T to Dyre Avenue

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.

It will be very interesting to see just how well-used the three new stations will be and if the alone will be sufficient to handle them. I can't see them boosting the to 15 tph if they already have to wait long for the tracks to clear at Stillwell Ave. It shouldn't normally take 10 minutes to go from Brighton Beach to Stillwell, so I can only imagine what it would be like with a more frequent-running . I still think a limited ( P ) service to/from 6th Ave on 10-minute headways ought to be considered if there is more demand than the alone can handle, especially because the 6th Ave IND is closer to the Lex than the Broadway BMT is from 57th to 34th Streets and that is where many major Midtown commuting destinations are (between Lex and 6th). And then they wouldn't have to mess with or service. A split will cause lots of confusion, especially if the new stations prove to be very popular. You get on the wrong and you'll find yourself a long way off from where you need to be and no real way to get back, other than the way you came. A split would require both branches to run less service than is needed on both lines. East Side riders will stick with the Lex and keep it overcrowded if there is not enough service on 2nd Ave. I'm pretty sure the MTA would not want to risk that.

Wait, so now you're proposing to build a new 3rd Ave el in The Bronx and connect it to the at 138th & 3rd? With phases 1 & 2 of the SAS complete, there is no point in connecting a new 3rd Ave line to the Lex. Better to build a new 3rd Ave line as an extension of the SAS (not that we will see any such line be built any time soon).

Connecting the 3rd Ave el into the Lex would have been very difficult to do and would cause the Lexington Ave line to be more crowded, not less. The crowding is mostly in Manhattan, so that's where the relief is needed most. While much of that ridership is coming from the individual , and branches, it's when they come together in Manhattan and pick up riders in East Harlem and the Upper East Side that you see the crowding. The will partially help to relieve that crowding, and perhaps a supplemental ( P ) service (that continues onto the 6th Ave Local and the Culver Line express) may help a little more.

I had suggested doing this in a previous thread about restoring Culver Express service, only for someone to respond that the switches connecting the Broadway "side" of Lex-63rd to the 6th Ave "side" weren't meant to be used in regular service. I'm not sure why that would be, so I still think that running a 6th Ave/Culver service to/from 96th & 2nd is something that ought to be looked into. I don't see them running the extended on 4-minute headways like the or . I'm fully aware there would be a tight squeeze between the , and ( P ) services, and this ( P ) service would probably not be able to run more than once every 10 minutes during the rush. But given that it will be a long time before we see the SAS go below 63rd St, we could have a service, in the meantime, that would provide direct service from the Upper East Side (and East Harlem in Phase 2) to the center of Midtown along with the East Village and the Lower East Side. It might even peel off some riders from the lines who work in Midtown closer to Madison and 5th Avenues. And, as the express, it can serve the Culver Line without requiring the reduction of train service at the local stations between Church Ave and Jay St.

The provision for that connection is already there, although it cannot be used until at least part of Phase 3 (63rd St Tunnel to Houston St) is built. It was built because back in 1968, the MTA proposed a major system expansion plan, most of which never got built (unfortunately). One part of that plan was to build an express line parallel to the Queens Blvd Line that was supposed to feed into the 63rd St Tunnel with a service going down 2nd Ave, a completely new service. Any service from Queens that goes down 2nd Ave should be a completely new service, not an existing one like the .

Yeah...try making that out-of-system transfer if you're elderly, pregnant, in a wheelchair or if it's raining, sleeting or 90+ degrees and humid outside. Hell, I'm not elderly or in a wheelchair and I'm a man and I did it five years ago on my way from my then-home in the Bronx to a job interview in the Queens County Courthouse in Jamaica. And it was a nice day in October. Took me 10 minutes to get from the platform at 59th St to the deep-level platform at 63rd St. 10 minutes! Imagine having to do that every day? No thank you! And you don't think there are Queens Blvd riders whose destinations are 57th and 7th, Times Square or the Bronx? Those riders would be screwed big time by rerouting the R down 2nd Ave. Queens Blvd riders who wish to have access to Broadway trains - I'm one of them - already have a direct one now in the . Why must that be taken away? At least use a different font color, if you're proposing to reroute the R off its longtime home on Broadway and onto 2nd Ave. Like this - ( R ).

A lot more people from Southern Brooklyn do indeed work in Midtown Manhattan vs. Lower Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn. Midtown is a much larger CBD. But that doesn't mean no one works downtown, nor does it mean that all they're entitled to is minimal service during rush hours. Complaints repeatedly surface that the on its current headways is not sufficient to handle rush hour 4th Avenue Local and Lower Broadway. Either more frequent service ought to be looked at or running a second service, like the or . It doesn't have to be for the whole am and/or pm rush hour period, but certainly during the "peak of the peak," more frequent service should be looked into. Agreed that there's no need for a West End Express or a third 4th Avenue express service. But there may very well be a need for additional service on the local, which has far less than 18 tph. Not that it needs that much, mind you, but quite possibly more than what currently runs there. The old ( M ) ran for the entire rush hour period in its last few years of operation, and before that it also ran middays to 9th Ave. That kind of service is clearly not needed now. It wasn't really needed then, either. The loads will show that when you look at them overall. But you can't really do that because service levels can vary from hour to hour. It's been said that from 8 to 9 in the morning and from 5 to 6 in the evening, the old ( M ) did get a fair amount of service. Not Lexington or Queens Blvd Express crush loading, but it wasn't exactly a ghost town either. So have rush hour service that only runs during the busiest part of rush hours. For choice of routes a limited is better - roughly 6-8 trains per rush hour period on 10-minute headways. Start them at Broadway Junction before / skip-stop service starts (which also runs only about an hour during each rush hour period) and it won't conflict with skip-stop service. Or if it's determined that demand is greater for the western part of Lower Manhattan, run an extended during the same period, although there may not be enough cars for that until the R211 cars come online. For 6-8 extended runs, there ought to be enough R179 cars. I'd be very surprised if there won't be. Well, at least you got this back on topic. That said, I don't agree, especially if Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn see more residents and investment. Neither area is a ghost town now on weekdays. Plus, the West End Line won't need two full time services in the and lines and it would be wasteful to terminate the at 9th Ave during all non-rush hour times.

You could say that about the R143s and R160s as well. At least R40Ms and R42s were able to operate together in the same train, before and after GOH. These probably won't - and I'm almost certain you'll never see an R179 set operating in the same train with an R160 set. At least not in passenger service.

To me, the R40Ms looked like they were in better condition than the R42s when the MTA took the 40s out of service. Aren't there a couple R40m pairs still on the the property? If so, they probably still look in better shape than the 42s, lol. I know the R40M/42 combo pair is still around.

About the only real thing that's going to relieve the Lexington Ave IRT is another subway line on the East Side *coughFullSecondAvenueSubwaycough*

Those two select trains will delay and trains in both directions at Atlantic for the reason I described upthread. Those extra trains won't do anything to relieve overcrowding. If anything, it might make it worse due to the complex switching move I described. And Lance said the "conga line" would result from turning trains at Atlantic. If there are no trains turning at Atlantic, there's no conga line. Your new idea still has two trains reversing at Atlantic, so problem not solved.

One word: No! Reread your own posts about elevating the SAS above 125th St, in the SAS Construction thread. Then read all the responses from other posters, including myself, to see why that's a bad idea. Then apply them here. Because it would be the exact same scenario. You'd have to deal with residents, politicians and merchants all along Myrtle Ave who don't want an el casting an uninviting shadow over the street and don't want to have to deal with all the construction that will come with building said el. Not to mention, there's the just a few blocks away on Lafayette Ave. Even the section of Myrtle that doesn't have the running parallel to it is not far from the , and trains at Myrtle Ave/Broadway. And does the upper portion of Myrtle that still has the really need a second service? And would you really want the MTA, the State and the Feds to spend gigantic sums of money to rebuild an el that almost no one wants and that largely parallels an existing subway line? And for a service that doesn't even need to run 24/7? Except the switches are in the wrong place to turn back a service coming from Manhattan. If those switches were closer to Nevins Street, then maybe your idea could be somewhat feasible, because then a terminating train could leave Nevins and pull into the middle track and wait for uptown trains to pass before going back into Nevins. But with the switches located just outside of Atlantic, any train that terminates there has to reverse out of the station on the same track it came in on, then cross to the middle track, then cross to the uptown track to go back into Atlantic. I don't think you can even imagine what kind of delays this would cause on trains continuing to Utica, Flatbush or New Lots Ave, or trains coming from those stops. Even if the switches were closer to Nevins, it would still have to be a very limited service due to the high rush hour frequency of the and trains. And you'd still have to deal with congestion at Brooklyn Bridge station, because the would have to merge with the and just before Brooklyn Bridge and slow everything down.

It's not the best way to do it in this case. Not with all the inconvenience it would cause to merchants, shoppers and people going out for a night on the town. No, you won't. And how would you know if these people are used to els in their own countries? Not that it matters here (because it doesn't), but perhaps those els are built using different materials than ours are. And perhaps they don't run directly above city streets. That's definitely not an option in the middle of Harlem.

If this V service via Broadway ran to/from the Astoria Line via the 60th St Tunnel and then ran via the Montague Tunnel and did everything else he proposed, then it might not be so bad. But then, that's something I already posted:

If it's going to run via Broadway, then shouldn't this V service be shown in yellow? And does Queens Blvd really need a third local service that basically duplicates the R in Queens, then duplicates the F in the 63rd St tunnel (whose stations already get more service than they need)?

I sure hope they can complete Phase 2 in less than two decades. With roughly 16 blocks of unused subway tunnel already in place above 96th St, there's really no good reason that it can't be.

No such el will offer an easy transfer to the existing subways without the taking and condemning of property. That's why it won't be an el. You can be sure of that.

An elevated train over 125th St would require the taking of property in order to have convenient transfer facilities with the existing north-south subway lines. Property acquisition for such transfer facilities will not go over well with Harlem businesses, politiicans and various other people with a stake in this project, so that's a non-starter. And don't forget about the construction headaches they will have to face while such an el would be under construction or the uninviting shadow it will cast over 125th St once it's completed. An el over 125th St (a street that's not a very wide, divided roadway like a Pelham Parkway or Ocean Parkway) in this day and age is a non-starter, so forget about it, please!

The doesn't need to duplicate the all the way to 95th St. As far as 36th St, yes. The should branch off at 36th and operate to/from Bay Pkwy via the line during rush hours and to/from Whitehall middays. It doesn't need to run after 7-8 pm weekdays or during late nights or weekends.

I have to agree with Lance. They really should re-consider the Nassau alignment. Maybe connect the to the in a different place than what was looked at in the original alternatives study. Making the connection between Bowery and Essex would be disruptive with all the subway tunnels and utilities crossing in that area, so if that's what they looked at, then I can see the reason for going with Water St, transfers and dodging other subway tunnels be damned. But maybe the tie-in can be made in a different place - perhaps between Chambers and Canal, with the turning off Centre St east onto Worth, then turning north at Chatham Sq to go up Chrystie St and 2nd Ave. You'd still get the transfer to the and at Grand (the "deep Chrystie" option, which the MTA selected anyway), plus all the transfers the Nassau Line has. Yes, utilities would have to be relocated, but that's going to happen no matter where the line goes. Perhaps not to the same extent if the goes via Water, but utility relocation or "shoring up" will still have to be done. And of course, you still have to go over or under the Cranberry St and Clark St tunnels to get to Hanover Sq. You'd have and trains crossing in front of each other between Prince and Canal, delaying not just each other, but also and trains. And still three services stopping at 49th St, because you have the stopping there, so it would have to switch to the local tracks after 34th. The Broadway Line would experience complete pandemonium. And for what, so there can be "consistency" as to what train is the local? Sorry, it's not worth doing, especially considering they did "weekday local / weekend local " from 2004 to 2010 and with very few complaints, if any. If it would really be too confusing to run the local on weekends, then run more trains on the weekends. Would that really be so hard to do?

I question their reasoning for dropping the Nassau St alignment. While the Water St alignment will bring service to parts of Lower Manhattan that might be considered far from the existing lines, it won't be of any use to people commuting in from Brooklyn, because it will very likely not have transfers to any of the other lines because it will be too far away from them.

Technically, the Rutgers St Tunnel also serves the IND Fulton St Line, however a Fulton-Rutgers service also requires four tracks to merge into two before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then another track switch at Jay St. The train did this for a brief period in 2005, replacing the which got knocked out due to a signal relay room fire at Chambers St. But you can't do that on a normal basis without significantly reducing and service ( service was significantly reduced at that time; it had to be). The Montague Tunnel, once it reopens, will be served only by the , just as it was before it closed for Sandy-related repairs. It can certainly handle another service like the , unless the goal is to run more than 15 trains per hour during the rush. The biggest issue with running the via Montague is deciding where to send it once it's in Brooklyn. There are essentially five services that have direct access to Montague or the Manhattan Bridge. They are the Brighton Express, West End/4th Ave Express, Sea Beach/4th Ave Express, Brighton Local and 4th Ave Local. Extending the via Montague virtually ensures that it will have to go onto one of those routes and either duplicate or displace the existing service on that route. Brighton definitely doesn't need two express services, especially since it doesn't have any express service overnight or weekends. Quite the decision to make - if that day ever comes. At least with Fulton St, it certainly has the capacity for another service, even if it really doesn't need it. The big issue there is that you would need to build another tunnel under the East River leading into the Court St station (the Transit Museum) plus you'd need to tunnel all the way down to the end of Manhattan via Water St, dodging all the existing cross-river subway tunnels. Or you'd have to build some sort of track connection between the Fulton St IND line and the Montague St tunnel somewhere in downtown Brooklyn. A Fulton-Montague connection would save on the huge cost of building another tunnel under the East River and dodging all the existing cross-river tunnels in Lower Manhattan. And - running via Nassau St - it would guarantee that the would have a transfer to all of the lines serving Lower Manhattan, except the and lines. It's quite possible a Water St alignment won't have transfers to any of those lines because the nearest station to Water St on each of them is too far away from Water to make a useful transfer. And you'd still have to tunnel over or under all of them. You also have the advantage of eliminating the merge between the and between Hoyt and Lafayette (both can run express to Queens) and the rush hour three-way split of the . Another advantage would be that the would have direct access to a yard - Pitkin. Yes, there is the issue of overkill on the Fulton St local, given how frequently the is expected to run. But just as importantly, given how crowded and highly developed downtown Brooklyn is, where could a Fulton-Montague connection be built, where it won't cause a huge inconvenience to people who live, work and commute through there?