK BOULEVARD local East of station, 2 tracks start between express and local pairs. These are original trackways built for yet another line to south Queens in the 1929 plan, but they were actually put into use in 1988 when the Archer Ave line opened.

SUTPHIN BOULEVARD local PARSONS BOULEVARD express 169TH STREET local

179TH STREET express East of station, local tracks dive to lower level. Both levels open out to 4 tracks and run to 185th Street. Original plan was to go to the city line, maybe with 4 tracks. --96.250.192.111 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Barry

Second most crowded line?

If the IND Queens Boulevard Line is the second most crowded, where does that leave the IRT Flushing Line? ----DanTD (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IND Queens Boulevard Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Please be patient as I work through the Review - this article is massive and it will take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   For the most part this is a Yes but I think the lead section is too short for an article of this length and would be improved with more of the subject's claims to notability. For examples of what I mean, take a look at WP:FAs Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, Hastings Line & WP:GAs Ebbw Valley Railway, Yellow Line (Washington Metro). Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: I'm not the nominator, but I have expanded the lead a bit. Now it talks about route description, a little history, service pattern, and unbuilt expansions. epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There are some instances of what I call "reference stacking", where a list of references stretches out for several numbers within the cited text, this occurs in the

   • 'Route' section [at the end of the sentence] "...and the line continues as a four-track subway under Hillside Avenue."
   • 'Building boom and the growth of communities' section [at the end of the sentence] "...buildings were demolished in order to make way for new development."
   • [at the end of the sentence] "...residential communities of one-family houses to active population centers."
   • Multiple times in the 'Opening and expansion', 'Later years', 'IND Second System', 'Program for Action', ' "Super-express" line' sections
   • 'Northeast Queens line' section [at the end of the sentence] "...in the median of a widened LIE in a similar manner to the Blue Line of the Chicago "L"."
   • 'Southeast Queens line' section [at the end of the sentence] "...of existing facilities along the right-of-way."

   There are two ways to handle this issue. If you have a single reliable source for a statement, that should be sufficient - you could even remove some of the references from noncontroversial statements that have 2 or 3 references. However, if you want to retain these references for historical purposes, then use the WP:CITEBUNDLE template. That will keep all the references with the article but nest the numbers within a single number. My explanation probably isn't explaining the system very well so take a look at CITEBUNDLE, there are examples there that will lay out the code and the results to make it easier to understand. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All of the fultonhistory.com cites have gone bad. I can't tell from Checklinks what the problem is - perhaps the website is no longer viable? You can see what I mean ->http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=IND_Queens_Boulevard_Line

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   This criteria is on hold until I can read through the article a few more times - there is so much detail it gets overwhelming but I am leaning towards the editorial decision that the details are necessary. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit-warring...yay! Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Thank goodness for editor User:Jim.henderson - his photos are excellent illustrations of the text. Shearonink (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for taking it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)I have fixed all of the Fulton History links.

On hold

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: Many thanks for fixing those issues. There are two remaining areas of concern:

• the sourcing for the "Daily ridership" in the infobox. http://mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub.htm has been dead since March 25, 2016 and there is apparently no archived URL for that info. I tried to find it on the mta's website but had no luck. If someone could source that figure that would take care of that.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)That link has been fixed.

• There are still a few instance of reference-stacking in the following subsections: 1)Opening and expansion, 2)Later years and the 'Provisions for expansion' section.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Now there are no places where there are more than 3 references that are not bundled next to each other. I hope that this fixes the problem.

I am going to do one last readthrough to see if there are any GA-types issues I have missed. Once I do a last deep readthrough, and if I've missed nothing (I hope) I will be able to finish my Review (assuming that these last referencing issues have been adjusted in the meantime). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work - the bundling that you have done I think fixes the overabundance of references within the text. Going forward, if you are thinking about going for FA then you might want to consider trimming down the amount of references (especially when multiple references are verifying one stated fact.

Daily ridership number

There is one remaining issue before I can finish my Review. I went to the MTA website expecting to find the cited figure but realized that the numbers have been all added together for the entire line.
Keeping in mind the GA criteria, this does not seem to be a problem to me however I think an explanatory note needs to be added to the article, stating that the total number consisted of adding together the following ridership numbers: [and then perhaps list the stations, lines etc that make up the overall total. If you said something like "The total "consists of all the stations' ridership listed within the IND Queens Boulevard Line Template" I think that would do the trick. I realize that listing the 20+ stations individually might just add "busy noise" to the article.]. If the goal is to make the information as accessible to Wikipedia's general readers as possible then the reader should know the stations' figures that were added up to get to the total of 467,779.
If you wish to discuss this here, that's fine. Shearonink (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that. I think that you might find this link of interest.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You RickRolled me? Whyyyyyyy.... The nested/referenced Footnote you came up with is a thing of beauty though - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it was a suitable reward for doing the review. Thank you so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IND Queens Boulevard Line. 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/20150906021415/http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/150720_1345_CPOC.pdf to http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/150720_1345_CPOC.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IND Queens Boulevard Line. 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/20160801200338/http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)