T to Dyre Avenue

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?

30, so 15 + 8 is 23 tph on the 6th Ave local, leaving room for at most 7 tph. On Queens Blvd local, you have 8 tph + 8 tph, so that leaves room for 14 tph, but that many won't fit on 6th Ave local. Even if the still ran its old route, you'd really be pushing it to the limit on the 6th Ave local with 29 tph. No, only people whose minds are stuck in 1984 or earlier, or people who watch too many movies or TV shows that focus on New York's financial power think so. Most other people outside New York know it's Midtown, just like we do.

Complete nonsense. First, I'm pretty sure Genting knows that Midtown is the City's primary business district. They're not stupid. They know what goes on here, business-wise. They'd have to, in order to, y'know, do business here. Second, what does it matter anyway. From "the Financial District," there's already the train. Resorts World already promotes the hell out of that and they don't have to pay the MTA one red cent for it. The service you keep proposing, plus the needlessly complicated shuffling around of the , and trains in Queens and Brooklyn are the furthest thing from their mind, because it would not benefit them. At all. Your proposal is another train from Lower Manhattan that would "take the long way" to get to Resorts World, just from a different direction than the . It really wouldn't be any faster than the , and might even be percieved as slower because it would be all local in Manhattan and Queens. Now, if they wanted a faster rail service from Midtown Manhattan, well, that's another story, because there really isn't one. But Genting won't be the ones to build it and they're currently not leaning on politicians or the MTA to do it or threaten to pack up and move.

I like them too, but I don't want to see them fall apart due to old age. I sure hope Bombardier gets those welding issues resolved and fast.

You wouldn't be able to run this train at more than 6 tph, so it wouldn't be very attractive to Rockaway riders who currently have more frequent service on the existing bus routes. Even at 6 tph, you'd be getting dangerously close to maxing out track capacity on the 6th Ave local. And if the and have problems in Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn riders on those lines would be SOL, because you'd no longer be able to reroute them via the Rutgers St tunnel, because they wouldn't be able to fit with the F, M and V trains on the tracks between W 4th and 2nd Ave. Now if a Rockaway V ran via QBL local and 63rd St tunnel to 2nd Ave, instead of 6th, then it could run more frequently and not impact , and rerouted / service. But not too frequently, because it would have to coexist with the and on the QB local tracks and merge with the express en route to the 63rd St tunnel.

Forgive me for analysing a nutty Wallyhorse plan, but my guess is the would be the new 4th Ave local and the would become express in its place, so West End riders would still have an express, but I still don't see any real reason to switch them.

A express in Brooklyn will be about as popular as the peak-direction express in Astoria was. Which means it wouldn't be. Same goes for a (J)/(Z) express on the West End Line. Just extend 6-8 trains between Broad and Bay Pkwy during 7:30-9 am and 4:30-6 pm during the rush. Fully local to supplement both the and . Skip-stop service runs only an hour each rush period and only in the peak direction to/from JC, so it won't be messed up by this extended J.

Man, you will not give this one up, will you?

That's where the hassle is. That's why Transit doesn't want R62As on the and/or and I don't blame them. Same goes for R68s on the and/or because those two lines have the same issue at Ditmars Blvd that the 2 and 5 have at Flatbush Ave. If so, then didn't they have to do that when they installed the digital front route signs on the R32s and 38s during GOH? I really don't like those tiny digital route signs. They're much harder to see than the front roll signs the R32s and 38s had pre-GOH and they ruined the classy look of those cars up front. Anyone know why the Redbirds got to keep their front rolls and marker lights after GOH, while the R32s and 38s had to lose theirs?

The IRT Jerome Ave line can also fully handle B-Division cars, but it would require building a new platform at 149th-GC because the existing upper level platform where the stops is much too close to the junction where the joins in, so making a connection to the SAS with trains stopping at the existing upper level platform would be impossible

The combined and run on 5-minute headways from Parsons/Archer to Broad St. But that's only for about an hour during rush hours and only one way (Manhattan-bound in the morning and Jamaica-bound in the evening). And it's only at the "all-stop" stations, so the "skip-stop" stations only get 10-minute headways. Are you saying skip-stop service needs to run more often? In both directions? Maybe more put-ins from Broadway Jct might help once there are enough R179s in service.

Budget cuts (from what I remember hearing) are what cut the late-night into a shuttle between 36th and 95th. They also turned the late-night shuttle train into a shuttle bus at the same time (and even that eventually got cut). The became express on Broadway and 4th Ave via the Manhattan bridge at this time as well, except during late-night hours when it substituted for the . Unfortunately, restored Broadway/4th Ave express service was short-lived because DOT inspectors found cracked beams on the bridge and the N went back to being fully local (express on 4th Ave again starting in 1994), while the R remained a late-night shuttle to this day. As for the being local in Queens, it has been done before. Late-night service ran local in Queens from 1980-87. Before 1980, the (or GG as it was then known) was cut to Queens Plaza and the F took over as local, while the continued to run express. When the R came to Queens Blvd in 1987, it replaced the F as the late-night local, while the late-night F was rerouted to 57th & 6th (then, 21st St/Queensbridge from 1989-2001). The present late-night E local/F express set-up began when the 63rd St Tunnel was connected to the Queens Blvd line.

It's so weird seeing those R68As back on the . It's a blast from the past.

Interesting how that R16-38 sign had a on it, yet no or any other unused letter in a colored circle. Since the rollsign's date is October 1, 1984, I'm guessing the decision to go to all single letter routes on the B Division had already been made and the new letters already chosen. Obviously replaced (AA), < Q > replaced < QB > and the remaining double letter trains became single letter versions of themselves. But that Avenue of the Americas Local sign remains a bit of a mystery. Prior to the 1986-88 shutdown of the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks, there were two services. One ran rush hours only from Coney Island to 168th St-Broadway as a 6th Ave express. The other ran from Coney Island to 57th St-6th Ave seven days a week via 6th Ave local, except rush hours when it also ran express and late nights when it ran as a shuttle from CI to 36th St-4th Ave. In mid-1985, they began using the new single letters, but the 168th St and 57th St services were both still designated as trains and remained that way until April 1986, when the B was cut back to 34th St and it only ran during rush hours. The 6th Ave service that ran from 57th & 6th to Grand St while the north side tracks were shut down was never called the V. It was called the . Who knows what they had in mind for that V sign back in October 1984?

But do Brighton Line riders necessarily want a through service to the Nassau St Line? The ( M ) last ran on the Brighton Line in April 1986 when it was rerouted to the 4th Ave/West End Line due to major rehabilitation on Brighton that required removal of tracks from service and the implementation of ( D )/ skip-stop service (the Brooklyn sections of the and trains ran via the Broadway Line and Manhattan Bridge south tracks at the same time). When that work was finished and the Manhattan Bridge north tracks re-opened in December 1988, M service was never restored to Brighton and remained on the West End Line. Instead, they implemented a local/ ( Q ) express setup, which was then replaced in June 2001 by a local/ < Q > express setup when the north side bridge tracks closed for the second time, then finally the current local/ express setup in February 2004. The M has not operated in regular service over the Brighton in 28 years and no one over there seems to be asking for it back. The only thing I've been hearing is that there are some riders in southern Brooklyn bound for Lower Manhattan who aren't happy about the loss of the M, but they aren't necessarily Brighton riders. They may come from the other southern Brooklyn BMT lines and prefer not to have to ride up to crowded Canal St and backtrack southbound on the or for Chambers, Fulton or Broad. Or they would prefer not to have to jam onto the already-crowded and trains at Atlantic Ave. If the issue is having a route from southern Brooklyn to the Nassau St Line during rush hours that might relieve crowding on the 4 and 5 and the crowds transferring at Canal St, then perhaps it's worth considering extending a few trains (like 6-8 J trains) into southern Brooklyn to/from the 4th Ave line during the most crowded times of the rush - roughly 7:30-9:00 AM and 4:30-6:00 PM. As for the , why would you want it to go from express to local after Newkirk Ave? Given that there are no switch tracks north or south of Newkirk, what would be the point in doing that?

I take the QBL every day to work. The only time riders pass up an M in favor of the R is if they want a direct transfer to the 4 or 5, because the R is the only QBL line that connects directly to the 4 and 5. So you would also pass up the E or F for that direct transfer. Or if you want a QBL express. But then you'd also be getting off the R if you want an E or F express. I can see Queens-bound riders on 6th Ave passing up the M in favor of the F because the F is express in Queens and goes further than 71st Ave. But guess what - they did exactly the same thing when the V was around! And they would still do that if the V were brought back. Sea Beach riders can already easily travel between their home line and Chinatown via the N train. Unless you're talking about a service that starts/ends at the Bay Pkwy stop on the Sea Beach Line, bringing back the pre-2010 Bay Pkwy ( M ) won't be useful to them. That service terminated on the West End D line and it didn't seem to be of much use to D line riders. And even so, that service would have to run via the 4th Ave express tracks to keep people from passing it up in favor of the N. Really, the only reason to bring back a Nassau St service that serves southern Brooklyn would be to supplement the R train at the 4th Ave local stops. Depending on who posts here or who you speak to, there may or may not be a reason to bring back that type of service. Lastly, people coming from Bushwick, Middle Village and Williamsburg who want Manhattan can (and do) get to Manhattan on the current service. They do not transfer from the M to the J or Z at Essex St. Why would they? The only reason to transfer there is for Lower Manhattan now. Yes, there are M line riders who want Lower Manhattan, but they are not the majority of the line's riders. And they weren't even the majority of the line's riders when the M was still serving Lower Manhattan and southern Brooklyn during its last years of operation. Before the M was rerouted to Midtown Manhattan, Essex-Delancey was quite the madhouse with people transferring from the J, M and Z trains to the F. Now, it's still busy, but not as bad as it was just five years ago.

No they can't. You can't run the to Brooklyn via Culver. Neither the Cranberry ( ) or Rutgers ( ) tunnels would be able to handle the 15 tph of the in addition to the existing services in both of those tunnels. Not to mention the switching problems that would occur, either at West 4th St or Jay St.

It would be a damn shame if we don't make it to 125th by 2029. Unlike Phase 1 which had to be built entirely from scratch, Phase 2 has the advantage of the two existing tunnel sections. It seems like the most difficult part would be turning west over to Lexington Ave to connect to the , , and Metro-North trains at 125th St due to the double-deck set-up of the Lexington Ave line platforms. With two sections of currently-unused tunnel existing for a total of 16 blocks under 2nd Avenue in East Harlem, there's no reason not to be able to get at least Phase 2 up and running by then. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the usual NYC and NYS political shenanigans are allowed to get in the way. If that's allowed to happen, then it will time to do the political equivalent of "slut-shaming" City and State politicians who drop the ball on continuing construction of the 2nd Ave Subway beyond Phase 1. I can understand if we can't get Phases 3 and 4 up and running by 2029. Given the history of this project and the usual political garbage we deal with in the city and state, it is over-promising to get the full 2nd Ave Subway up and running 15 years from now. Like Phase 1, almost all of the construction for those phases will have to be done from scratch and they will have to tunnel over and under existing subway lines as well as the Amtrak/LIRR and Queens-Midtown tunnels - not an easy task. But if it takes more than 15 years to get a part of the project that has much of its tunneling already done, well, that will be the usual state/city political shenanigans rearing their ugly heads again.

Camelback? How can a train route "camelback"? Sorry, that one kind of just sticks out. But seriously, how is the current service only useful to people riding between QBL stops? How is it not useful to people riding along 53rd St, or 6th Avenue, or people headed from Myrtle Ave or Williamsburg to Midtown Manhattan? For that last group of people, the was useless because it dead-ended at 2nd Ave. And you really want to bring that back? Why? And really, you also want to bring back the equally-useless Nassau St ( M ) service, dead-ending at Chambers St and running empty in southern Brooklyn like it did before it was eliminated in 2010? Again, why?

That's exactly why you DON'T bring back skip-stop. You will reduce service to the "skipped" stops, which will make trains MORE crowded, not less.

If they had stuck with left-window front rollsigns on the NTTs, this wouldn't be an issue. Every car fleet from R40 to R68A and the R110B all had left-window front rollsigns that showed the train's letter in a big colored circle or diamond and it worked well enough. They should have left well enough alone and they didn't. At least they should have stuck with front rollsigns until it becomes feasible and cost-effective to put in a digital route sign in place of a front left-side rollsign (if it hasn't already).

The R33s that ran on the never had their yard stickers changed from black to green when they moved from the to the and the R26/28/29 "salad trains" that moved over to East 180th Yard retained their green stickers until the end of their service lives. Why even go through all the trouble changing the yard stickers? They never did it when the R62s moved over from the to the and the R142s/142As never got them at all. I think it's time to just phase them out completely.

And no on extending the onto the Queens Blvd Line, bringing back the and reverting the back to its pre-July 2010 route. The current route is more popular than the old one was and is going to be extended to Essex St on weekends, eliminating the need to transfer to the at Myrtle for Manhattan service. If it was still running the old route, you'd never see this happen. Why would you want to mess with that? I don't disagree with bringing back the . The W should - and most likely will - come back when the is rerouted to 96th St and 2nd Ave. If the is not enough and it is not possible or efficient to increase R service, and the loss of the old ( M ) is really that much of a loss, then perhaps resurrected the W should operate in Brooklyn to supplement the R at the local stops between 36th and Pacific (I will not call it "Atlantic Ave - Barclays Center"). And because the W will almost certainly be based out of Coney Island Yard, perhaps at least rush hour W trains can go into service at Bay Pkwy. At least then, they can cut down on deadheading and line riders can have the option of direct service to downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan again. Midday W service can run from Astoria to Whitehall; there's probably no need for the extra service in Brooklyn during midday hours.