text:
User talk:SPUI/Chicago archive

Chicago streets
Hi! I had been thinking for some time that Wikipedia needed an article about Wacker Drive. I finally sat down to start it today and found you'd already written much more than I knew about it. I've left a couple comments at Talk:Wacker Drive. Also, in response to your query on Talk:Chicago, Illinois. I do travel in downtown frequently and I would be happy to help you by supplying information on Chicago streets—of course, it may take some time to collect all the information. I'd looked in vain for maps showing the mulitple levels of Chicago downtown streets, and even tried myself a couple times to draw a three-dimensional map—didn't work out, though. Let me know how I can help. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll try to start collecting information for you. If you have any preference for order of streets for me to investigate, let me know. It'll take some time, of course, for me to collect this information since I'll only occasionally be able to go exploring. Actually, the list of multiple streets you have has all the ones I could think of. I'll keep my eye out for more. Also, as you suspected, Columbus does have a third level—I've only been on it once, a long time ago (when I was exploring late one night), and I'm no longer certain how I got down there. But I'll find it again. Finally, with respect with how to represent it on a map—this is the tricky issue, and it's what was my downfall. In the first place, ramps are hard to represent. The second is that though almost always we can separate all streets into either an "upper" or "lower" (or "lowest") level, there are a few exceptions. The one I can think of offhand is say you are driving east on lower Wacker, towards Lake Michigan. To cross the River, you could turn left (north) on either lower Michigan or lower Columbus (2 lights later). If you turn on lower Michigan, you can turn right (east) at the next light, lower North Water. This continues east and ends right before Lake Shore Drive. However, if you took (lower) Columbus instead, once you cross the river you will intersect upper North Water. Columbus inclines downwards to intersect (lower) Illinois, as does the other street that comes off Upper North Water, Park Street or something like that. Does this make sense? It would be a lot easier to draw it out. In any case, I will begin investigating and let you know. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I posted a bunch of information about Lower Wacker's connections at Talk:Wacker Drive. Let me know if it's what you need. Also, I drove on Lower Columbus today, can tell you this: Upper Columbus exists from Wacker Drive to Randolph Street. Lower Columbus intersects Lower Randolph, (Lower?) Lake Street (gotta double check this on upper Columbus when I get the chance), Lower South Water; there is then a northbound entrance ramp coming up from Columbus Drive, service level. Upper Columbus then ends in Upper Wacker, while (lower) Columbus crosses the river and intersects upper North Water street, crossing over Lower North Water. The remainder of the intersections are single level. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I managed to find my way to the service levels last night, although it is a little creepy down there, and it's even harder to tell what street you're on. The only reason someone'd be down there is to get access to some point down there, not for transportation. I'll have to explore it again before I can get a better understanding of those connections, but I can definitely tell you that SL Wacker begins in the west by SL Stetson. It then T-intersects with SL Columbus and continues east until 400 E, the "longitude" of McClurg Court—but there is no street at this level, SL Wacker just ends in the auto pound. The one westbound ramp I mentioned is the only direct connection I could find between SL and Lower Wacker. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 22:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The new diagram looks great! I'm not entirely positive about the southern terminus because there are so many ways on and off, but it looks like all the routes I take are there—I'll explore the other connections when I have time. Yeah, I saw that Wasbash ramp on your earlier map, but I don't believe it exists anymore, at least—I hadn't really driven on Wacker Drive before the construction, so I don't know if it was there then. I do know that as you drive over Michigan Avenue on the bridge, then turn right onto Lower Wacker, it is temporarily three lanes but the third lane immediately merges with the second; it appears to be there to allow CTA buses to stop and pick up people. There's no ramp to get off lower Wacker; in fact, I do not believe W/S Lower Wacker has any exit ramps off the right side; they're all off the left. I looked at those pictures and I'm really at a loss to explain them. From the date, they would be after the reconstruction, but I really don't know of any ramp there—granted, I normally see it from the inside, not from across the river. I did some online searching and found this Chicago Tribune article which says "Ramps connecting Lower and Upper Wacker have been permanently closed at Lake Street and Wabash to reduce accidents.The ramp at Randolph has been converted into an up-ramp to make it easier for CTA buses to go to the Metra stations," so perhaps it used to be a ramp but now isn't anymore. I don't even recall seeing a ramp adjacent to Lower Wacker blocking view of the river, though. In any case, you can take it off the diagam. Also, I don't know if you can easily indicate it, but you can only exit to L Wacker Place from eastbound L Wacker, not from westbound. Also, I am going to have to check on this Field Boulevard; off hand, I don't think there are any streets connecting to U Wacker after U Columbus and the down ramp, but I am not certain. The lower lower level map looks good too, and is accurate including ramp side placement as far as I know, but my knowledge of that stuff is very weak. The only questionable part is the Columbus ramps from Randolph; while there is at least the upramp there I thought it might be from the Millenium Park garage which also has some downramps a block or so before (south). I think SL Columbus begins at SL Randolph but I'll investigate. Finally, with respect to North Water—I don't believe there is any lower lower level. As you're heading east, the upper level ends just before L North Water intersects New Street. It continues past McClurg Ct. and between two buildings, but it ends in a dead end just before Lake Shore Drive. One could continue walking east if you climbed the fence, but cars can't and it is not paved. I can take a photograph of it if you like. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I've never heard of this Carroll, but I'll definitely check it out. Also we should decide a consistent term to refer to the third level of streets. I'm not a big fan of "lower lower" because it doesn't sound very serious. I've seen "service level" before, or perhaps "sub-lower" or "sub-level" or even "lowest"? Any ideas? That map you pointed out (nice find, by the way—you're very resourceful) called them Upper, Intermediate, and Lower. That'd be appropriate if there were more triple-decker streets but I don't think we can use that consistently (especially since terms like "Lower Wacker" are already well established).

I did some exploring of the upper levels. This is what I found. Randolph, heading east, splits into Upper and Lower Randolph. Heading east on Upper Randolph you'll have Upper Stetson to your left (N), then Upper Randolph also to left (N), finally ending in a forced left turn on to (Upper??) Harbor Dr for a short distance before that dead-ends. I have to check if Harbor has a lower level (I suspect it does). If you were to head north on U Stetson from U Randolph you would find U Lake ending on your left (W, one way E), then U South Water on your right. The two lanes are separated because a two-way ramp is between them. U Stetson then ends in U Wacker. Going N on U Columbus, starting at U Randolph, just one intersection: U South Water on your left (W). First is the eastbound lane, then a two-way ramp going down to L Stetson, then the westbound lane.

Service level is still confusing. You know how L Wacker Place branches off from L Wacker? After it crosses L Michigan, it becomes SL South Water St. I am not sure if/how you want to indicate that on your map. The two-way ramp then, like you've shown, rises up to end in L Columbus. Staying on SL S Water of course takes you to SL Columbus. Southbound on L Columbus, there is a downward ramp to SL Columbus (on the W lane) about the same position as the upward ramp on the opposite side, perhaps a little south. I don't think the Randolph ramps connect here (maybe they're part of the garage) because I couldn't find them when I was down there. So as I understand it. SL Columbus starts at SL Randolph (it's two-way of course), heads north, intersection on left (W) with SL Lake, then intersection on L (W) with both lanes of SL south Water (gap in the middle for upramp), then ramp up to L Columbus on right and down from L Columbus on westmost lane southbound, then ends in SL Wacker. Once I double-check the ramps that area, at least, will be done. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 06:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right; I got confused in my ramp placement. That's the correct position for the ramps, not the location further north by Wacker Drive. Sure, your terminology is fine—so do you plan to refer to them as Upper and Mid-Wacker Drive then? — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All right, you can definitely take off the ramp(s) I mistakenly thought went from service to mid Columbus by Wacker. There are only two ramps: the one up from service enters mid Columbus just north of Lake; the one down to service leaves mid just south of Lake. So you can change those on the service level and and lower maps. The service map otherwise is perfect, except maybe you want to extend service level South Water a little west and say "becomes mid" or however you word it. The South Water map is perfect as far as I can tell. I can also confirm now that there is no ramp from lower (mid) westbound Wacker up to Wabash; I was able to spot some ramp along the right edge of the road but it is exterior to the pillars and I see no way for a car to reach it. I won't be able to explore until next week but when I do I will traverse Upper Wacker and try to see where that ramp comes from. Anyway, you can remove that from the Wacker Drive map and I think it's ready for you to put in the article itself—you can always of course update it later. The other maps look amazing; I'll look over them and give you advice on anything I notice. More later… — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 04:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The upper map looks great. There are definitely somethings I have to check, like Wabash (which is of course difficult due to the construction) and Rush, and La Salle/Carroll. One thing I can say is that the block of McClurg Court between Ohio and Ontario, and only that block, is one-way northbound. The lower map is great too. I can offer you some clarification on Lower North Water Street. Kinzie turns into it probably when it becomes a mid-level street. If you continue east on Lower North Water, after you cross Lower Michigan, the street that is below the west (upper) Cityfront Plaza is actually (lower) Saint Clair; it connects with Lower Illinois but is not continuous with the St. Clair that goes north from Illinois. I drove by it today and confirmed that the sign on Illinois clearly says "St. Clair." Anyway, so as you were driving on Lower North Water, you would go through a T-intersection where St. Clair went off to the north but LNW continues east. However, it almost immediately then makes a 90-degree right turn, and then 90 degrees to the left, presumably under the eastern lanes of Cityfront Plaza. It then emerges as you have drawn it just before New Street. The other thing I noticed is say someone is turning right (S) from Illinois onto Lower LSD. The southbound Lower LSD lanes then split; those on the right go to mid-Wacker as you have drawn, but the ones on the left continue (and are joined by lanes from eastbound mid-Wacker) to become the south upramp to upper LSD. It's just a short stroke of red that's missing. Keep up the good work! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm 90% positive that the ramp takes you too far north to turn onto Lake but I'll check on Sunday to be sure (I've been exploring so many new streets that I'm forgetting a little). The top-view map is amazing—I would have loved to have these maps five or so years ago. I'll get you the info in a few days. Talk to you then. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 06:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct; you cannot turn left from the Columbus upramp to middle Lake (although you can turn right from Middle lake to the downramp. Also, I discovered a new exit off of Wacker Drive today—I didn't realize it was a street before; it just looked like the space between two buildings. Anyway if you are heading eastbound only on Lower (middle) Wacker just before Stetson, you will find a right turn (no traffic light) onto a Beaubien Court. Going south, you will cross SL South Water before ending in a dead end approximately a block or so. Going back north, you can only turn right on Lower Wacker, not left, due to the median. You'll probably want to update your service level map too and by the way don't forget to extend SL South Water a bit to the west and indicate that it came goes up to mid-level or however you do it, as well as remove the upramp at South Water and Columbus that I erroneously reported. I like the "Chicago all levels" map by the way, and the enigmatic Carroll Avenue appears pretty much as you drew it—doesn't seem to really go anywhere. Anyway, I'll be continuing to check things out; any problems streets/intersections you're particularly interested in? — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Beaubien, not very sure it all; it may very well go to the level of Lake Street. After crossing SL South Water, it doesn't cross any more streets but just dead-ends, so it is a bit hard to know how far you are going. Thinking back on it, it probably was more like 2 blocks. I'll check on the southern part of Lower Michigan tomorrow hopefully, but as for the northern part: so it begins at Grand; as you go south, there is an intersection with Illinois, then a T-intersection with Hubbard on the west, then an intersection with North Water, then cross the river to lower Michigan and so on, like in your map. Your map seems accurate to me—how else have you seen it portrayed? Yes, you can turn from SL Columbus to the upramp; I believe you can turn from the upramp onto lower Stetson—it definitely comes before the intersection, but there may not be much room to make the three lane changes. I will check on the distance tomorrow. Anything else? — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, got some information for you: first of all, I was mistaken—the upramp from SL Wacker carries you past the Stetson traffic light. It is before the Beaubien intersection, but that can only be accessed from the eastbound lanes anyway. As for SL Beaubien, it does go pretty far, maybe about 2 blocks? It must go to the level of Randolph, because as I was driving, I saw signs for La Strada on the right (west) just before the end. Lower Michigan doesn't go nearly that far—I'd say less than half a block after Lower South Water. Huh—never knew that about Hubbard, although it definitely ends in Lower Michigan now. I really couldn't tell about Lower Wabash—it's hard to tell since it is closed starting at Hubbard. If it goes farther it must end in a dead-end, since it can't cross the river, right? Haven't had a chance to swing by Carroll yet; I'll do so when I have a chance to visit downtown later in the evening. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 06:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also went searching for Lower Harbor Drive today. It doesn't come off of middle Randolph, but if you are driving east on service level Randolph, it ends like upper Randolph does in a forced left turn onto (service level) Harbor Drive. There's no sign, but there are a couple addresses along it; the last one I saw was 175 N. Harbor Drive. It then ends in a "street" (probably around the level of Lake) that is unsigned and goes into a driveway-type-thing on the left and maybe half a block on the right. Also, I went to explore your upper levels of the Lakeshore East development. Didn't really find anything. There's no sign of any of the future Field Blvd. intersection you've mentioned at the end of Upper Wacker; perhaps it can't be easily seen from the car. However, if you are going east on Upper Randolph, you can turn left onto Field: it ramps down to the ground level, then ends in a loop around the area, like in the map you showed me at. Like in the map, there is a short road off the northern segment, but it ends before reaching Wacker Drive, and it's at ground level, anyway. Incidentally, you can see SL Harbor from the loop although you cannot enter it. The other roads on that map don't appear to be built yet, or else they're blocked off by fences and/or barricades. If I'm around at night sometime I'll leave my car and check it out on foot to see what they've built past the fences. The articles are looking good; I think you should start putting the map images into the articles, so that others can enjoy them as well. Oh by the way, the segment south of North Water Street is one-way: McClurg Court south of N Water Street is one-way south, then that "River Dr" is one-way east, and New St. is one-way north up till N. Water Street. That's a relatively new change, I think. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 06:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had a little free time so I tried investigating Field Drive. There is a very short "road" off of SL Randolph, but it is unlabeled and is perhaps the length of a typical suburban house driveway. I would hesitate to call it a "road", and there was a sign calling for pedestrian traffic only. You can see the road above ramping down like a sloping ceiling, cutting the "road" short, but it didn't seem to me that that road was high enough to be Upper Field. I'll have to check it out later, maybe this weekend when I investigate Carroll. The north piece of Field, as it is now, could definitely not connect to upper or middle Wacker. In fact, it appears to run almost or right up to the fence at service level Wacker. Perhaps it will be connected their eventually. I couldn't drive it because it was partially blocked by some type of garbage truck and I was already attracting weird looks. I'd draw it as extending to SL Wacker but not connecting. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Great job on the map. But it lacks a key. For instance, what does the dashed "old Lake Shore Drive" mean? Is it still a road? Also the article text mention multi-level roads on both sides of the river, perhaps a second simpler map covering a larger area is also necessary. Maybe a street map with the multi-level roads all higlighted in the same color. Rmhermen 16:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I have some time on Sunday I'll go exploring. I'll try to check on the north section of Field to see if it does run right up to SL Wacker. Yeah, the same thought about middle Field being that ramp occurred to me, although I didn't notice any ramp when I drove by on middle Randolph. I'll check again—the only way to get there is to come from LSD, and you can't have entered from Illinois/Grand/Wacker, which is a bit annoying. I don't remember a noticeable slope on Randolph there but I will check on Sunday. There is definitely no slope on SL Randolph. The Lakeshore East loop seemed to be at the same level as SL Harbor Drive—in fact, that's what made me realize it was a street there (I could see things like "155 Harbor" painted on the walls. There doesn't (yet) appear to be any connection, though. It's definitely not at the level of upper Harbor, which you can see far above SL Harbor. I don't know what's in between them; there's just a wall of concrete visible from Lakeshore East and I didn't see a way into there from Randolph. I'll double-check this one as well when I check out the northern Field. By the way, do you have any requests for any pictures? I will try to take my camera along and get some photographs to accompany these articles, especially if it's somewhere I can leave my car standing for a minute (unlike the Loop). If you're going to write an article on Lakeshore East, I think I can get a nice photograph of the construction so far from the end of Upper Wacker Drive. Though I don't know if you have the information/time to write about it; I still am amazed at how you find all this info. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, you're totally right—I don't know why it didn't even occur to me to U-turn after crossing under LSD. I don't know what's wrong with me. Yeah, a picture from Lakeshore East facing west would probably show the three levels of Columbus and your Illinois Center buildings behind it. I'll take one of Lakeshore East then too. Maybe on Sunday if the weather's not too bad. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right. So you know how I mentioned that SL Harbor goes a little north and then ends in a T-intersection, with the left side looking like a driveway? Well, it does go next to a building, but because of the sharp slope and the darkness (I had gone at night), I didn't realize that it connects to the eastern road in the Lakeshore East loop! See Image:Connection between Lakeshore East and Harbor Drive, Service Level.jpg. The north segment of Field goes right up to Wacker Drive, service level, although a fence separates them. As far as southern Field, there is definitely no middle level. From middle Randolph I could see both the upper ramp coming down and the service level below. As far as elevations, this is the best I can make out: Field slopes down from Upper Randolph and looks like it reaches mid-level by the time it reaches the Lakeshore East loop. That east-west road then slants down both ways, and the north-south streets slant down a bit more. Hopefully the photographs will make it more clear. Image:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg is from the same place, but facing further southeast to give you an idea of the elevations and the length of Harbor Drive. I took some more pictures of Lakeshore East; see if you like any of them. I am not planning on keeping them all, but I thought they might give you an idea of the development so far. There is Image:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg (from Upper Wacker), Image:Harbor Park (facing east).jpg (from Upper Columbus), and Image:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg (from Upper Columbus). I tried zooming getting some pictures of Wacker from Lakeshore East Image:Lakeshore East (facing northeast, closeup).jpg, but I don't think it looks as good because of all the Lakeshore East dirt/construction in the foreground. Otherwise, it'd be a nice view. I'll see if I can find something better from the north shore of the river. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! You really don't have to put my name on the image itself, though I do appreciate it a lot. But a mention in the accompanying text is more than enough. The updated version looks great, of course. But I have a couple things to point out. Let me try to check on the length of Upper Harbor Drive for you. While it may go that far, I don't think that that length is "driveable" yet. Also, you might consider removing that "stub" off of Lower Wacker at Field, unless you think they're planning something there. I see no visible sign of a future attachment, and given the short length of the (lower) Field, any ramp up would be too steep, I think, unless it curved and merged on the right. Also, unfortunately, if I remember correctly, you can only drive for a block on SL Stetson, just from SL Wacker to SL South Water. I think the rest of it is blocked off or something (and SL Lake and SL Randolph dead-end there), but I'll double check. Finally, I know it's at the periphery—how much detail do you want on LSD? For instance, although in the map it looks like a T-intersection between Lower Wacker and LSD, it's a bit more complicated. For instance, if you are traveling north on LSD and talk the Randolph/Wacker exit off the right side, it travels alongside LSD while LSD splits, then curves left to intersect lower LSD. The right lanes curve to merge into northbound lower LSD, while the left lanes cross lower LSD to become Lower Wacker. Does this matter? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to warn you, I have a very time-consuming hospital rotation for the next two weeks and so I will not be able to explore much—although I'll have more time again after that. I hadn't noticed the left turn lane—is it on Upper Wacker or Middle Wacker? I'll check next time I head out that way. You're probably right; the ramps and connections of Lake Shore Drive would probably be too complex for that map. Regarding Stetson, which level seems to have the stub? I drove on the service levels today; the section of SL Stetson between SL South Water and SL Lake is blocked by fences (and does not appear to be paved), and the section between SL Lake and SL Randolph is blocked by fences/gates and seems to be some type of parking lot now. Note that you can drive on SL Lake right up to in between the two blocked sections, and on SL Randolph right up to the SL Stetson "intersection", although you cannot turn onto it. Also, Upper Harbor seems to currently extend only as far as SL Harbor. That is, that's as far as you can drive—there's a fence blocking the way after that. I can see some road and construction beyond, but can't tell how far it currently goes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I have a zoomed-up version of Image:Aon Center (Chicago).jpg in case you or anyone decides to write about Columbus Drive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll check those two out; hopefully over the weekend, although I'm a bit swamped at the moment. The new top down view looks amazing. I'm goint to print it out once it's "done". I like the ramps on LSD. I think a might have one or two slight modifications, but I won't know until I get a chance to explore. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have two. The first one, Image:Columbus Drive, 3 levels (facing west).jpg is nice because it's close up, has brighter colors, and you can see into the middle level as well as the upramp from the service level. Image:Columbus Drive, 3 levels (facing southwest).jpg has the advantage that the buildings look better and you can see onto Upper Columbus. I think my preference is for the latter, but what do you think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been much help recently—I've been working 12-hour days (tomorrow will be a 16-hour shift). But after next week I'll have a better schedule, I hope. I'm not certain I understand what structure you're referring to. Is there something in front of the upramp? Which level is the structure on (or are you referring to the sidewalk in the foreground)? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found the "turn lane" on Lower Wacker. It is blocked off by concrete barriers and doesn't go anywhere. I had never even noticed it before while driving (although I am normally in the right lane at that point). I think that the stub you mentioned south of Randolph is part of the Millennium Park development. Upper and Middle Randolph are still splitting at Stetson, but Millennium Park is directly to the south of Upper Randolph—see Image:Millenniumpark_map.jpg. By the way, in case you wanted to know, there is a break in the median on Lower Randolph at the "intersection" where Field Drive is, like for making U-turns or for turning left onto the nonexistent "Middle Field". Oh and I think that is the sidewalk on Columbus, but I'll check. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is either. Although it is wide enough for ars to drive on, there is a low concrete barrier between Upper Randolph and the park. It is low enough for a car to drive over, but it is clearly not meant for automotive traffic (aside from park vehicles or something, I suppose). I don't think I would include it in your map, unless you just want to indicate that Millennium Park is there, or something. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't exactly correlate the aerial view with the current state. It may have been part of the Millennium Park construction. There is definitely nothing coming from the lower level now, as at Stetson the two levels are still separating, and the new Lower Randolph levels haven't yet descended fully. I am not sure if there was something there before. I'd be happy to help; what exactly do you need? You want to show all the walkways of Millennium Park? That might take a while for me to explore, as I'd have to park my car somewhere and walk them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you change your mind, I'll be happy to help. That template is a great idea—though unfortunately it looks like they decided to delete it so I probably shouldn't use it now. It's too bad because I like it and I would have voted to keep it. The and  combination they say to use instead is not nearly as good, because if you're a random user who doesn't already know about Commons it doesn't explain why the image might be deleted. I don't like it at all. Maybe I'll probably bring it up again in a few weeks or a month. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's amusing that I get an article-length warning when I edit just this section. Anyway, yeah, 2–1 isn't a very clear vote; I added some comments there. I hope they keep the template; I may want to use it again in the future. Of course if I plan to use an image I'll upload it straight to Commons, but if I have a bunch that I don't think I'll use or maybe just use one or two, I would prefer to upload them to en and just move the ones necessary to Commons later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for fixing my image link. I hope you liked the pictures—I figured they would make a good addition to the articles. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain, but I suspect you are correct. While Lower Wacker does elevate after Michigan, it doesn't seem to rise enough to create room for a new level. It's hard to tell while driving. I'll see if I can wander over there next week and take a better look. And you're right about the images; I have to finish putting them on pages anyway. That's another task I'll add to my to-do list. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's true—I didn't think about that. Although there are some that I don't think would ever be useful, like the ones I took to demonstrate the connection between Harbor Drive and Lakeshore East. I took a few new pictures today, although I don't know how useful they will be. Image:South Water Street (service level).jpg is facing east towards Columbus, and you can see the upramps. Image:Chicago River from Michigan Avenue (closeup).jpg I took because it looked cool and I thought it might add to Wacker Drive, although it already has many pictures (there's also a wider-angle picture—Image:Chicago River from Michigan Avenue.jpg). Oh and you're right; the upramp to Columbus has a sidewalk on the right. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chicago streets (cont.)
(Starting a new section because the old one was getting out of hand) Your idea of a Commons page is good. I like the images I took today but I really don't have a place to put them. I stuck one in Wacker Drive but if you think it's too cluttered, take it out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chicago top down view.png
I've got a whole lot of suggestions for improving this image; they're extensive enough that I'm not going to post them on FPC, for fear of overwhelming the page. I'll watch this page, so please make any reply here. —Korath (Talk) 17:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the comments; I'll respond below. --SPUI (talk) 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The pink background is somewhat odd to my eye. Is there a reason why it was chosen in particular?  (I know literally nothing about Chicago.)  I do understand why you wouldn't want a plain white for Image:Chicago all levels.png, since the streets themselves are white in that image.  I'd prefer, for example, a beige background (say, #ffffec), and certainly something more desaturated.
 * Yeah, it was a fairly arbitrary choice - I'll play with other colors.
 * The crop is too tight; I'd add fifteen or twenty pixels of background color on all four sides.
 * The "Triple-decker streets in Chicago" caption is a bit informal. Unless this is how they're commonly referred to, I'd prefer "Multilevel streets in downtown Chicago", per the image description.
 * I have no idea how they're commonly referred to; it appears most people just shrug and accept their existence. The current caption is more accurate than "Multilevel streets in downtown Chicago", since this is the only area of three-level streets, but not the only multilevel area.
 * Perhaps "Three-level streets" then? "Triple-decker" makes me think of sandwiches.  :) —Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * The side view in the legend could use black edging like on the map itself.
 * Hmmm, that would seem to imply that it's a top-down view. If it was a true side-view of the map, everything would be black. It seems less misleading the way I have it.
 * Aha. You're right; it's more accurate the way you have it. —Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slightly more space between different items would make the legend clearer. (Not between different labels for the side view, or different lines for the address numbers/scale, but between former roads and pedestrian/bike areas and one-way traffic and address numers.)
 * Understood.
 * It's not clear at first glance that the 800/500 scale refers to address numbers. More separation between different items, as above, would help; so would centering the "340N" vertically.
 * An explicit scale relating to visual distance instead of address numbers would be helpful.
 * I tried that but couldn't find enough useful information to make the scale. I'll try a bit more.
 * "Bike" should be spelled out to "bicycle".
 * The purple cross-line you use to represent fences should be placed in the legend, not labelled individually in the map proper.
 * I'll leave it labeled as well since it's easy to miss otherwise.
 * The thanks and public domain notice are metadata, and more properly belong in the image description, or (much) smaller and in the corner. Since you're releasing the map into the public domain anyway, there's nothing to stop someone from removing them entirely; this seems less likely to happen if they're less obtrusive.  The main legend should move lower to compensate.
 * Heh, that was going to be my argument (that someone could remove them if they don't want them).
 * The "no southbound access from Lake Shore Dr to Randolph St" is redundant with the map itself. If it stays, I'd make it smaller (about half its current height), rotate it 45 degrees clockwise, and place it under the northbound arrow on Lake Shore Dr.
 * Good idea - I had originally added that before I showed the Randolph interchange.
 * The underpass (?) notation used along the grey pedestrian area labelled Wacker Dr in the upper right should be used consistently throughout the image or not at all.
 * I added that because otherwise it's not clear what the paths cross at grade, and what they go over or under, since they're not colored.
 * Speaking of which, does "Wacker Dr" really refer to that pedestrian area, or is it the yellow road? If the latter (which I now strongly suspect, due to the Wacker Dr label I only just now noticed in the lower left), it should be placed above the yellow street for consistency, or at least between the two.
 * I think I'll remove that label and move the one west of it closer to compensate.
 * Similarly, is Lakefront Trail grey (which is what it very much looks like) or red (which is what I suspect)? If the red street is also Lake Shore Dr, it could use a second label at the southernmost part, after the middle level stops.
 * Lakefront Trail is the multi-use path at the yellow level. LSD is the double-decker street; I'll consider another label.
 * After looking at this map and taking notes and writing the above for half an hour, I'm only just now realizing that the different levels shown in parallel are actually above each other (instead of offset a bit, as shown) and named the same. This should certainly be made clearer, though I'm not sure how just yet.
 * I'm not really sure either; I was hoping the side view would make that clear.
 * Despite the appearance of the above criticisms, this really is a very good map of what is obviously a very complex and confusing area. It's only my concerns about clarity that keep me from supporting this as a featured picture, and even as it is, I won't oppose it. —Korath (Talk) 17:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'll post here (or on your talk page if you'd prefer) when I upload the new map. --SPUI (talk) 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A notice on its FPC subpage would probably be best, if only as a politeness to those who voted to support the current version. —Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago streets
Thanks for your message on Commons, I just saw it when I went to add some captions for photographs. Good luck in FPC, but it looks like you'll easily get it. It is a beautiful diagram. I'm only going to be in Chicago for the next few months, and only sporadically in downtown at that, so I wanted to check to see if there was anything else I could do for you before I move. Checking on any roads, any photographs, that sort of thing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SPUI/Chicago archive


text:
User talk:SPUI/NYC Subway archive

NY Subway Map
Very nice maps you're putting in the public domain. Thanks!

I'd like to offer a couple of corrections to your new NYC subway map. Since you're showing the lines by original owner, the Liberty Avenue portion of the IND Fulton Street Line in Brooklyn was originally BMT (until 1956). Also, the Rockaway Line could be viewed in several ways. It was the Long Island Rail Road until 1955-1956 (different portions). When the subway took it over, it was operated as part of the IND, but was a separate division ("Rockaway Division"). Is 1956 "recent"? By me it's recent in the sense of being post-Unification. So maybe you would want to make it black or otherwise note this.

The Astoria and Flushing Lines are a little confusing. I know what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure others would realize you're showing joint operaton. Keep up the GREAT work! Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second System map? Kewl! Looking forward to it! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, that's just beautiful. Are you using Illustrator or Photoshop? I especially like that you're keeping the map geographically correct. Of course, I have a couple of nitpicks: the ramp from Euclid to the Liberty Ave. el should be in red also. And you might want to indicate that the IRT-BMT operation on Flatbush Avenue does not share trackage, even though it's in a common structure.

 * That's it! Are you planning to note line names (e.g., you mention "Culver south of Ditmas" but you don't show where Culver is)? Or any key stations? Or maybe you want to save that for a different map, if you're feeling ambitious. :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the most straightforward way of dealing with downtown is an inset. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eighth Avenue Subway
Yes, the northern part is the Washington Heights Line. This is one of those things where you can't depend on Google (too recent) or public maps (simplied for public information).

Actually, it isn't mentioned in the article (I don't think) but the IND particularly was organized around the concept of mainline/branch line, which was reflected in their signage. On the trains, the destination signs reflect both the BRANCH and station, and the route sign shows the letter and mainline. This was kepy pretty much intact (with the exception of Coney Island as an IND destination) until Chrystie Street. Example signage:

WASH HTS.-205 ST.    FULTON-LEFFERTS A | EIGHTH AVE. EXP.

So this meant an A-8th Ave Exp was going from 205th Street station on the Washington Heights LINE (205th is in Inwood, not Washington Heights) to Lefferts Blvd. on the Fulton Street LINE (Lefferts Blvd is not on Fulton Street, it's on Liberty Avenue). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(from Cecropia's talk): ''I have the same question about the Houston Street Line - is it possibly part of the Sixth Avenue Line? The one seems a bit sketchier though.''
 * Yes, there was even special signage for it to distinguish trains using it from those 6th Avenue trains continuing down toward Chambers Street. There were signs: D | 6th Ave Exp and D | 6th Ave. - Houston Exp. Same for F Line.

By the way, it looks like the official name is Concourse Line
 * It's been called both but I won't nitpick on it, since the R1/9 signs said "Concourse - 205 St" -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your Subway Map
Wow! That is a great effort!

I hate to quibble with any of it, but I will anyway ;-) because I get the feeling you want it to be the best it can be. :)

In the Bronx:
 * The Woodlawn Line is now designated as Jerome Line (JER)

In Manhattan:
 * The MTA disambiguates the Broadway Line as BMT Broadway (BWY - BMT) and the IRT Broadway-7th is BW7. Just FYI
 * You might want to label the Chrystie Street Connection (we have an article).

In Queens:
 * Label the 60th Street Tunnel Connection.

In Brooklyn:
 * Can't find anything--just making the note that I found more references to Smith St. Line stations as Culver: Bergen St. and Smith-9th. That just about covers it -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. I'm making a bet with myself as to whether you're going to start labelling key junctions so people can follow the routes on your map. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canarsie LIne - LIRR connection
In what context are you saying that a connection was retained with the old route "now the LIRR Bay Ridge Line." The LIRR was rebuilt by the Brooklyn Grade Crossing Elimination Commission c.1918 and there was no such connection retained. The recently severed connection near the Linden shops is of more recent vintage, c.1970, when the LIRR built a branch near the Canarsie Line to serve new industrial buildings. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * copied from Cecropia Talk: Sorry about that - I had made a logical leap that was apparently false. Can you change that part to what actually happened? By the way, what do you mean by "a branch near the Canarsie Line to serve new industrial buildings"? The LIRR Bay Ridge Branch is from the time of the original Canarsie Line; a railroad ran from Bay Ridge to the Canarsie Line at New Lots, and needed somewhere to go once the line was elevated. The bottom of has the information on that. Do you know why the connection was built c. 1970? --SPUI 09:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch was the New York & Manhattan Beach Rwy, which provided routes from both Bay Ridge and the East River to Manhattan Beach on Coney Island. In the area where it parallels the Canarsie Line, the two lines shared a common r-o-w but separate tracks, on the surface. What Bob Andersen is talking about is that the LIRR wanted a four track line through the area, plus two tracks for the Canarsie--not enough room on the r-o-w for all those tracks. So the Canarsie Line went up (elevated) and the LIRR went down (open cut) with the Canarsie overhanging part of the LIRR on the same r-o-w. The "new" LIRR branch I was referring to is not really a branch, but a long spur from the Bay Ridge Line to industrial buidings built next to E105 Canarsie station. Why the track connection between LIRR and Canarsie was made near Linden I have no idea. Why it was severed I have no idea either, though it might have something to do with FRA crankiness about connections between rapid transit and standard RR. If you don't have it, it's kind of pricey, but Peter Dougherty's "Tracks of the New York Subway" is fabulous. Every track, every switch on the system, nice and big, kept up-to-date. See . -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I just remembered, there is an article on the BGCEC at . Click on the "4" on the map which shows the area where the Canarsie ran next to the LIRR. It doesn't show tracks, but alignments. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Avenue el / Liberty Avenue Line
Hi, SPUI. I think our back-and-forths are maybe more historically interesting than the articles themselves.

The Liberty Avenue el was built as a Dual Contracts facility, continuing the original Kings County elevated Fulton Street el from its ending at City Line to Lefferts Ave. (Blvd.) in Queens as a heavy three-track structure over Liberty Avenue.

The original KC el running east from the Canarsie Line wasn't over Fulton Street, so the BMT sometimes referred to the outer portion (after the extension of course) as the Liberty Avenue Line. However, no trains were ever signed this way and, in fact, when the service from 8th Avenue to Lefferts Ave. was started in 1936, it was called "14th St.-Fulton St." despite the fact that no part of the run was actually over Fulton Street (the street). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lexington Avenue Line
"12 Historic Maps of Brooklyn" (the first set) from H&M Publications has an 1888 map with the station names. That reminds me--I have to correct "Eastern Parkway". The name back then was "Manhattan Beach Crossing" (later Manhattan Junction). It wasn't Eastern Parkway until much later because Eastern Parkway (technically "Eastern Parkway Extension") wasn't there. Also, I think we should have a separate entry bye-and-bye for the Lexington/Broadway L station at Cypress Hills. It's not the same or in the same location as the current station.

I know that maps showing the Park Avenue L (the BRT and BMT always called them "L"s--could I talk you into titling the articles that way?) are online. Try the maps collection at [The Library of Congress], a real gold mine. Search on Brooklyn. I'm not sure if any maps there show the station names, but I have seen those. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We ended up in an edit conflict. I added the stations from memory but then checked the map. There WAS a station at York & Washington BUT NO station at Vanderbilt. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Chrystie BMT Letters
Is this what you were looking for? http://nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/maps/historical/1966_c.gif -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the infoboxes on the R article, but I find the "prior uses" narrative difficult to follow, not surprising since it took the TA time to figure out what it was doing. I'm going to see if I can't make it more sensible. If you don't like it, just revert or try to figure out something else.

BTW, someone has a pretty decent rundown on letter history on the web. If I can recall who/where/what, I'll post it here. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, here's one from my bookmarks: http://members.aol.com/bdmnqr2/linehistory.html I've never looked over this one exhaustively, but you can do some "data mining" to see if you can get more gold nuggets than iron pyrite. Where there are explicit dates, it seems pretty good. I don't go along with the anachronism of talking about the Q (for example) in 1920, but he does note in some cases when letters were first used on individual cases. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: J and K. First you need to understand that letters were introduced on the BMT before they really had use for them. The letters were intended for Chrystie Street integration, but were introduced beginning in 1960 with the R27 equipment. So each letter represented one-for-one a BMT service number, as I showed by adding BMT numbers to the chart. Still, the letters were strictly equipment-driven. If you had an R27 or R32 or R38, you had letters. If you had a D-type or R-16, you had numbers. There were only R-16s on the BMT Eastern Division, so you only had numbers, J-K-L-M weren't used until after Chrystie. On the Brighton Line you had the "1" express and the "QB" and "QT" local, except when the Saturday express (which used R27s) still ran, you had the "Q" express on Saturday only. Get the concept?

OK, now the J and K. The J was the 15 service, the Jamaica Line from Broad Street to 168th Street. The 'K was the 14 service, the Broadway-Brooklyn Local, which before 1928 was called the Canarsie Line, running the traditional route from Canal St. on the Centre Street Line (as it was then called) via Bway-Bklyn to Canarsie, and before that, to Broadway Ferry. After 1928, the 14 became a secondary service, providing a local service on the Bway-Bklyn Line to the 15 express and had as many as five eastern origins/destinations: 168th Street in the a.m. as a skip-stop (like the Z, but local on Bway-Bklyn); 111th St on Jamaica Avenue (replacing some of the lost intervals from the Lex); Crescent Street; Atlantic Avenue on the Canarsie Line, and Canarsie. Oh, yes, sometimes there was a short-line to Eastern Parkway.

Actually, the 14 / K was more of a distinct service from the 15 / J than the Z is now from the J. -- 06:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Defunct" services
I think there is a problem in referring to "defunct services" in the infobox. It is not the services that are necessarily refunct (except for the JFK express) it is the designations. We have 8 H K & T as defunct, but there were three "8"s, two "H"s, three "K"s, representing different services. The "8" that was the Astoria Line is covered, but the "8" that was the Third Avenue el in the Bronx is very defunct. The second "H" still runs, but is signed "S", the first and seond K's are history, but the third is simply the "C" now, and before that was the "AA". The "T" recently ran in its original incarnation, was was styled the "W".

The transitory nature (no pun intended) of letter and number designations does not lend itself well to infobox summary. Now if we could have some way of summarizing the really defunct (JFK Express, Lexington Avenue el, etc. etc.) that would be great. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You wrote: Maybe 'unused designations', though that would imply that never-used letters should be in there too. Maybe they should, and all redirect to a page that explains why those were never used.
 * I agree with that idea. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those Pesky IRT Brooklyn Lines
I think "Clark Street Line" is OK for Clark Street, but I think we should use "IRT Brooklyn Line" for Borough Hall, Hoyt, Nevins and Atlantic. This was the original Contract 2 subway, while the stations beyond Atlantic are the Eastern Parkway Line, a Dual Contracts Contract 3 subway.

BTW, noticing your change on the nomenclature page to "Brighton Beach Line" have you decided to call it that instead of "Brighton Line" which (1) is colloquial--the line was known as the Brighton Beach Line since it opened in 1878, and (2) there is a matter of disambiguation--I'm waiting for someone from "across the pond" to complain that the Brighton Line is the line from London to Brighton--which predates the Brighton Beach Line and is even in literature (Wilde's The Importance of Being Ernest") to be specific. -- Cecropia | explains it all'' ® 08:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BMT Map
Another great map! As usual, a few quibbles:

 * 1) The BMT used to distinguish between above-ground and below-ground on its maps, and I think we should do the same. The difference is that the two open-cut lines (Brighton & Franklin from south of Park Place to Avenue H and Sea Beach from 59th St. to 86th St.) should be with the subway lines, not the el lines. Or, we could show the open-cut lines in a different color.
 * 2) The map is undated, but shows the service at about 1939 (the Fulton Ferry and Broadway Ferry lines are there, but without service). In connection with that, I don't think we should show the later connections, but if we do, we should indicate that they weren't contemporary, and give a year of opening.
 * 3) The black line curving east north of 57th Street in Manhattan should curve west. This was meant to go to 8th Avenue and that's how it was built. It's only with the 63rd Street Line that it now curves east (1970s).
 * 4) 12 service continued out the Jamaica Line as far as 111th Street
 * 5) There is no explanation of the dashed lines, but they mean different things. The Park Avenue and Hudson Avenue els were long gone by 1939, but the Broadway and Fulton Ferry lines were still there and usable, but without passenger service. The 39th Street Ferry branch came off the Culver Cut, not the 3rd Avenue Line, as implied by the map, and it still exists, but without passenger service. If you show that, you should also show the Sea Beach to 65th St. dock, which had passenger service later than 39th St., and was still there after Unification. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BMT Map Follow-up

 * My point on Item #3 is that the stub above 57th Street existed in BMT days, but it curved left.
 * Re: #12 service, it is mentioned on the link you sent me. It isn't a matter of the Lex being extended, but of being cut back. It was the original service to 168 St, then traded with the Broadway L when the latter got enough steel cars to run the service. So different trains of the Lex ended at Eastern Parkway or Crescent or 111th. When the Lex was discontinued, #14 trains covered runs to Crescent and 111, in addition to going to Canarsie.
 * The branch to 39th Street Ferry still exists as the SBK railway, and still comes from the same location. It branches off the West End Line just before the West End curves into the Fourth Avenue Line, then continues on the surface to the shore at 39th Street.
 * OK, the dashed lines as of 1924:
 * the dashed line to Canarsie Shore was a trolley route on the Canarsie r-o-w;
 * the Broadway Ferry still existed without passenger service; of course the Park and Hudson Lines were gone;
 * The Fulton Ferry branch of the Fulton Street Elevated was still in regular operation;
 * The 39th Ferry route existed (and exists) -- no passenger service
 * You should also consider adding the Norton's Point Line. It was analogous to the Canarsie Shore line--a former elevated service (extension of the Culver Line) that was converted to trolley operation and ran that way until after World War II. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Eastern Parkway was the base service. Rush hours it went to 111th St., as indicated in the descriptions. I will look up the 57th Street stub tunnel for you. This same tunnel is now connected to 63rd Street. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: 57th Street stub, the center tracks (A3-A4) rose on a +3.5 grade to clear the G tracks, then leveled off. At point of leveling turning toward 8th Avenue on a 500' radius curve. Distance: apparently about a train length from the fouling point with the G (60th Street tunnel) line. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You asked: Sorry, I'm not familiar with train lengths - any idea what's above ground where it ended, or how far it went? Is the 'fouling point' where the crossover tracks leave? Any idea what the radius is on the inbound track on the G line? --SPUI 04:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know the surface location. "Fouling point" is the first location where, if a train stopped it would interfere with the operations of a train on another track. A "train length" in that location and time would be about 550 feet. I will get you the radius on the inbound G track (by inbound I assume you mean "to Manhattan"?) I'll try to draw you a picture (literally) but won't be able to tonight. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Narrative of 57th St BMT North
I'm going to give you chaining numbers to describe locations. 1+76 = 176 feet compass south of chaining zero. -(1+76) = 176 feet north of chaining zero. The configuation was as follows, going from south to north: four tracks (west to east) A1-A3-A4-A2 left 57th Street station going north. Crossovers allow A3 and A4 to merge with A1 and A2 respectively and these tracks become G1 and G2 to Queens. A3 and A4 continue north after these switches and then there is a double crossover between them. They continue for a distance straight and rising, then begin a curve to the left.

The A3-A4 curve is 500 foot radius west on the centerline of the two tracks.

The G1-G2 curve is 270 foot radius east on the centerline of those two tracks.

The drawing I have is inconclusive as to where the bumper blocks are. The last marker is at -(1+56) (unless I'm misreading the number--it's a faded blue and may be -(4+56), which would make more sense). The spur was home-signal protected on each track and was used for a storage pocket. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It definitely wasn't 36th: I'm reasonably sure it was 37th, but I'll get back to you on that

 * "About whether it's 1+56 or 4+56: if it's a top-down view, 4+56 would be over 45 degrees. --SPUI 09:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)"
 * I'm not sure what that implies. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean it represents something more than an 1/8 of a circle, or is it an unreasonable number? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The diagram is an official blueprint (NYRT Corp.), 1"=100', top-down. The curve as drawn is not nearly 45 degrees, so maybe 1+56 is more likely. But the problem with that is that would be a very short holding track, no better than a tail track. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The dot south of 59th. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BMT Map (Again)
Hi, SPUI. You seem to get even less sleep than I do.

I started a new page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Subway/Historical_Discussion for our back and forth as I find dividing it between your talk and my talk a bit cumbersome. Tell me if this doesn't work for you, and maybe you want to suggest something else. I posted some comments onyour latest there. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IND Numbers
Did you mean IRT numbers? Yes and no. The numbers were assigned while the IRT was still a private company, but I've never seen an indication that they were used in any way--i.e., internal paperwork as referring to a "1 train," etc. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can find as to when. The PSC had to approve number schemes (why, I don't know), so there must be a record. I don't know why the IRT even bothered since they used them nowhere, AFAIK. The Manhattan Elevated lines never had numbers at all. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brooklyn Loops
You wrote: ''Do you think there will be enough for separate articles on the two loops and the system as a whole, or should I move Nassau Street Loop to Brooklyn Loops? The Nassau Street Loop article already talks about the Centre Street Loop. --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)''

 * Hmmm. I'm not sure. I don't think I would move Nassau Street Loop to Brooklyn Loops because it's a relatively estoric subject while Nassau Loop was a real operating service. But maybe we could have a Brooklyn Loops article which could be started from current materail to explain the concept and a new article on the Centre Street Loop. So a qualified yes. What do you think?

 * P.S.: I've made a start on the New York City Subway chaining article, but there'll be a lot more to do. I wonder if we may need a separate article on each division, since there are letters and chaining lines and tie-points to be described. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Court Street Shuttle and...
It is not actually wrong but constructively wrong to call the line the Court St. IND Line is on the "Schermerhorn Street Shuttle." Yes, it runs under that street but that is an apparent anomoly, since it is actually on the Fulton Street Line: the roll signs for the destination said "Fulton-Court St."

The major point is that this is the first time I have ever seen this called the Schermerhorn Street Shuttle. Everyone and everyplace I've ever heard it mentioned it is the Court Street Shuttle (including the transit museum web site).

New York City Subway line, route and station nomenclature
I don't understand the material you added (bolded) to this paragraph:
 * In the U.S., most railroads have only two railroad directions. All New York City subway lines are deemed to run either "north" or "south". In railroad parlance, this would be described as railroad north and railroad south to distinguish from compass directions. In most cases, this is close to the related compass direction, but this is not always possible to follow. No track connections exist to allow a train to reverse direction without running around a loop or literally reversing direction by backing up.
 * Of course a train can't reverse direction without a loop unles it "backs up." But double-ended trains are never said to "back up" unless they take an improper switch and make a rulebook move. So I don't understand what you are trying to say and how it relates to railroad directions. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Railroad North <-> South
You wrote: ''What I was trying to say is that there are no direct connections that allow a train to go from railroad north on one line to railroad south on another line. For instance, with the planned junction of the Second Avenue Line and the 63rd Street Line, ramps in only two of the four quadrants - the two that conform to this - are being built. This philosophy may explain the lack of connections between the Sixth Avenue and Queens Boulevard Lines at Seventh Avenue, and between the Crosstown and Fulton Street Lines at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets. --SPUI (talk) 22:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)''
 * Ah, OK, though I think it would have to worded it a little differently. But actually, that's not correct. J and M Lines switch from railroad north to railroad south when they pass through Chambers Street every day. J2->R1 R2->J1. In a sense the M line has two "south" terminals. In the past at least three different services changed railroad direction passing through Coney Island Terminal.
 * That's an interesting theory on the Seventh Avenue & Hoyt-Schermerhorn stations, but I would think the Second Avenue Line-63rd Street Line situation would be because Queens to Uptown and 6th or Broadway Lines to 2nd Avenue downtown would be expensive construction for no really useful service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you've made an interesting observation (lack of RRN-RRS switches at places where a direction switch was possible. I might also add you could add the Crosstown Line-53rd Street connection. The City made it physically impossible for GG to provide a Manhattan service. What I think would be most accurate to say is that the IND was built without any provision to go directly from RRN to RRS. The IRT has South Ferry where you can go from Broadway-7th South to Lex North, and South Ferry on the els, ditto 2-3 to 6-9 and vv. And 129th between the 2nd and 3rd els. Manhattan Jct. on the BRT. And currently, at Hammels Wye. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blue Rockaway Park Shuttle
Well no, I wouldn't assume it's wrong. They've been playing around with shuttle designations and with the Rockaway services as long as I can remember (which is a long time). They have the blue on the Rockaway Park schedule PDF as well but on "The Map".

Logic says that someone in schedules decided the Rockaway Park S should show blue because it's really an extension of A service but the folks in maps never got wind of it. Or vice versa. When it comes to information systems and consistency the MTA is a world better than they were 20 years ago and a universe better than 40 years ago, but really, sometimes they just make it up as they go along. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the trains are showing a gray S I'd say that's good enough. But stay tuned--that's why I'm glad this is a Wiki. When they first colored lines every shuttle was a different color (and there were more of them then). Then they made them all green. Then they made them all gray. I would bet you it was so they wouldn't have to bother having different colored "S"s on the roll signs. :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Culver Lines
I had thought of the "other" Culver Line article as being simply BMT Culver Line but, thinking about it, it doesn't seem really appropriaate. The full sweep of the Culver Line is very broad, covering multiple owners and corporate mixtures and even survivals. I forgot to mention, for example, that the South Brooklyn Railway (never a part of the Board of Transportation or the New York City Transit Authority for legal reasons) had and continued freight operations on the surface Culver Line until the 1970s.

So I thought a Culver Line article as a combination overview and extended disambiguation was appropriate with the BMT Culver Line specifically covering the BMT elevated and subway operations and the IND Culver Line dealing with the current line and background.

BTW, while I have your eyes, I wanted to suggest (sorry) a further and hopefully some final changes in article naming. 6 (New York City Subway) et al would better be 6 (New York City Subway service). The former doesn't really say what it is, while the latter, by the addition of one word, does). Also, I don't know if we'll ever have articles on individual chaining letters, but still, remember that in addition to the B (New York City Subway) service, there are three B New York City Subway chaining lines.

If you can't get to any of the various redirects created by Culver and other things, I will as soon as I can. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it to BMT Culver Line. No big thing. We should have reference to it in the IND article, though. I'll start the the "service" addition when I come back to it. Is it OK if we change the dab articles for subway stations to read (for example) Church Avenue (New York City Subway stations) to conform with the style for the other articles instead of Church Avenue (New York City Subway). I'll do it--I'm not trying to think up work for you ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorting and defunct
Sorting: When I made it just Culver on the BMT cat, it sorted under IND Culver. By adding "_BMT" it sorted correctly alphabetically. This is a pretty self-limiting category.

As to Category:Defunct New York City Subway lines, what would be in it? It really strains the generic meaning of "subway" if it includes such as the Lexington Avenue L and the Manhattan elevateds. Even in the post-World War II era, they were not referred to as "subway" lines. How about Category:Defunct New York City rapid transit lines or Category:Defunct New York City subway and elevated lines? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * SPUI wrote: "if they had survived to this day, they would be part of the New York City Subway."

 * No, I can't agree. It's rather like saying that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd be a Republican (or Democrat). We just don't know that. The political parties are not now what they were in 1800. If the elevated systems were still around, it would be a much different system, we can't be certain by any means that they would be considered the "New York Subway." They were treated as a separate entity on both IRT and BMT when they existed. In fact, after Unification, despite the fact that a number of els were axed, the system was referred to as the "New York City Transit System." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * ? As a compromise it's alright, but I think "Defunct New York City subway and elevated lines" is more descriptive.

 * BTW, FYI, it is worth noting that there is a difference in New York City between an elevated line and an elevated subway line. Those lines that were built as extensions of the subways, like parts of the upper IRT Broadway Line, and all Dual Contract elevateds still extant, are, oxymoronically, elevated subways. The original elevated lines were simply elevated lines, and were designated that way on maps. Where they shared trackage (Flushing/Astoria, parts of White Plains Road and Jerome Avenue Lines, Culver, just to name some) they were shown that way. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * SPUI wrote: "I don't see the need for the word 'subway'."
 * I guess that depends on how you understand the term 'subway.' The BMT Culver Line, at the time it was discontinued was considered a subway line, though not a subway structure. Most of the discontinued lines were never considered subways. What category wording do you propose? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. And yes, the BMT had a massive streetcar system. And a bus division. And NYCTA bus transfers in Brooklyn said "BMT Bus Division" until the early '60s. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Interesting...
Yeah, and the 42nd St. Shuttle is "0" (zero), giving it a quasi-IRT number, and IIRC when you had the orange "B" and the yellow "B", the yellow one was "t" for the long defunct T West End service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BMT Eastern Division Letter Confusion
It certainly is confusing, isn't it?

We have to start at the top by making three points: (1) the lettering scheme for the BMT was figured out for 1960 service; (2) the TA had no solid plan for what services would go where once Chrystie Street opened; and (3) once Chrystie was ready for opening, they found (3a) some of their original routing plans were not a very good idea and (3b) there was resistance to a lot of their planned routes.

1960

 * 14 to become KK Broadway Brooklyn Local with all its permutations
 * 15 to become J Jamaica Express and JJ Jamaica Local (really same service, J rush hours, JJ other times)

Between 1960 and 1967 Chrystie Street opening
The 15 service didn't change much, but the 14 changed a lot. Until 1959 the 14 service was still the Broadway Short Line-Canarsie Local, with these eastern (railroad southern) destinations:
 * Canarsie (still the primary)
 * Eastern Parkway or Atlantic Avenue (short-lined at rush hour shoulders)
 * some peak-of-rush trains to/from Crescent Street or 111th Street on the Jamaica Line to provide some of the extra rush service that was lost when the Lex L was cut in 1950.

Then in 1959, the TA tried the latest in its endless schemes to lure some traffic from the Queens Boulevard Line and most of the morning only 14 trains originated at 168th Street for skip-stop service with the 15. They were still the 14 and 15 in the a.m. and signed that way, but also carried letters on their pantographs [A] and [B] to designate where they'd stop. 15 was "A", 14 was "B". These two services today are the J ("A") and Z ("B").

Between 1960 and the Chrystie Street opening, the TA progressively truncated 14 pm service. Trains went only as far as Crescent on the Jamaica Line, and fewer trains went to Canarsie. Eventually the Canarsie-bound trains went only to Atlantic Avenue, and then to Eastern Parkway.

After Chrystie Street
SO is the Z the successor to 14? No, not really (unless you really want it ;-)). As I said, the TA intended 14 to be KK to Nassau Street. Originally, the TA wanted to run the J uptown, in order to compete head-to-head with the E and F, but they faced a revolt among 15 riders, who wanted their train to continue to go to Nassau Street. So the TA punted and, when the connector between Willy B and 6th Avenue opened, the K, the Broadway-Brooklyn Local went up 6th Avenue,,

The J, JJ, QJ, RJ
These were all the 15 service in different combinations. Initially there was no J service. This was replaced by the QJ. A few of the QJs ran to 95th Street (local) as a sickly replacement for the 4th Avenue Bankers Specials, designated RJ. When the QJ/RJ didn't run compass south of Broad Street, it was the JJ. KK service still ran as the truncatd Broadway-Brooklyn Local to provide a local service for the QJs and RJs.

When the TA discovered that running a long line from Jamaica to Coney Island and Bay Ridge was a really crappy idea, the QJ and RJ became the J and JJ again. The RJ became a branch of the RR to Chambers Street only.

If this needs further sorting out, let me know. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amendment to the confusing above
OK, I have one correction, and see where the JJ confusion lies.

You are right, the JJ initially replaced the 14, but only for seven months, from 11/26/67 to 6/30/68. The JJ covered the Canarsie route and other 14 services, while the QJ and RJ covered the 15 services. But when the QJ didn't run, the former JJ covered the 15 service. The reason for this is that the TA wanted to reserve the KK to mean the 6th Avenue service.

On 7/1/68, the rush hour JJ to Nassau Street became the KK (14 service) to 6th Avenue. The off-hours QJ remained JJ. The RJ was simply discontinued at that time and the RR branch to Chambers revived. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Chrystie Colors
Pre-Chrystie didn't use colors; the Eastern Division didn't even use letters. Color use came in with Chrystie and they did a lot of retro-fitting, including putting decals on top of existing rollsigns.

AFAIK, strictly pre-Chrystie services weren't assigned colors; for certain they weren't used if they were assigned. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently, the R12s did carry "8" on their roll signs during the year they operared on the Astoria Line. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
Wow! I killed two birds with one stone with the diamond = stroke service info. :) But thank YOU for your recent work on the nomenclature article. That's a monumental effort! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latest NYC subway map
Very nice work, SPUI. My only quibbles are that I find the division-by-division schematics kind of hard to follow; also the size of the hi-res version made my Firefox choke. Opened OK in IE6 though.

A few things I like are that it's attractive; the 1-5 coding of service times works out, I think; that it's public domain. The MTA has gotten really antsy about their "intellectual property" lately. Do you think you might "ice the cake" by adding line names? It would make it an almost universal reference.

As a sidenote, I assume that, when you say there are only two interdivisional track connections you mean only two locations where current services start on one division and end on another. I can think of a bunch more, a couple of which could be used in service, others for car transfer only: Cheers! Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Coney Island BMT-IND
 * WB to Houston St. Line BMT-IND
 * Queensboro Plaza BMT-IRT
 * Livonia Yard BMT-IRT
 * 207th Yard IND-IRT
 * Coney Island Yard BMT-IND

Re: Bus Connections on Subway Lines
What I was trying to do was to give general information on the bus routes that serve the stations. Normally there are not any changes in bus routes that serves the stations. However, if needed you can update the information.Jbc2k052 20:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BMT numbers on side roll signs
Only on R1-9s and R16s when used on the BMT between 1948 and 1967. When R1s ran on the Sea Beach in 1931, they carried BMT numbers on the front (no IND-style line name) and no number on the side. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This is strange - the KK used NASSAU ST even after Chrystie opened
 * No, they just didn't get around to changing the curtain. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BMT front numbers
I uploaded route numbers originally from a BMT D-type front roll sign:

Use them as you see fit. Hint: these are the only numbers that were ever in regular use on Southern Division lines, except IND style was used for a while on R1s on the 2 service and on R11s on the 7 service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chambers-HT
What's the strange part? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose they wanted to have the lines in their permanent (but truncated) operation routing ASAP. Also, they avoided having to switch the A at Canal Street interlocking, the same one recently bar-b-qued. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subchat
I suppose you've heard of Subchat? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMT Eastern Division Directions
No, I haven't heard that it all. That would cause the Eastern Division lines to be an anomaly on the BMT and IND, in which the odd tracks went north and the even south. Logically that would either require a change of direction when transferring between the Jamaica and Canarsie Lines. The entire Canarsie Line was jusr rechained and they kept the track numbering.

I think I would want some hard copy examples. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMT Franklin Avenue ????
I really don't know, not that I haven't looked. Since the line was completely rehabbed just six years ago, there are no current contracts to look at, AFAIK. The best reference would be the contracts for the rehab, which would say definitively, but I don't have those, nor have I found them on the web.

It's quite possible the line might still be "Brighton-Franklin" or even "Brighton Line (Franklin Avenue branch)." The only shuttle on the system that actually was and still is configured as a shuttle and only a shuttle is the 42nd Street Shuttle, on which you couldn't run through service, even as a G.O. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Franklin map
I like your new map a lot, but I do have two small problems with it. One is that there is no little dogleg between former Dean Street and current Franklin Avenue. The current single track is where the westbound track was in elevated days, and the station platform is over what was the pre-1999 shuttle stub.

The second point is that I think we should show the connecting tracks in Prospect Park station. The O1 track is occasionally used for revenue moves and the current track gives the impression that the shuttle is a closed system. Maybe show the non-revenue tracks in a different color? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franklin track configurations
Pre-reconstruction the O2 westbound track did merge into the O1 eastbound track just compass north of Dean Street and using that track in Franklin Avenue station. Both original concrete platforms were retained in Franklin Avenue and the O2 track was covered with a new wooden platform, making a broad platform on the eastern side. This use of wood to enlarge or extend existing concrete platforms was pretty common BMT practice, very noticable on the Brighton especially.

So you had one track and two platforms. Normal operation was for the doors of an incoming Franklin train (shuttle or through train) to enter the platform, discharge all passengers or the broad eastern side, close the doors, then open them on the narrow western side for incoming passengers. You could not stay on the train or pass from one side to the other. If you wanted to go back to Prospect Park, you had to get a transfer to the IND, go downstairs and get on the IND, walk out of sight of the change agent, then stroll back out of the IND, get a transfer to the BMT, then get on to resume your Franklin ride.

This arrangement could be reversed, with the broad platform boarding and the narrow department, for example on summer weekend AM periods, but that probably ended by 1955, as I never saw it done in person.

Post-construction, it was the O2 track that was retained, all the way into Franklin. However, between Park Place and Atlantic Avenue, the new O2 track is slightly offset on the reinforced embankment structure toward the center, possibly to better balance the load on the structure. The offset toward the center is enough so that, if they wanted to restore the double track, they would probably have to reclose the line long enough to lift the current track. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The new platform is not nearly as wide as the original wide one. See this picture of the old platforms when they were intact: . And see these pictures at forgotten-ny.com (scroll down about 1/3 page): .The old Franklin shuttle track went almost up to Fulton Street. The bumper block new one is about 75-100 feet short of Fulton Street and the trains stop further back than that. The TA is a lot more antsy about overunning a terminal track than not so long ago. All the platforms on the line (except Prospect Park) are something either side of 200' long, not even as long as the old 250'-300' feet of the elevated car platforms. I don't believe any platform extends over or under the next street from where the control houses are. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, you latest map is much nicer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brooklyn City Railroad
In my slow quest to eliminate those annoying red links, I created an article on the BCRR, which was a surface rail operator. Maybe you'll look it over and see what other categories it might fit into to try to bind it to the subway stuff. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culver Line
The point could be argued both ways, but I have no objection to your proposal. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The TA seemed much more intent in identifying the line as IND in the '50s then now for whatever reason. It is currenly under dispatch by the BMT, etc. I think nycsubway.org also lists its stations as "BMT Culver Line." -- Cecropia | explains it all ®`

MTA Restructuring
This is by no means a done deal. It requires legislation and the MTA is asking for $1.67 BILLION to implement it. We shall see... -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"From" date on NYC Subway infobox
Since we fold the entir system into the "subway" rubric, 1904 is not really the right date. I think we need the earliest date of a currently operating line (West End--1863). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, West End is the earliest of the current system, predating Canarsie and even the Beach subway and 9th Avenue el. Yes, SIRy is older. I don't know what to do if they actually create the MTA Subways thing., since SIRT stands so separate, historically and physically, from the rest of the system. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

West End Line
SPUI, do you have any other source for "Brooklyn, Bath and Coney Island RailWAY" than Earl Pleasant's site. I have seen no other source that ever had the BB&CI as Railway, rather than railroad or rail road.

He is also wrong in saying the Brighton Line was the BF&CI RAILROAD. That is a common error. The BF&CI was RAILWAY. There was an earlier BF&CI RAILROAD, but it was a compoletely different company. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number 9
No, I haven't suddenly becomes a Beatles fan. The is now officially toast, the last of the skip-stop running Friday night. I don't know how/if you want to deal with it. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Subway lat/long
Do you know where I can get a list of all the subway stations with their latitude and longitude? – flamurai (t) June 30, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

I gather this is a better place to ask questions, make comments or otherwise kvetch. Anyway. I saw your response to my comment at the Manhattan Bridge article, and will revise my 4th Av Line article accordingly. I'll be cribbing your MTA pdf-format source. My own talk page should be active now. --FourthAve 00:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

NYC Subway sidebar
When are you going to put that sidebar on my article about the 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal subway station?Ianthegecko 04:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got good news!
Click Here!

Wha' duh' eff
You have done some magic. All those stations that I so laboriously coded, you produced. And I thought they were merely ignored/unwritten.

Talk to me spui.--FourthAve 09:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Great Subway Map Crackdown
See my recent comment at Talk:New York City Subway. Thanks.--Pharos 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm researching the easiest way to run some errands and attend Petrocollapse in New York tomorrow, and your proved invaluable. Thanks for creating it. Ground 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:SPUI/NYC Subway archive


text:
Qazi

 * Qazı, a sausage-like food usually made from horse meat eaten by Turkic or Central Asian ethnic groups
 * Qadi, magistrate or judge of a shariʿa court
 * Qazi, Iran (disambiguation)

title: Qazi


text:
User talk:Califcurt

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Sam Spade 18:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Califcurt


text: Talk:Forevertron

title: Talk:Forevertron


text: Category:House of Bourbon

title: Category:House of Bourbon


text:
Mercedes-Benz M271 engine

The Mercedes-Benz M271 engine is a straight-4 automobile piston engine family used in the 2000s (decade).

All M271 engines are built in Untertürkheim, Germany. The family has a cast aluminium engine block and aluminium DOHC cylinder heads with 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing and a coil-on-plug ignition system.

KE18 ML (271.9XX)
The KE18 ML is a 1796 cc version. Bore and stroke is 82x85 mm. Output ranges from 122 PS at 5200 rpm to 194 PS at 5800 rpm.

It uses sequential fuel injection, is supercharged and intercooled, and features fracture-split forged steel connecting rods. A version running on natural gas was introduced in the German market in 2002.

Applications:
 * 2002 CLK 200 Kompressor (W209)
 * 2002 C 180 Kompressor, C 200 Kompressor, C 230 Kompressor (W203)
 * 2002 C 180 Kompressor SportCoupé, C 200 Kompressor SportCoupé (CL203)
 * 2004–2006 C 160 SportCoupé (CL203)
 * 2002 E 200 Kompressor (W211)
 * 2004 E 200 NGT (bi-fuel - gasoline + natural gas) (W211)
 * 2004 SLK 200 Kompressor (R171)
 * 2007 C 180 Kompressor, C 200 Kompressor (W204)
 * 2008 CLC 180 Kompressor, CLC 200 Kompressor (CL203)

DE18 ML (271.942)
This engine had the same dimensions as E18 ML and almost the same features including a supercharger, but used CGI (Stratified Charged Gasoline Injection) gasoline direct injection. It has been produced since 2003 in only one version, with an output of 170 PS at 5300 rpm. The production ceased in 2005.

Applications:
 * 2003 C 200 CGI SportCoupé (CL203)
 * 2003 C 200 CGI (W203)
 * 2003 CLK 200 CGI (C209)

KE16 ML (271.910)
The KE16 ML is a 1597 cc version introduced in 2008. Bore and stroke is 82x75.6 mm. It shares the same features with the KE18ML version, like supercharger and multi-point fuel injection. Output ranges from 129 PS at 5000 rpm to 156 PS at 5200 rpm.

Applications:
 * 2008 CLC 160 BlueEFFICIENCY (CL203)
 * 2008 C 180 Kompressor (W204)

DE18 LA (M271Evo, 271.8XX)
This is the last version of M271 engine family. Dimensions are the same as E18 ML and DE18 ML, but the supercharger has been replaced with a turbocharger; like the DE18 ML it uses the CGI (Stratified Charged Gasoline Injection) gasoline direct injection. Output ranges from 156 PS at 5200 rpm to 204 PS at 5500 rpm.

Applications:
 * 2009–2013 C 180 CGI, C 200 CGI, C 250 CGI (W204)
 * 2009–2013 E 200 CGI, E 250 CGI (W212)
 * 2010–2013 E 200 CGI (C207)
 * 2009–2013 E 250 CGI (C207)
 * 2011–2015 SLK 200, SLK 250 (R172)

Other uses
The engine in 2.0-litre naturally aspirated form is used by German automotive company HWA Team as the basis for a Mercedes-Benz motor racing engine and has been the engine used widely in Formula 3 motor racing powering championship winning drivers across Europe and further afield.

title: Mercedes-Benz M271 engine


text: User talk:68.197.107.71

title: User talk:68.197.107.71


text:
Family traditions

Family tradition, also called family culture, is defined as an aggregate of attitudes, ideas and ideals, and environment, which a person inherits from their parents and ancestors.

Modern studies of family traditions
The study of family tradition and personality has attracted the attention of social scientists. Ernest W. Burgess, Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, has defined the term in these words:

"Whatever its biological inheritance from its parents and other ancestors, the child receives also from them a heritage of attitudes, sentiments, and ideals which may be termed the family tradition, or the family culture."

Sometimes, family traditions are associated with practices and beliefs which are handed over from one generation to the next, and during this process of transmission they acquire an aura of spirituality. Transmission of any set of such family traditions, acquiring spiritual significance, is largely an intuitive phenomenon, and the flow of family traditions continue without any intention, and the same continue to move on from one generation to another. Family traditions for most families remain largely confined to family members, but sometimes, outsiders may also be associated with a particular family's family traditions.

Functioning of family traditions
Halbwachs in his book "On Collective Meare revealed only to its members. But these memories, as in the religious traditions of the family of antiquity, consist not only of a series of individual images of the past. They are at the same time models, examples, and elements of teaching. They express the general attitude of the group; they not only reproduce its history but also define its nature and its qualities and weaknesses".

Maintaining family traditions, such as preparing particular foods for holidays, is a form of emotional labor called kinkeeping.

Antiquity of family traditions
Family traditions have their roots in distant past, to pre-historic times, when the concept and system of family as a unit of society was crystallized. In all ages and in all civilizations, since the ancient time to the present day, families have taken pride in their traditions. Before nuclear family systems became the order of the day, there used to be joint family system, consisting of all the family members of two or even three generations, living together.

Then, as also now, several families like to identify a particular person as the keeper of the family traditions and assign a particular name to the keeper. Thus, a particular family, residing in the modern United Kingdom may assign a catchy name like "Keeper of the Flame" to the identified family member, entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring observance of that particular family’s family traditions. On the other side of the globe, in a country like India, the society has assigned a common nomenclature for the head of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), a form of joint family. Head of such a family is called "Karta" (literal meaning ‘One who does’), and for all practical purposes, "Karta" was entrusted with responsibilities, among other things, to ensure observance of family traditions. Even, modern India's legal system recognizes the concept of "Karta" as the head of a Hindu joint family.

Classic examples of family traditions
One of the classic examples of family traditions of the modern era is the family traditions of the present royal family of Great Britain. One of such family traditions enjoin upon male members of the present British royal family to serve in the armed forces. A BBC report has announced on 12 June 2003 that "Prince Harry’s decision to join the Army means he will follow a long family tradition of serving the military." Before him, his uncle, Prince Andrew, had joined the Navy in 1979. Prince Harry’s other uncle, Prince Edward had joined the Royal Marines as a second lieutenant in 1983. Prince Harry’s father, the Prince of Wales, was appointed in 1969 as colonel-in-chief of the Royal Regiment of Wales. Harry’s grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh, had joined the Navy in 1939, and had also served in the World War II.

Many families have traditions around celebrating holidays, such as with particular foods or activities.

Family traditions in the modern context
Meaningful family traditions have always been a valuable tool for parents and elders to carry out the responsibility of raising children and inculcating into them social values and ethos. Family traditions ensure that the warmth and closeness of family bondage grow. In the modern context, maintenance of and developing family traditions continue to be as significant as they were at the earliest times. Active family traditions and meaningful participation in them help families to avoid social entropy. In physical science, the term entropy means the tendency of the physical system to lose energy and coherence over a period of time, like a gas dissipating until it is all but gone. An "entropic family" is one that loses its sense of emotional closeness because members neglect the family’s inner life and community ties.

Social scientists now agree that effective family traditions promote a sense of identity and a feeling of closeness, a sense of security and assurance in today’s fast, hectic, and ever-changing world. William Doherty, a social scientist has explained in his book "The Intentional Family" that as family bonds are weakened by busy lifestyles, families can stay connected only by being intentional about maintaining important rituals and traditions.

title: Family traditions


text:
St. Albert (federal electoral district)

St. Albert was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1988 to 2004. It contained Edmonton's western and northwestern suburbs, including the city of St. Albert.

Geography
This was a rural riding in Alberta.

History
It was created in 1987 from Pembina and Yellowhead ridings.

It was abolished in 2003 and transferred mostly into Edmonton—St. Albert and Edmonton—Spruce Grove. Smaller parts were transferred into Westlock—St. Paul and Yellowhead ridings.

Members of Parliament
This riding elected the following members of Parliament:
 * 1) 1988–1993: Walter van de Walle – Progressive Conservative
 * 2) 1993–2003: John G. Williams – Reform (1993–2000), Canadian Alliance (2000–2003), Conservative (2003–2004)

Election results
^ Canadian Alliance change is from Reform.

^ Change is from redistributed results

title: St. Albert (federal electoral district)