T to Dyre Avenue

I would think so. Haven't they turned trains at Bedford or Lorimer for G.O.'s before?

The high ticket prices and lower frequencies are two strikes against LIRR, though layovers would be made easier thanks to the West Side Yard. But if Rockaway service is provided by a running via SAS, procedures for layovers would probably be no different than what they would do for the .

And it won't even be a well-used service, because in order for a subway service to be popular, it has to run relatively frequently in addition to serving major destinations. Frequencies of 12-15 minutes during rush hours might be great for suburban commuter trains, but for NYC subway lines, it just doesn't cut it.

If only all the complaining SIers would see it that way. But they won't. As for Rockaway, I think it should be subway, not LIRR, because even if it has to share tracks with other lines, it will be a more frequent service during rush hours than LIRR could provide. But not the because it would require everyone headed for Manhattan to transfer to a train headed there, whereas an , or service would require some riders to transfer, but also have some riders who will stay on.

This is another reason in favor of implementing a Queens-SAS service via Queens Blvd. It would connect to every subway line in North Queens except the and . And if the were to run on the Rockaway Branch, it would also have transfers to the and lines and possibly the LIRR's Atlantic Branch. Riders from the other lines would be able to transfer to the while still in Queens or be able to get it directly. It might even mitigate the need for a super long transfer between the and the at Lex/53rd and possibly the at 42nd, because there would already be transfers from the , and to the in Queens. There is currently no transfer being planned from the to the at Lex/59th. At least the could potentially offer a transfer to the in Queens.

The wouldn't be able to run on the express tracks between 71st Ave and the 63rd St tunnel junction with both the and already there. It could run on the local because the and run much less frequently than the and . But then the MTA will have to be more vigilant about fumigating trains at 71st in order to get trains in and out of there so they can relay quickly enough and get back in service going southbound. Or have one of the locals branch off the Queens Blvd line. Perhaps branch the onto the Rockaway Branch after 63rd Drive. The would likely be the a shorter route than the or , so it would probably be the best option for a service connecting the Rockaways to the Queens Blvd Line. Either way, I strongly believe there should be two services south of 63rd St. We don't want to spend all that money to go south of 63rd St only to be forced into running the line well below capacity.

Agreed! If so many SI'ers want to be pains in the ass about the subway and act like the rest of NYC is just as bad - or even worse - than in 1975, then don't bother with them. We have plenty of other areas in the city that are crying out for subway service that currently don't have it.

Not if it runs only once every 12-15 minutes during rush hours. And a service running on such abysmal rush hour headways could leave a bad taste for the in riders' mouths in the long run should we ever get funding for SAS phases 3 and 4.

Can't we just extend the / on this said Staten Island tube? I think that would be much simpler and more convenient than creating a second service that will confuse line riders in Queens and North Brooklyn who rely on the current service to get to Midtown Manhattan, especially given that the second M service won't be able to run as frequently as the combined J and Z do, because it will have to share tracks not just with the J and Z, but also with the existing 6th Ave M train (please don't say eliminate the current and bring back the !).

I actually suggested running a to/from Canarsie to Queens Plaza or 71st Ave during the shutdown back when the MTA first announced it. But current space constraints on the 6th Ave local tracks would mean the could only run on a very limited basis during rush hours and middays which would limit its usefulness. And the line in Bushwick/Ridgewood will need the boost in service more so that it can absorb the displaced riders who board in the middle stretch of that line.

I actually saw a map showing the split into running both to Metro and Canarsie and the truncated at Broadway Junction sometime last fall. I've been trying to locate the website where I saw it. Not that it really matters because I haven't heard any serious consideration being given to running any kind of 6th Ave service to/from Rockaway Pkwy since the MTA announced the need to reconstruct the Canarsie tunnels.

I was under the impression they were going to run the to/from Broadway Junction only during the Myrtle Viaduct reconstruction project. So far, haven't seen or heard anything about having additional trains continue to run from the Junction during the tunnel shutdown. If they are considering keeping some service at the Junction during the shutdown, then those trains might as well continue on to Rockaway Pkwy. The curve connecting the Canarsie and Jamaica lines can be fixed to handle more than 10 mph if needed. But it would make far more sense to beef up service on the Myrtle Ave el. So far, that seems to be part of what they're planning to do during the shutdown.

Interesting. I guess it would be similar to the unadvertised trains that go to New Lots and the unadvertised trains that go to Utica. Except in those cases, it's in the reverse-peak direction

There were still delays on South Brooklyn-bound M trains between Fulton and Broad, waiting for a or to clear out. It happened almost every time I rode.

If they can get it open for service on the 30th or 31st, I'll start believing in miracles.

And why would the MTA need to extend the and to Bay Parkway? The provides sufficient service for the West End Line and it doesn't need the and trains to also go there. When the ran to/from Bay Parkway, it ran half as frequently as the and combined do, and even that was more service than was needed, given how empty those trains were. Not to mention the merging delays that occurred at 36th St whenever the southbound D and M arrived at 36th St at the same time, which was quite often.

Bowling Green is nowhere near the Brooklyn Bridge. How could the train (or any Lexington Ave train for that matter) coming from Uptown/Midtown possibly be extended from Bowling Green over the Brooklyn Bridge?

Both of you make excellent points for why would be best as the letter for the Queens-SAS service, a service that will certainly be needed if we ever get even a part of Phase 3 constructed. And by having the service, the SAS will be able to better live up to its potential because it will then have two services both north and south of the 63rd St Tunnel.

The train's ridership began to increase by leaps and bounds not too long after Transit proposed the K/L skip-stop service. Had they gone through with it, it would have lead to severely overcrowded trains that would take forever to load up because there would be multiple stations with only half the trains stopping there. It's not like the line whose ridership, while increasing, is not increasing at the huge clip the has done over the past 15-20 years. And the is a much longer route through South Queens and Eastern Brooklyn, so having / service there is actually effective.

Actually, they still could because most fonts with a serif (the lines at the top and bottom of the I) capital I also have a serif number 1. Now if you imported a serif I and kept the other letters in their Standard form, then it might work. But then you'd always have to use that type of I. In DC, they actually tried that with the street signs, which are normally displayed in Helvetica (the same type face as the NYC subway). But it must have still caused some confusion, because I've seen street signs in the District with an "Eye St" parallel to H and K streets (for some reason, they skip J).

So is Y, because people might think you're asking them "why?" if they ask you for directions that may involve a hypothetical Y train.

I fully agree that there should be three 2nd Ave services, not just the and that the has as part of the long-term plans for the line. By having just the and , the SAS will be a "reverse-branched" line that will offer far more service on the Uptown section (Phases 1 and 2), than it will on the Midtown and Downtown sections (Phases 3 and 4). There should not be less-frequent service below 63rd St than above 63rd. Having only the south of 63rd will be a big disincentive to East Side riders to use the SAS versus the overcrowded Lex, because Lex will still have much more frequently-running service. The would go a long way towards fixing that service deficit. The might also mitigate the need to build costly long passageways connecting the SAS to the N/R/W, E/M and 7 lines, because the will connect directly in Queens to all of those lines save the and . The transfers below Houston St proposed in Phase 4 will be a different story (if we ever get that far). Neither have I. I personally don't have a problem with reusing for the third SAS service, but I also don't see any problem with using another letter other than I or O because of the similarities between them and 1 and 0. Likewise, I don't think U should be used because of you...no, not you personally, but now you can see why U may not be such a good choice for a subway line name. Same goes for Y because of "why". But I really don't see a problem with reusing K or P. I prefer P because it's also close to T (although V is closer and would be a nod to its heritage as a former Queens Blvd service), because I feel that if you keep the route letters as close together as possible, you won't have to skip all over the alphabet when you make the station signs or display the route bullets on the map. I guess it's mostly for aesthetics. I'd have no problem with using H or X either, but is currently still in use internally as the Rockaway Park Shuttle. And if I'm not mistaken, I think X is used internally for non-revenue runs. Although someone on here posted a link to a fantasy map that showed the SAS built as far as Houston St with H and T as the two services south of the 63rd St Tunnel and the H running via 63rd St, the Queens Blvd Local and the Rockaway Beach Branch to/from Rockaway Park, eliminating the Shuttle.

What would be the purpose of switching the and back to their pre-2001 routes in Brooklyn? Especially given that the runs only on weekdays, and that both the Brighton and West End locals need a full-time service. The only way I could ever see a point in returning the to the Brighton Local is if the remains as the Brighton Express and the gets rerouted to the West End Line. This would be to minimize switching delays at Gold St Interlocking and possibly run trains more frequently on the , , and . But then you would have swarms of people transferring at Atlantic or DeKalb (especially Atlantic), completely overwhelming those stations. That would not be acceptable. But there's really no reason to go back the pre-2001 and . As for the , what do you mean by "extending it back to Brooklyn?" Doesn't it already serve Brooklyn?

It would require the switching from express to local at Prince during weekdays again. We just got rid of that, service is running much better on the Broadway Line and now you want to bring that choke point back? No thank you. And the does serve downtown Brooklyn. What other service is needed? Though the basically skirts Astoria, unlike the and , both of which directly serve Astoria. Take a look at the MTA's station ridership stats. Population may be growing in Bensonhurst and Borough Park, but that doesn't seem to be spilling over to its subway stations, whose platforms aren't exactly overflowing with riders. And the Sea Beach Line doesn't even serve Borough Park, so a Sea Beach super express train would be useless for riders coming from Borough Park.

I'm not sure why they couldn't have used P or T back then. Why the skip all the way to Z? I don't think Transit was even thinking about what letter they were going to use for the 2nd Ave Subway, which in the late 1980s, was more than a decade after construction had been stopped due to the 1975 financial crisis and for when there were few, if any, signs of resuming construction on it at the time. But they chose and unless they're planning to significantly change the service, there's probably no reason to change it now because riders have gotten used to it after 28 years.