T to Dyre Avenue

Can't the and lines coexist on Queens Blvd? Especially if the were to be rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel?

The is also the only Queens Blvd service to offer direct transfers to the Lexington Ave and express trains. If the is taken off QB and replaced with another 8th Ave service, (the ), then all QBL riders who want the Lexington Ave express (which is not an insignificant number), will have to make two transfers. The , and trains do not have direct transfers to the and . Neither would this service. I doubt very many people would take the to the deep Lexington/63rd St station, then walk the four blocks south to catch the 4 or 5 at 59th, especially with the sidewalks as icy as they are now. Or in the pouring rain or during a heat wave. At least now, if you're willing to trade a few extra minutes on a local in Queens, you can get to the Lexington Ave express in just one transfer if you take the . Losing the on QBL would be a big loss.

I like Plan A better. It gives West End Line riders a choice of 6th Ave or Broadway service, whereas if the goes via the Sea Beach, it's just going to all the same places in Manhattan the is, only slower, so most Sea Beach riders will just pass it up in favor of the express . Those who want a Broadway or 4th Ave local stop won't, but that's not going to be a huge number of riders. Plus, the West End has higher ridership overall.

But the would then have to merge back in with the at 168th & Broadway, then skip Dyckman in order to continue into The Bronx via the IND yard approach. That would add onto the merging delays both lines already experience at Canal and in Brooklyn between Lafayette and Hoyt/Schermerhorn. Splitting the is the better option, as long as it's the Lefferts , which doesn't go too far into Queens. Probably will need to use a new letter ( or ), because an extended Lefferts will essentially be a different line. It probably wouldn't be stopping at Dyckman or 207th if it's extended to The Bronx. I do agree with Bob, that it would be a hell of a lot faster than the Bx12, especially on Fordham Rd.

Wouldn't it be more expensive and disruptive to LIRR service to build under the LIRR Main Line? I can't see the MTA going for that. And people would still have to deal with construction in their backyards because they'd still be doing construction along that same right-of-way, just not directly on it.

That's true, even though it would require an extra switch in each direction to be used. I had suggested via Brighton and via 4th Ave Express skipping DeKalb. And swapping the and is a much simpler switch that doesn't require all sorts of other things to happen in order to work. And DeKalb Ave would have direct service to both Broadway and 6th Ave (at all times, unlike the current setup). It's really an either-or situation. You can have more frequent and less-delayed service, but then you have to give up the direct services and choice of routes you have. Since the Chrystie St connection, Brighton and 4th Ave have had direct services to both Broadway and 6th Ave - except, of course, during Manhattan Bridge shutdowns.

While you certainly would be minimizing the amount of switching and delays at DeKalb interlocking, and opening up the possibility of running more trains on the B, D, N and Q lines, you'd be forcing a lot of southern Brooklyn riders to give up the direct services they have had for years (if not decades). Atlantic Ave would become a madhouse because Brighton Line riders who want 6th Ave would have to transfer there and walk through those already-crowded passages. DeKalb Ave would have no direct 6th Ave service (except during late night hours when it would be of least use), which would put more pressure on Atlantic. And you'd have to change the operating hours and/or service patterns of the B, N and Q lines. With the being moved to 4th Ave express, it would presumably become the new Sea Beach service and that would require it to run seven days a week for at least 18 hours per day. Presumably, the would then replace the as the Brighton express, so it would no longer need to run 24/7 with another 24/7 Broadway line - the - already there. So the would most likely be reduced to weekdays only, leaving the more popular Broadway line with only the and lines on weekends, and only the Q during late nights. The Q would then have to become the full-time Astoria service with a part-time N. And then there's the matter of which line goes up 2nd Ave once those stations open in 2016/17?

No, just run two 2nd Ave services. The from 125th St to Hanover Sq as planned, and a second V service from the 63rd St Tunnel and Queens. Run said V service into Brooklyn via Nassau St/Montague Tunnel, Rutgers St Tunnel, or its own tunnel leading into the Court St (Transit Museum) station.

Montague is indeed underutilized. And a major reason for that is the major shift to Midtown Manhattan as the primary commuter destination in New York. Only one of the two lines that connect to that tunnel from Lower Manhattan also goes to Midtown - the Broadway Local . Any service using the other line - the Nassau St Subway - cannot directly serve Midtown. Lower Manhattan just doesn't seem to have the same need for service from southern Brooklyn that it once did. All Midtown service via the Montague Tunnel currently has to run via the Broadway Line, so one option is to run additional R service. But you can't really do that now due to the merging with the N at Prince St and the Q at 34th. Another option is to run the W in service via the West End Line in peak direction. Since those W trains will be coming out of Coney Island Yard early in the morning anyway, they might as well run in service. That would also help address the problems with both D and R service brought up in recent threads (so much for the D being "the most reliable line," yes?). But there aren't enough cars to accommodate this kind of service until the R179s are in service. Even then, there might still not be enough. Connecting SAS to the Nassau St Line has its own issues as well and it would be decades away from happening (if ever). So that's not really an option. But not this. Having skip-stop service where half the trains are going onto two different trunk lines in Manhattan effectively reduces them to "half-services". You can't serve the Broadway and Queens Blvd locals with only "half an R service."

The Atlantic Ave LIRR platforms are roughly at the same level as the IRT platforms. Before the MTA renovated Atlantic, you could see the LIRR trains from the IRT platforms. But you'd still have to go under the existing IRT and BMT tracks in order to connect the Atlantic Branch to the subway.

As a former White Plains Rd line rider whose work stop was Brooklyn Bridge, I'd give that proposal a resounding "oh, hell no!" You would be replacing a well-used rush hour service (the 5 Thru Express) with another service that basically duplicates the and ties up the , and trains in order to cross over to get to South Ferry. No thanks! You'd still have that tie-up if the ran from 148th. And do 148th and 145th/Lenox really need that extra service? Hell, they've never even lengthened 145th's platforms from their original 5-car length.

You would need to build a connection from the SAS to the Williamsburg Bridge near Delancey St. Not sure if that would be feasible due to the web of subway tracks that already cross through that area.

Not to mention the loss of ADA-compliance at Main St if they have to tear out the entrance beyond the track bumpers in order to extend the eastward. It pains me to write this, because I have long been in favor of a 7 extension to eastern Queens, but it seems like this would be a very big hurdle to clear and I'm not sure the MTA would even want to try. Why would they? Especially the ones not on Roosevelt Ave?

It was a streetcar that ran from Rockaway Parkway to Canarsie Pier. There was also the Norton's Point Trolley which ran a similar "streetcar extension" of the subway from Coney Island. It connected directly to the West End Line platform at Stillwell Ave. It's unfortunate those two lines didn't survive, given they ran on their own right-of-way. Boston had - and still has - a similar operation in the Mattapan Trolley which extends from the Red Line subway at Ashmont to Mattapan Square.

Might be the only way to keep JC from overloading. 12 tph just isn't cutting it. But that's all JC can handle due to where the crossover is. Maybe have extend the one stop to Merrick Blvd and Archer Ave and put a switch close enough to the new station that would allow 15 tph to enter and leave there.

As a former and possibly future rider, I've always wanted larger cars on the to deal with its big crowds. But if the was rerouted onto the Flushing Line, it would run less frequently than the current 7 service because it would still have to share tracks with the and . You'd get longer, larger trains, but less frequently. That's not really a good trade-off. I suggested having 60-foot A-Division cars on the 7 as a possible compromise. They'd still be narrower than B-Division cars, but they'd have the same number of side doors as the trains on the lettered lines. So a 9-car train of 60-footers would be shorter than an 11-car train of 51-footers (540 ft vs 561 ft), but it would have more side doors (36 vs 33). But now that they've already ordered new 51-foot R188 cars and they're retrofitting R142A cars with CBTC/ATO, it's too late to do that. There's also the issue of these 400 or so 60-foot IRT cars being oddballs because they would be unable to run on any other line.

I noticed that too with the R160s on the . They handled that curvy line from City Hall to Whitehall very well. The longer R46s have a toughed time with that route. I gotta admit I really preferred the 160s over the 46s on the , but because the has the bigger crowds, it really needs them more.

Too many trains, too long of a route (the went to the Rockaways back then) and not enough riders.

Well, since they haven't built Lexington/125th yet, maybe now's the time to plan it as a three-track terminal. At least it's already planned to have tail tracks, although that will require it to be built pretty far down given that the existing 125th & Lex station has and trains stopping on two levels.

The , the and half the in the Cranberry St Tunnel? That would be one big, long bottleneck, especially because the runs more than 10 tph during the rush (17 tph, I think, including the Rock Park specials). Are you planning to reduce service? And then those who live below Church Ave have no option but 8th Ave, unless they want to transfer at Church, 7th Ave or Jay? For the 6th Ave service they once enjoyed direct access to? Swap the and terminals? So have the ...ah, never mind! This is way too complicated, unnecessary and it won't fly. At least my plan from the SAS thread keeps all the Culver-to-Manhattan service going via the Rutgers St Tunnel and the 6th Ave Local. Right to the center of Manhattan, which is what Culver el riders have had for the past 60 years. local to/from Church - 14 tph. express to/from Coney Island - 6 tph. After Lex/63rd, turns northbound onto 2nd Ave to provide extra service there and to provide riders with another option if their commuting destination is west of Park Ave and north of 34th St. Runs weekdays 6 am - 8 pm. extended to Coney Island when doesn't operate. stays as is with 8 tph. Yes, it's a tight squeeze, but it's doable. No conflict with any of the 8th Ave lines at the West 4th St junction and no conflict with the 6th Ave express tracks.

The Culver el itself doesn't need express service. It doesn't even need 15 tph above Kings Highway (where some trains currently drop out). It just so happens that the train that uses the Culver el is also a Queens Blvd express (where the 15 tph is needed).

Between the confusion over where in Upper Manhattan the is going (East weekends vs. West weekdays), rerouting the to from the Brighton to the Culver Line and the unpopularity of Brighton/Nassau service, this plan simply will not fly. It's not the best of a bunch of bad options. It just isn't. It would be much better to have a new and separate lettered service (like ) to minimize the confusion and leave the and lines as they are. Not to mention your plan to reroute the to Culver would require it to switch from the express to the local tracks either between 42nd and 34th Streets or just north of West 4th St, holding up and limiting tph on the , and lines. That's definitely not the best of a bunch of bad options. It's certainly worse than a 2nd Ave/6th Ave service running on 10-minute headways crossing from one "side" of Lex/63rd to the other.

A split would be too confusing. It's no better than the proposed "split (Q)" service a few posters are floating around here for running the to both Astoria and 2nd Ave (which damn near certainly won't happen, and for very good reasons). Having to show this on maps and in stations will confuse people greatly. Also, why can't you have trains crossing over from 6th Ave to 2nd Ave at Lex/63rd during the day? How would this train disrupt the too much? Does the southbound disrupt the too much when it crosses from the local track to the express track after Queens Plaza? Should we just get rid of the on Queens Blvd, so it doesn't disrupt the or trains at Queens Plaza? Of course not! And I fail to see your logic in the UES being more of a 24/7 area than ever as being a reason for SAS riders to have the and an off-hours train to get to Midtown in the evenings. It is a densely populated area for sure - with a lot of people headed to Midtown during the day for work. Shouldn't that be when the extra service runs? How many people coming from Midtown are headed to the UES for a night out? With options for nightlife much closer to them - or in other parts of Manhattan further south (like the East Village), it's probably a lot less than UES residents commuting to Midtown during the day.

I haven't either. Only use for P I've ever heard of was when the MTA considered running a non-stop Jamaica Center-Penn Station service via the , and lines during threatened Amtrak strikes in the 90s that would have forced the LIRR out of Penn Station (Amtrak dispatches all service into and out of Penn and owns the tracks and tunnels). That service could only have run with R32s and/or R38s because those were the only cars that had T on their rollsigns (black T in a white circle in the middle with no route info) Eric B's website says that Y might have been the letter originally proposed for the main SAS service. I can see that because in 1968, there was still a T service via the West End Line...well, TT actually. It was the West End shuttle service that ran nights and all day Sunday when the B didn't run. It was eliminated in 1970, leaving open for future use.

Sure, why not? Not to mention, we still have a smiley on here, whereas we have no P. A while back, I modified both Joe Brennan's and Robert Schwandl's excellent unofficial subway maps to show what the system would look like with SAS Phases 1 & 2, including a 2nd Ave/6th Ave service using MS Paint. The only reason I used P instead of V because I found it much easier to make a P bullet because, for some reason, text in the current version comes out blurry. I didn't want a blurry V, so I just re-colored the R bullet on the Schwandl map orange and erased the leg of the R, and there was my P. But would work just as well. But the extra service wouldn't be needed evenings, nights and weekends anywhere near as much as it would be on weekdays. Where in the subway system do you currently see a second line providing extra service during off-peak hours where said second line doesn't run during peak hours? Nowhere! The late-night , and local services in Manhattan don't count because those trains do run on the same lines during the day, except they run express. Your plan (and the plan you made in the Subway Proposals thread) calls for the M to serve 2nd Ave only during evenings, nights and weekends, leaving the as the sole line on weekdays. That's going to cause major confusion, especially given that this is going to be a new line that no one will be familiar with at first. I was thinking this hypothetical could continue on to Brooklyn via the Rutgers St Tunnel and provide the Culver Express service, so that the can continue to serve the local stations on its current headways.