T to Dyre Avenue

It is better if the doesn't come back. Part of the problem was that there were too many stations above 137th St that had high enough ridership to justify being all-stop stations (stations where both and trains stopped). You had three all-stop stations in a row at 191st, 181st and 168th Streets. You also had 231st Street, an all-stop station just two stops below 242nd Street, so the also made three stops in a row at the start of its route. This was done because 231st is a major bus-subway transfer point for the many riders headed to/from Riverdale.

Why? Bowling Green and South Ferry are within relatively easy walking distance of each other. It might be faster to walk between the two stations than to go downstairs and wait for a shuttle train.

I remember riding the R142As on the express in the Bronx when they were new (summer 2000). They sure were fast on the Westchester Avenue el.

And just how often would and trains would be able to run if they have to share the 53rd Street Tunnel with these other trains? It can't be the same number of trains per hour as now.

As a former resident of Bayside (lived there from 2010-12) who works in Lower Manhattan, I would have welcomed a subway extension either along Northern Blvd or the PW Line with open arms. The Q12 and Q13 buses are very well-used routes that make a lot of stops on the way to or from Main Street, Flushing. Because peak fares on the LIRR are very costly and a monthly LIRR pass doesn't include any transfers to the subway, I took the bus to/from the subway at Flushing to cut down on commuting costs. Well, you get what you pay for. Pleasant, fast and convenient are not words I would use to describe that commute. And Heaven help you if there's a sick passenger or signal problem on the line. Now if the were extended eastward, there would still be problems with sick passengers or signal problems, but at least it would eliminate a slow bus ride and transfer for many people. As for the people who would protest and fight a subway extension because of the noise or the people it would bring, that's just NIMBY paranoia. Sorry to sound dismissive of people's concerns, but really, that's what it is. What would stop troublemakers from driving to Bayside or Douglaston to cause problems? Or what would stop them from taking a bus there? Subway trains don't automatically equal crime, drugs and shootings. This is not the 1970s or 80s. Maybe some folks like to think the rest of the City hasn't changed since then, but they are wrong. What hasn't changed since then is the City's rail and transit infrastructure and it's struggling to keep up with the demand of a city that has a lot more people than it did 30, 40 years ago. And much of that increased demand is right here in Queens. We have to do something to address it. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away. Maybe a subway extension to northeastern Queens is not the answer, I don't know. But what I do know is the PW line is underutilized, especially west of Bayside. Occasionally, I took peak local trains home to Auburndale when I was fortunate enough to learn about train troubles ahead of time. To my surprise, these trains had plenty of seats available. Perhaps increased service west of Bayside at more affordable fares (really, LIRR, $9.50 from Bayside to Penn one way?) with transfers to the subway and buses at Woodside and Penn Station would put more people on those trains. And it might help relieve some of the crowding on the and speed up the bus commutes for people who are only headed to Flushing, either as a destination or to transfer to another bus.

You mean a " to Dyre Avenue"? I would be in favor of doing that over hooking the into the Concourse Line, mostly because it also offers more travel options to the eastern Bronx. Really, the Concourse line doesn't need two full-time services and they would have to boot the rush-hour off the Concourse Line to make room for the . Running up 3rd Avenue would be an excellent option too; it would replace the long-gone 3rd Avenue el service. (It's why I choose that as my handle.)

I also think SAS should have at least three tracks, but with Phase 1 already dug, isn't it already too late to add a third track there? Perhaps future phases can have at least three tracks.

And the MTA must have ignored their complaints because R68s didn't return to the until it came home to the Broadway Line in 2001. Even then, the express still ran with slants. And when the returned to Brooklyn in 2004 and replaced the , it ran with - you guessed it...slants!

R211 (since the contract hasn't been put out to bid yet): Length: 75 ft Width: 10 ft Configured in pairs that operate in 4-car sets. In other words, a 4-car set that can be uncoupled easily and quickly. This way, if one car within the set has mechanical or structual damage, only two cars have go out of service instead of four and the other two cars can be coupled to another pair and continue in service. This also makes it possible to operate 6-car trains if ridership warrants it via an A-B-B-A-B-A configuration. Car bodies will be stainless steel. They will have on both sides four pairs of double doors plus one single door near the No. 2 (rear) end of each car. A-cars (cab cars) will have blue fronts that will look like the ones on the M7A cars on Metro-North. A and B (non-cab cars) will have a blue beltline strip along the sides and ends (like the R44s and R46s used to have). Interiors will have speckled light gray walls except for the wall separating the cab which will be red. Seating will be mostly tranverse with aisle-facing seats limited to right by the doors. Seats will be painted in red and have taller seatbacks to better support the backs and necks of taller people. Floors will be tiled dark gray with two lengthwise rows of red tiles near the seats. There will also be red tiles at each doorway that connect to the rows of red tiles. This will facilitate being able to locate where the exit doors are.

The MTA could have written it into the R160 contract that the cars be compatible with the older R143s. They did it in the past. Every B Division car from R16 to R42 was capable of running in the same train under normal circumstances. Same with A Division cars from R12 to R36. Even post-GOH, R32s ran with R38s and R40ms ran with R42s. There was even a married pair made up of an R40m and an R42 (put together because their original mates, ironically, were in a collision). Now we have three R143s sidelined because "it's not worth it" to produce another car that can run with them. Ridiculous, that's what it is.

It's too bad the MTA isn't considering converting Bedford Park into an "express" stop. By extending the southbound platform over the southbound local track and rerouting the southbound local track to the outside of the southbound platform (sort of a "reverse image" of the layout at Willets Point ), they could have another station where trains on all three tracks can platform. And with Bedford Park being a major transfer point, it might justify the existence of a service. Plus, the land west of the station is occupied by Concourse Yard, so it's MTA property.

Cheesy? How would it be "cheesy" if 207th became the new home for the train?

I'm guessing the white P, T, U, X and Y bullets are (or were) arranged the same way as the bullet on that roll sign. I once rode in an R32 car with its bottom rolls set on P with the P all the way to the left like that.

They already do. That's what the side destination signs on the trains and the overhead platform signs are for.

But they will not be able to use four-car R179 sets on the . That's what we get for the MTA insisting on ordering permanently linked four- and five-sets of trains (and linking the R62s and R68s into permanent four- and five-car sets) and for not buying new cars that can operate in the same train with the older ones.

Exactly. Just because most R32 rolls have just without any route info on them, doesn't mean they can't ever run on the . That is all you need to see to know that your train is a train. The R42, R62, R68 and retired R40 roll signs only show the route letter or number; nothing about what streets or lines the train runs on. Lack of route info has never been a problem with those trains. Setting the R32 rolls on without "Jamaica/Nassau St" next to it wouldn't be any different. I mean, it's not like the was rerouted to 6th Avenue and got a different line color.

Yes. I'm old enough (34) to remember those cars first going into service replacing beat-up, grafittied R15, R17, R21, R22, R29 and R33 cars (with the R29s and R33s getting overhauled and sent to the , and lines). What a relief it was to see these shiny new cars in 1984.

I'm surprised it moved under its own power. Maybe there's hope for it going back into service after all (I hope).

I do have to admit, the front looks nicer than the present (and incompatible) R143s and 160s. Bu then again, it is a an artist's rendering. Won't know for sure if it will still look that way when Bombardier gets set to build the prototype cars.

But if the SAS is joined to Concourse, the will most likely have to be booted off the Concourse Line and either the or SAS will have to run local. Concourse riders will likely go nuts at the thought of their train being made local during rush hours. If Concourse had four tracks, then I'd definitely say extend one of the SAS lines up that way. But with only three tracks, it would make more sense for the Bronx portion of the SAS to run on a separate route. If it's the or , a yard wouldn't have to be built in the Bronx; either line would just continue to be based out of Coney Island.

I agree that the Bronx should be the next boro that the 2nd Avenue Subway travels to if the planners' goal of relieving overcrowding on the upper and lines is to be realized because those lines are crowded even before entering Manhattan. If they really want to relieve overcrowding, it might be better to have the line continue north into the Bronx rather than dogleg over to Lexington and 125th. Maybe start by having a short section in the Bronx with stations on 3rd Avenue at 149th and 138th Streets with transfers to the and at 149th and the at 138th. Yes, it would require tunneling under the Harlem River. Would it be significantly more expensive to build a prefabricated tunnel and sink it under the Harlem River, like they did with the 63rd Street tunnel (which is longer than this tunnel would be)?

Good to know. In that case, I propose retaining service to Kings Highway on weekdays. I propose running it local KH to Jay St.

The will have to run less than 18 tph if ever joins the in the Rutgers tunnel. The is already at 15tph. The would have to be limited to 15tph. As for Culver, running both the and trains south of Church would be overkill. The Culver el is already overserved with 15 tph. It would even more so with 15 's and 15 's (even if they originate at Avenue X). A better use for the in Brooklyn would be to run it express between Jay St and Church Ave and have the replace the to Coney Island. The would then run local from Jay to Church and terminate at Church with the . This way, the would have direct access to a train yard and the can run a shorter, more reliable route.

The R68s are indeed the B-Division R62s. Both fleets were ordered roughly around the same time. Both have a lot of similarities inside and out (especially interior-wise). There is no A-Division equivalent of the R32s, which is unfortunate (had the R39 contract been put out to order, there would have been). Perhaps the A-Division fleet in the 70s and early 80s would have looked less shabby than if there was.

Exactly. Every two-bit politician all over the city would be demanding that any subway lines running through their district gets the newest subway cars every time the MTA orders new cars. Buses too. The MTA would have to replace all of its rail cars and buses at the same time in order to please them all. Would these same pols be willing to give the MTA ample funding so they can replace all subway cars and buses in one shot? Of course they won't, so they really need to shut up about how the MTA assigns subway cars. Politicians, either put up or shut up!