north of Central Park many stations are unconnected but similarly named).

And south of it also. But "similarly named" is a red herring. London
comes close to a one-to-one relationship of stations and station names,
but New York doesn't believe in that; the names are only supposed to be
unique along a single line and then only within a single borough. (The
R train stops at 36th St. in Brooklyn and 36th St. in Queens, passing
through Manhattan in between, where perhaps fortunately there is a 34th
St. station but not another 36th.)

And no-one's seriously confused by 23rd St (C)(E), 23rd St (1)(9),
23rd St (F)(V), 23rd St (R)(W), 23rd St (6), and the future 23rd St
(T). There's also a 23rd St station on the E and V in Long Island
City, Queens. This is called 23rd St - Ely Av. There is no Ely Av
anywhere near the station - it's just what 23rd St (Queens) used to be
called before the Queens street numbering of circa 1920. The IND only
put the second name on the signs to avoid confusion with the much
better known 23rd St further down the line in Manhattan!

If London named stations the way New York does, Tottenham Court Road
station might have had that name on the Central Line but been called
Oxford Street on the Northern, while Warren Street station on the
Piccadilly might have been a second Tottenham Court Road station. But
even if that had been the case, it wouldn't imply that the interchanges
should be any different from what they actually are. And analogously in
New York.

And if NYC didn't you'd have the Fulton St Line in Brooklyn crossing
under the East River and stopping at Fulton St station in Manhattan.

(doubling back at 145st will almost certainly involve exiting
and re-entry, as it does at most stations),

I don't know about 145th St., but probably not. The reason New York
has stations with two separate fare-paid areas for opposite directions
of travel is that they wanted the platforms to be accessible from the
sidewalks and only one level down from the street (to minimize stairs).
If they put the local tracks in the middle, between the express tracks,
a single island platform would suffice, but it would need to be accessed
from the middle of the street, as in Berlin. Once outside platforms for
local stops were decided on, the only way to allow doubling back within
a single fare-paid area would be to add a subway (in the British sense)
connecting the two platforms, like at Queen station in Toronto, and this
was evidently felt not to be worth the cost and trouble of building.

145th St on the A, B, C, and D has got a full mezzanine (and therefore
you can change direction there). 145th St on the 3 hasn't even got
platforms long enough for the train, but I don't think you'd want to
go there (with regard to the Lenox branch of the 3, the first place
where you can transfer to an Uptown 2 train is at 110th St). 145th St
on the 1 and 9 also has no passenger crossover (but again, why would
you want to?).

On 5 Aug 2004, James wrote:

There is no Ely Av anywhere near the station - it's just what 23rd St
(Queens) used to be called before the Queens street numbering of circa
1920.

Stupid question here, but did New York's streets have proper names before
they had numbers? If so, why were numbers considered better? Did this
happen to other US cities, too?

tom

--
Science of a sufficiently advanced form is indistinguishable from magic

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tom Anderson wrote:

Stupid question here, but did New York's streets have proper names before
they had numbers?

Before 1898, New York was just Manhattan and The Bronx. Downtown Manhattan
streets have non-numeric names and are slightly more disorderly than those
midtown and uptown, which were parceled out by the Commisioners' Plan of
1811:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...7_Plan_of_1811

Brooklyn still has non-numeric names.

Queens is a mess. It was a disorganized collection of cities, towns, and
villages before the formation of Greater New York, and a lot of these
places had streets with the same name. The Queens Topographical Bureau
replaced a lot of these with numbers (and renumbered houses as well) in
just about the most dysfunctional system I can imagine, where something
like 21st Street will be next to 21st Road, next to 21st Drive. Here's a
rhyme to help remember the system:

In Queens to find locations best --
Avenues, Roads and Drives run West;
But ways to North and South, 'tis plain
Are Street or Place or even lane;
While even numbers you will meet
Upon the West and South of Street.

Of course the rhyme is a lie and it doesn't always work that way.

Some photos of Subway stations that have old names:

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/SUBWAYS/.../remember.html

If so, why were numbers considered better? Did this happen to other US
cities, too?

Austin, Texas used to have its east-west streets named after trees and its
north-south streets named after rivers (and downtown the rivers are
actually in geographical order!). They later numbered the east-west
streets. It's much less romantic but much easier to find things. Later
they renamed two of the numbered streets after minority activists and seem
to be thinking about more. The state thought that was silly and refused to
change motorway signs without being paid, which the city refused to do, so
the street signs say "Cesar Chavez Blvd" but the motorway signs say "1st
St."
--
Michael Hoffman

The Queens Sts changed to numbers for Navigation Purposes IE

123-any # St Pl or Ln is between 123 and 124 Ave

123-any # Ave Rd or Dr is between 123 and 124 St

Michael Hoffman wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.58.0408092016540.480@ZVAVZBB...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tom Anderson wrote:

Stupid question here, but did New York's streets have proper names before
they had numbers?

Before 1898, New York was just Manhattan and The Bronx. Downtown Manhattan
streets have non-numeric names and are slightly more disorderly than those
midtown and uptown, which were parceled out by the Commisioners' Plan of
1811:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...7_Plan_of_1811

See also:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/nyc1811.htm

Note that the Commissioners' Plan wasn't put into effect in all its
details. Notable alterations include Broadway, Madison Av, Lexington
Av, and Central Park.

Brooklyn still has non-numeric names.

And also various numeric ones. Within close proximity, you will find W
5th St, E 5th St, Brighton 5th St, and (a bit further away) 5th St.
Then try to explain to someone that as you walk east along 20th St, it
suddenly becomes E 3rd St.

Another random bit of street-name trivia is that each of the five
boroughs has a street named Broadway (four of which have a Subway line
under/over at least part of them).

Queens is a mess.

Very true. It's amazing how they can call six different streets 71st
Av. It comes as some relief when there are patches where they just
give up and use the names.

If so, why were numbers considered better? Did this happen to other US
cities, too?

It works both ways. Park Av, Manhattan, used to be called 4th Av. Some
politico tried to rename 6th Av to Avenue of the Americas, then
wondered why it didn't quite catch on.

Numbers are great in Manhattan, where the street-grid is pretty
regular. They just about work in the parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn
which use them (although you can find silly examples in both - like
the Bronx way of making 210=240).

Queens should give up. Anyway, I like names like Bliss St.

Later
they renamed two of the numbered streets after minority activists and seem
to be thinking about more.

This is a great disease in America. In Brooklyn, previously
recognisable streetnames like Sumner Av and Reid Av have morphed into
Marcus Garvey Blvd and Malcolm X Blvd respectively (the latter is said
"eks" rather than "the tenth"!!!). At least when they try and pull off
things like Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd in Manhattan, they get
everyone firmly saying 125th St.