Talk:South Ferry loops (New York City Subway)

Impact of new station
An editor added:
 * It is unknown if both the 1 and 5 trains will be allowed into the new station being built.

A look at the environmental impact statement on the MTA website makes clear that the new station will have a track connection to the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line only, not the IRT Lexington Avenue Line. However, the original balloon loop station will remain in place for turning trains, train storage, and other purposes. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I e-mailed the MTA regarding this opinion. They said they have referred my suggestion to their Department of Subways for review and evaluation. When the new terminal is built, the two loop stations will be just like City Hall: closed to the public. The future terminal should be open to both lines, but Lexington Avenue trains should use the new terminal for G.O.'s, service disruptions, or for other necessary reasons. -- Imdanumber 1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand two things here.
 * Open to both lines? Where is this said? From what I've seen, the new station will connect only to Broadway-Seventh Avenue.
 * What suggestion is being referred to here? The suggestion to connect both Broadway-Seventh Avenue and Lexington Avenue to the new South Ferry terminal? Let's be frank here: The MTA knows what it's doing by now, whether their choice is the best option or not. From the very beginning, it considered the option to connect both lines to the new terminal, and long ago it decided to only connect Broadway-Seventh Avenue. No email you send at this point will have any impact on what goes on at South Ferry. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 09:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I know that the new terminal is open to B-way-7 Av trains only. But after September 11th, All stations south of Chambers were blocked by the tunnel collapse at Cortlandt Street. The MTA didn't have enough sense to send 5, or even 6 trains to South Ferry instead of closing the whole southern portion blocked by Chambers, including South Ferry. God forbid it happens again? Whitehall Street is not as popular as the IRT station is. There should be some sort of track connections from Bowling Green to the new terminal just in case B-way-7 Av trains can't make it to South Ferry, and 5/6 trains could. That was only a suggestion, but who knows? It's...possible. -- Imdanumber 1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 14:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not saying that it wouldn't be a good idea, all I'm saying is that the MTA has definitely considered it and has already decided not to do it, for whatever reason. Looking at schematics and diagrams, it looks like it would be difficult to make the connection from an engineering standpoint. There are a lot of tunnels in that area, and I wouldn't be surprised if the MTA had decided that it wasn't worth the effort. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Impact of the curved station on service
I removed these 2 sentences as they are more of the writers opinion than something for encyclopedic information. I don't disagree that the noise is excessive. The curvature of the station does not slow operations down any more than a stub end terminal would.

"The sharp curvature slows train operation and generates excessive noise. This causes delays for the entire line."

--Allan 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the noise isn't very important, but I disagree regarding the station curvature. The extreme station geometry does limit performance on the Broadway–Seventh Avenue local as compared to a well-designed stub terminal; this is one of the main reasons for the construction of the new terminal station. A well-designed stub terminal could easily handle 5 or even 10 more trains per hour than the current South Ferry terminal. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 07:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These two sentences were added because these are problems the station is experiencing. The new terminal is being proposed to fix this problem. -- Imdanumber 1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 04:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone post a picture of the actual outside entrance to the South Ferry and not the subway station?

Fate of the South Ferry Loop
Does anyone know what will happen to the South Ferry loop stations? A far as I know, track connections have already been built to lead to the future terminal, and it is only a matter of time before the new station is complete so it wil be used soon. Anyone know the fate of the loops? Anyone know if it will affect the 5 train from terminating at Bowling Green? —User: (talk • contribs • email) 04:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read that the loops will remain in place. --NE2 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So the structure will stand as is, if I'm correct. Any idea on how the tracks will be used? Whatever information that can be found can be used for the article on the current station since construction ends by Spring/Summer 2008. —User: (talk • contribs • email) 13:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is explained in the environmental impact statement on the MTA website. The existing South Ferry loop stations will remain intact. At least one loop, of course, would still needed for short-turning trains. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Allright then. We can put this information on the article page. —User: (talk • contribs • email) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Loops vs. loop
Is there a reason why the article name is "South Ferry loops" instead of "South Ferry loop"? Is it because of the two stations (e.g. counted as two separate stations instead of one—if that ever was the case, I wouldn't know), or the two tracks or some other reason? I'm not suggesting a page move (yet), I'm just curious as to why the naming is as it is. The lead also needs to refer to both platforms as that is the main premise for this article, as opposed to separate articles for the inner loop and the outer loop. Tinlinkin (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion on loops vs. loop. The reason I proposed loops was because it is considered a complex serving both the Lexington Line and Broadway-7th Ave line. This differentiates it from City Hall loop.
 * Second discussion as we got closer to the new station opening. Hope this helps. Acps110 (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only specific mention on the name "loops" I could find is your quote from your second link:
 * Move existing page South Ferry (New York City Subway) to South Ferry loops (New York City Subway) because the old loop station has no passenger connection/passageway to the new complex, and will be completely closed and abandoned (to passengers). (Wiki-links to be included from the new complex for historical reference to both the closed loops and the closed elevated station.)
 * But I suppose your reasoning about the loops being a complex makes sense. I'm satisfied for now; once I edit the organization of the article, I'll have a better understanding of it. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After the new station
Now that the new station has opened, I am proposing to trim much of the section about the new station in this article. It was necessary before as the station had not opened yet. But now that it has, most of that doesn't have much bearing on this article. Opinions? Tinlinkin (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. Trim to a minimum and keep the link to the new station page for the rest. Just please make sure all references are on the current page, so we don't end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Acps110 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)