T to Dyre Avenue

I like my suggestion (from the most recent Coney Island express thread) to revive the as a Coney Island-oriented super express better. This service would run via the Sea Beach Line, the 4th Ave express, 6th Ave express and the CPW line. It would cause far less conflict with other subway lines, although the should run local on CPW to avoid overloading the express tracks, which are very busy with the and trains. Or instead of CPW, this could run up to 96th St and 2nd Ave once that line opens by merging with the north of Rockefeller Center (Q trains used to do this when they operated via 6th Ave), then switching over to the at Lexington/63rd St.

If either the or the were to branch off down Utica, no train would be able to terminate there, so the would probably continue to go to Flatbush.

Why not just take those <E> trains and run THOSE trains to/from Coney Island via the Rutgers Tunnel and Culver express tracks? Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier and better than juggling so many letters around? And Culver el riders can at least still have 10-car trains which they would not have with the C. You seem to be ok with cutting service to the WTC platform to once every 15-30 minutes with this K train. What I don't think you realize is that E trains leave that platform standing room only. If you really want all those so-called lazy people to walk to the express platform at Chambers, then you are going to have herds of people stampeding that way, crowding the passageway and overwhelming that last stairway closest to WTC. Just think about that. This is not the same Lower Manhattan of 2001 or 2002 that was reeling from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Believe it or not, Rogers Junction might actually prove Wallyhorse's point. It's a very crowded junction with the 2, 3 and 5 trains sharing tracks between Nostrand and Franklin Avenues. All of those lines run as frequently as the F during rush hours and more frequently than the C or M. And they've been sharing that short set of tracks day in and day out for decades. It's far from a perfect setup, but the MTA seems to be able to live with it and expects Brooklyn IRT commuters to live with it too. I'm not even sure if they have a real plan to decongest Rogers Junction (I sure hope they do).

Agree that the shouldn't run on the line. Like you said, the will conflict with the and the ridership on the West End Line isn't there for two services. And no one will ride a service than runs on 20-minutes headways during the day. Not true. Longer lines are very susceptible to delays, because there are more places along the line for something to go wrong. So running the from Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge is a terrible idea. But I think a service running from Broadway Junction to Bay Ridge would not be a terrible idea. That would be a much shorter route with not much conflict from other lines. The line stops south of 36th St generally have higher ridership than those north of 36th. So a rush hour to/from Bay Ridge might have better ridership than the old M to/from Bay Parkway did. 86th St/4th Ave in particular has very high ridership, probably a lot of it coming from the Staten Island buses that connect there. But right now, there aren't enough cars for it and the Nassau-Montague connecting tracks are out of service. I'm surprised that the connection between the Montague Tunnel and the Nassau St line is still out of service and needs repairs. That connection is part of the tunnels and they did have a whole 14 months to work on it. I guess this means the Eastern Division's sole connection to the rest of the system is now the Chrystie St tracks.

I like your K express proposal. I think the Jamaica Ave el would have much higher ridership if it had an express/bypass track all the way from Jamaica through Bushwick. Add another stop or two further into Jamaica and I think more Lower Manhattan-bound riders might opt for the J and K over the E.

Right. That's why I don't think it should be a completely separate service. Maybe it could be operated as extra rush hour service that runs before skip-stop service starts (since skip-stop service only runs for about an hour during each rush hour period and only in the peak direction). Sort of like a short-turn , but extended to Bay Ridge.

It would probably turn at Broadway Junction. That's where it should turn.

Didn't the M and R services via Nassau St sort of fill that role? They obviously didn't stop at Whitehall St, but Broad St is not far from Whitehall and they had multiple connections at Fulton and Chambers that the Broadway R did not have. The 4th Ave local stops below 36th St are well-used and their ridership is increasing (per MTA's own stats), so maybe they ought to take another look at a second 4th Ave local from Bay Ridge to/from the Nassau St line once there are enough R179s in service.

The option is not an option. Do you really think people who board at Jamaica Center and Sutphin/Archer will gladly accept a local train in place of their current express? I hope you don't! You are also suggest leaving the as is and also running the express. That would leave the as the sole local after the Briarwood station where the R splits off. You can't possibly think Hillside riders who board at 169th or Sutphin would be thrilled with having the G with its 4-car trains as their sole service, would you?

By switching the D and R in Brooklyn, then running the N local and the D express between 59th and Pacific streets, you'll be creating a big bottleneck at 59th St, because D and N trains will be forced to cross in front of each other to get either to Bay Ridge or the Sea Beach Line. Completely not worth doing. Better to just continue using R for the Queens Blvd/Broadway service even if it no longer stops at 71st and 67th avenues and ends at Whitehall St and to leave the D and N as is. It's less confusing this way.

Rehabbing the RBB and connecting it to the Queens Blvd line isn't be the kind of project that should result in significant multiple service changes across the entire B Division. It isn't necessarily to completely change the and lines in Brooklyn and the in Queens (not to mention rerouting the R to 2nd Ave on nights/weekends) to accommodate an RBB service on Queens Blvd. Any change to existing services should be limited only to those lines that directly connect onto the RBB and - if necessary - the lines on Queens Blvd that operate with that service. In other words, if the R were to be chosen to go onto the RBB, then it would be the M that should also see changes to its service. Maybe also the F if the MTA doesn't want a weekend or 24/7 M on Queens Blvd - which may be the case. Leave the D, N, W and other lines out of it.

The is my preferred option because it runs shorter, 480-foot trains, while the runs full-length 600-foot trains. Although it's difficult to predict ridership at potential new stations on the RBB without doing a serious study, I have a strong hunch that all of them will have lower weekday ridership than 67th Ave, the one QB local stop that will lose either the M or R. In 2014, 67th Ave had an average weekday ridership of 9,544. While that may be low by QB standards, it's much, much higher than anything on the Rockaway Park S stations, where daily ridership can be measured in the hundreds as opposed to the thousands on Queens Blvd. It would be a huge mistake to leave the M with its shorter trains as the only train serving 67th Ave, not to mention making the R a ridiculously long route as the RBB service. On the other hand, I don't think the MTA wants to run a 24/7 M train on Queens Blvd. I think they'd like to keep just three weekend services so they can do weekend G.O.'s as they do now (why do you think from 2002-10 the weekend G almost never ran to 71st Ave, even though they showed it on the maps and signs?). In fact, it seems like they're kind of sour on running more than three weekend services on any line, so I don't think they'll be particularly receptive to your 24/7 proposal, because then either the , or would have to be cut off from the Broadway Line on weekends and/or late nights.

The RBB is located entirely in Queens. The out-of-service part of the branch runs from Rego Park (in the area near Austin St and 65th Ave, aka Whitepot Junction) to Ozone Park where it crosses over Liberty Ave and under the Lefferts Blvd branch. The in-service part of the RBB is south of Liberty Ave and is the part currently used by the Far Rockaway along with the Rock Park from Broad Channel on down. How on this Earth could it possibly cost 10 billion dollars to rebuild the unused part of the branch? The branch is located entirely above ground, so no tunneling is needed. I mean, come on...construction costs in this city may be ridiculously high, but not THAT ridiculously high! Especially given that the branch south of Liberty is still in use and nothing much really needs to be done on that section to allow trains coming from northern Queens to run to the Rockaways.

I see you really couldn't wait for an answer to this one That said, even though the current is quite a bit more popular than the pre-June 2010 M was, I don't think it's a good idea to make it the peak-direction express between Myrtle and Marcy and run the local. While the and would be able to stay on the same track between Kosciusko and Myrtle, the inbound would have to switch twice before entering Myrtle. It already has to the first switch slowly to join the J, so now just imagine M trains having to take another switch just as slowly to get to the middle track. And then have to merge back in with the J so they can stop at Marcy. Doesn't sound like much of an express run to me. It will save very little time - if any - over the current local run. That's what you get when you have a middle track that ends at a bumper block within the Marcy Ave station limits, followed by a slow curve onto the Williamsburg Bridge. But with high ridership and multiple bus connections, express trains have to stop at Marcy and that's the only way they can.

I'm pretty sure everyone has. It's been discussed on here before. Not for a while, but it has. I don't think extending the to the Rockaways is the best option for reusing the Rockaway Beach Branch. I think the or are better options for the RBB. Or extend the Rock Park (which would then officially be designated as the ) to a new platform under Woodhaven Blvd. Any of those options should include converting the existing Woodhaven Blvd station to an express stop to relieve overcrowding on the Queens Blvd locals and at Roosevelt Ave.

Designing a car specifically for SIR is ridiculous. But having SIR's cars be part of the next B Division car order with some modifications is not. Not to mention it's really not worth it to modify "6 or 8" R46 cars with the technologies you're suggesting. SIR's service requirements warrant a lot more than that, even off peak. And those R46 car bodies won't last forever. They'll have to be replaced eventually. Might as well do it with the next large subway car order.

Hmmm, actually an interesting proposal in that it would eliminate those two late night shuttles. And Metro isn't really all that far from Broadway Junction. Though I don't know how much the MTA really saves from eliminating two late night shuttle trains this way. I'm also guessing the would then get truncated at Myrtle-Broadway late nights in that scenario. You'd also have to completely rework service during the rush if the daytime runs to/from Broadway Junction. Probably something like a peak-direction express J between Bway Jct and Marcy and a local Z to/from Bway Jct, supplementing the between Myrtle and Marcy. And of course, there's the issue of whether or not 4th Ave local stations really need both the and seven days a week.

A "brown R" service would probably have to run in both directions because it would most likely be based out of ENY and use their R160s or R179s. It wouldn't be based out of Coney Island because it wouldn't be cost effective to assign a few 4-car sets of R160s or 179s at CI just for a simple rush hour service. And you don't want too much deadheading. With that in mind, I was thinking it's probably best to have the service start/end at Broadway Junction, basically a short-turn that extends to Bay Ridge.

The never ran express between 242 and 137. The and ran skip-stop service, just like the and . Proper peak direction express can't be done on the line because there are only two tracks from Dyckman to 157. An express would be unable to overtake a local on that section of the line and save time for riders. M service to Chambers from the West End Line is definitely not needed. As for the local stops in Brooklyn, perhaps a Nassau St/4th Ave local service from Bay Ridge might be a better "helper line," because such service would then be able to stop at the busier 4th Ave local stations south of 36th St - although it probably shouldn't run to Jamaica Center or Metropolitan Ave. That would be a ridiculously long route.

Right, the can't handle QBL alone. That's why the is there. They can't bring back the because the 71st Ave relay tracks would become overwhelmed by having to turn the G, M and R at the same time during rush hours. It would be no different if the was brought back and that's why there was only the R and V on weekdays from 2002-10. The south part of Brooklyn? Do you mean the 4th Ave local? Does the really need help there too? How so? I know some folks in Bay Ridge are unhappy with the current R service and the 4th Ave local stops south of 36th St to the end of the line are seeing steadily increasing ridership, though still not at QBL levels. But additional service can't come unless the MTA has enough cars and funding to operate extra service. Bombardier's continuing troubles with building the R179s certainly aren't helping the situation. Nor is having to send R143s onto the J, because the L needs its trains to deal with its own continually growing ridership They had originally planned in 2009 to keep the as it was, eliminate / skip stop service in favor of an all-stop J on 8-minute rush hour headways and cut the M at either Broad or Chambers. Funding from Albany staved off that plan, but the next year, we got the service plan we currently have when Albany decided to cut the MTA's funding. Although they did originally plan to eliminate the letter M completely from the subway and call the combined service the V.

But in this case, they won't be able to run service in Brooklyn at all (unless they can run a single-track shuttle from Metro to Central Ave), given that the viaduct is the M's only connection to the rest of the system. And with no turn back switches west of Myrtle, only the Queens Blvd/53rd St/6th Ave portion of the will be able to run while the viaduct undergoes reconstruction. While that is the former service, it should be called because it's still one continuous service.

Is the MTA also planning to do some kind of heavy-duty construction in the Chrystie St connection itself that would require it to be shut down on weekdays? That kind of project is really the only way it would require the train to be split back up into the separate Continental-2 Ave (the ) and the Myrtle-Chambers (the old brown M) services. It would be no different from the way they split the and trains during the second time they closed the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks (by using and for the Brooklyn services). But if all they're doing is taking Essex middle out of service to repair the switches, then there's no point in officially "splitting" the back up into the old and "brown M" services. And on a slightly different note, what exactly is the MTA planning to do at Myrtle-Broadway? What kind of work is needed at that junction that I'm hearing about the need to run R32s on the ?

Actually, Moses was "trying to turn NYC into LA" before Los Angeles turned into LA. In the 1950s, when LA started building its freeways, New York already had parts of the BQE and the LIE open, with the Cross Bronx Expressway under construction. In fact, LA still had Yellow Car streetcar lines in service five years after New York's last streetcar line (over the Queensboro Bridge) shut down in 1957.

You'd have to run double the current amount of trains through the 60th St tubes to make up for the loss of the once it's rerouted to 2nd Ave. How would that be any less congested than the current services or pre-2010 when the ran through there? You're calling for two lines instead of three. But it'll still be the same number of trains going through there. Unless you're suggesting a service cut to Astoria, which would definitely not go over well with anyone who rides the N, Q or R lines.

As someone who has ridden the Queens Blvd line for the past three years I have to disagree. I can say that the is definitely busier than the . Yep, I just said it. I get on the at 67th Ave. When it gets to Roosevelt Ave, there will usually be an E or F train across the platform. If it's the F, about half the car bails out at Roosevelt. But if it's the E, well over half the car will pour onto the E. Yes, there is a difference. Unfortunately it's one that the MTA can't do much about due to the signal system and the placement of switches at both Jamaica Center and (possibly) WTC. Possibly go to a 16/14 tph split during rush hours in favor of the E. And the Culver Line part of the F does not have the same ridership as the part in Queens, especially the elevated stations on McDonald Ave. It's not even close over there. The stops from Church Ave north are a different story, but the Queens part of the F still has more ridership overall than those stations too. I'll agree with you on your first and third paragraphs.