Routes that aren't around that should be

[dman1455]

True. However in 2016-'17 when the 1st leg of the SAS to 96th St is supposed to open, that is a lifetime from now. Thus plans could change say we talking about the .

 

While it's about 90% certain the will go to 96th, there also a chance it could be a restored running say between 96th/2nd and either the line's Bay Parkway station or even 59th Street/4th Avenue via Broadway Local.

 

If the terminated at 59th/4th it could be using the express tracks on line at 8th Ave-62nd stop in Brooklyn similar to how the terminated at Smith-9th and used the layover at 4th Ave line to turn back Queens bound for many years. I could be wrong but I think the 63rd St tracks can also switch to/from both the Local and Express tracks at 57th St/7th as well.

 

I think this is the alternative if the decides to keep the permanetly on the Astoria line.

 

 

(Q)Weekdays Ditmars-Stillwell via Broadway Express skips 49th Street.

Weekends/Overnights appx. 11pm-6am terminates at Queensboro Plaza.

 

(N)Returns to it 2004-June '09 service pattern. Weekdays express between

34th St-Hearld Sq and 59th St, Brooklyn. Stops at all times at 49th St.

Runs via Manhattan Bridge at all times including overnights.

 

(W)Runs between 96th/2nd Ave and 59th St-4th Brooklyn. Extended rush hours to 86th St station on for access to CI-Gravesend yards.

 

 

Or alternative two.

 

runs between 96th and line's Bay Parkway station weekdays.

Weekends and Overnights shortned to Canal Street and overnights only runs via local stations.

 

 

reactions? We shall see.

 

Are you on Drugs.. If so can I get some cause it sounds like your smoking the good stuff

[Luis1985]

True. However in 2016-'17 when the 1st leg of the SAS to 96th St is supposed to open, that is a lifetime from now. Thus plans could change say we talking about the .

 

While it's about 90% certain the will go to 96th, there also a chance it could be a restored running say between 96th/2nd and either the line's Bay Parkway station or even 59th Street/4th Avenue via Broadway Local.

 

If the terminated at 59th/4th it could be using the express tracks on line at 8th Ave-62nd stop in Brooklyn similar to how the terminated at Smith-9th and used the layover at 4th Ave line to turn back Queens bound for many years. I could be wrong but I think the 63rd St tracks can also switch to/from both the Local and Express tracks at 57th St/7th as well.

 

I think this is the alternative if the decides to keep the permanetly on the Astoria line.

 

 

(Q)Weekdays Ditmars-Stillwell via Broadway Express skips 49th Street.

Weekends/Overnights appx. 11pm-6am terminates at Queensboro Plaza.

 

(N)Returns to it 2004-June '09 service pattern. Weekdays express between

34th St-Hearld Sq and 59th St, Brooklyn. Stops at all times at 49th St.

Runs via Manhattan Bridge at all times including overnights.

 

(W)Runs between 96th/2nd Ave and 59th St-4th Brooklyn. Extended rush hours to 86th St station on for access to CI-Gravesend yards.

 

 

Or alternative two.

 

runs between 96th and line's Bay Parkway station weekdays.

Weekends and Overnights shortned to Canal Street and overnights only runs via local stations.

 

 

reactions? We shall see.

 

i like the idea of the going to Queensboro Plz, but the between 96 St/2Av and Canal? theres no point, lol. its like a Broadway Shuttle, lmao. but dont forget if it goes up 2 Ave, it will have to run via Broadway Exp because of the interlocking at 57 St/7 Av. as for the ...good move except that 49 St stop. lol.

[dman1455]

All of what he wrote makes NO SENSE!!

 

terminate at Queens Borough Plaza.. Why!? Let it go to 57th

 

if it runs via bridge what train would people take via lower Manhattan since there is no Over night service

 

3 lines on SAS... SMFH

[Vistausss]

All of what he wrote makes NO SENSE!!

 

terminate at Queens Borough Plaza.. Why!?

 

if it runs via bridge what train would people take via lower Manhattan

 

3 lines on SAS... SMFH

 

why not? It's a good place to end.

 

Ow come on, what did you smoke? You exactly know the answer to your own question.

 

he never said anything about to SAS.

[Shortline Bus]

Are you on Drugs.. If so can I get some cause it sounds like your smoking the good stuff

 

Dman yes I am on drugs. Need to cut down on the sugars.

 

 

Why Dman you go after the teenager foamers who make far way more unrealstic proposals here.

 

I made this 'unrealstic' idea because Astoria area residents may not want to lose the train. That why i said the possiblity of the or w/e letter it called to go up the SAS.

[dman1455]

why not? It's a good place to end.

 

Ow come on, what did you smoke? You exactly know the answer to your own question.

 

he never said anything about to SAS.

 

LMFAO!! dude can you read?

 

It would be stupid

 

No I did not because he didn't write about the running late night

 

Yes he did read what he wrote...

[Luis1985]

All of what he wrote makes NO SENSE!!

 

terminate at Queens Borough Plaza.. Why!?

 

if it runs via bridge what train would people take via lower Manhattan

 

3 lines on SAS... SMFH

 

1. The would stay as the Broadway-4 Av Local via Whitehall St overnights.

 

2. between 96 St/2 Ave and Canal St? idk why either.

 

3. to/from Queensboro Plaza? the idea is nice if they were going to keep it on the Astoria, but theyre not.

[dman1455]

Dman yes I am on drugs. Need to cut down on the sugars.

 

 

Why Dman you go after the teenager foamers who make far way more unrealstic proposals here.

 

I made this 'unrealstic' idea because Astoria area residents may not want to lose the train. That why i said the possiblity of the or w/e letter it called to go up the SAS.

 

I'm sorry but, most of these ideas sound unrealistic.

[Shortline Bus]

1. The would stay as the Broadway-4 Av Local via Whitehall St overnights.

 

2. between 96 St/2 Ave and Canal St? idk why either.

 

3. to/from Queensboro Plaza? the idea is nice if they were going to keep it on the Astoria, but theyre not.

 

 

If the ran between SAS and the Bway Local line, I don't think the will run '2' Broadway Locals late nights Luis.

 

Canal and Whitehall are the only places to terminate say the SAS .

That why I suggested Canal.

 

 

Same reason why I said the to terminate at Queensboro overnights. Don't think the wants '2' 24/7 trains all the way to Ditmars. Plus 57th will be busy with SAS trains.

 

Understand.

[Luis1985]

If the ran between SAS and the Bway Local line, I don't think the will run '2' Broadway Locals Luis.

 

Canal and Whitehall are the only places to terminate say the SAS .

That why I suggested Canal.

 

i understand that, but theres an interlock at 57 St/7 Av and at 42 St-Times Sq. if they were to put the via 2 Ave, it would have to cross from the Local track to the Express track at 57 St/7 Av (thats one wait), the would have to cross tracks at 42 St-Times Sq (another wait) just to make the stop at 49 St and the crossing from Local to Express and vice versa at either 42 St-Times Sq or 57 St/7 Av just to go onto the Astoria line. Thats too many crossings.

 

For example:

 

Canal St (Lcl Plat):

Canal St (Exp Plat):

 

Prince St-34 St (Lcl Plat):

Prince St-34 St (Exp Plat):

 

"after 34 St, the crosses from Express to Local (vice versa) to make stops at 49 St"

 

Times Sq-42 St (Lcl Plat):

Times Sq-42 St (Exp Plat):

 

49 St (Lcl Plat):

 

"after 49 St, the crosses from the Exp to Lcl track to get to the Astoria line, the will have to cross from Lcl track to Exp track to get up the 63 St and 2 Av line."

 

57 St (Lcl Plat):

57 st (Exp Plat): .

 

its too many crossings, lol.

[Shortline Bus]

i understand that, but theres an interlock at 57 St/7 Av and at 42 St-Times Sq. if they were to put the via 2 Ave, it would have to cross from the Local track to the Express track at 57 St/7 Av (thats one wait), the would have to cross tracks at 42 St-Times Sq (another wait) just to make the stop at 49 St and the crossing from Local to Express and vice versa at either 42 St-Times Sq or 57 St/7 Av just to go onto the Astoria line. Thats too many crossings.

 

 

True.

 

Sure more than 90% likely the will go on the SAS when it's 1st leg goes to 96th.

 

 

My brother who works in offices on Madison just hinted there a possiblity that Astoria riders may not want to lose the and go through another set of service changes again in 2016-'17. Tthus chance the alternative would be a restored and the stops it would take from the SAS to the Bway Local. Don't there almost no chance the according to my brother and his sources the ever serves SAS.

 

 

That my whole point I been making guys.

[dman1455]

True.

 

Sure more than 90% likely the will go on the SAS when it's 1st leg goes to 96th.

 

 

My brother who works in offices on Madison just hinted there a possiblity that Astoria will not want to lose the and thus chance the alternative would be a restored and the stops it would take from the SAS to the Bway Local. That my whole point I been making guys.

 

You know it's just a letter right?

[Luis1985]

If the ran between SAS and the Bway Local line, I don't think the will run '2' Broadway Locals late nights Luis.

 

Canal and Whitehall are the only places to terminate say the SAS .

That why I suggested Canal.

 

 

Same reason why I said the to terminate at Queensboro overnights. Don't think the wants '2' 24/7 trains all the way to Ditmars. Plus 57th will be busy with SAS trains.

 

Understand.

 

ok now i see what your trying to say. lol. its just gonna be a lil complicated because the will have to cross tracks at 57 St to reach their destinations.

 

question: would it be a bad idea to terminate the at Queens Plaza during the late night hours?

[Grand Concourse]

You know it's just a letter right?

 

What I still don't get is why you think bringing back a 2nd line to fill in for the to go to Astoria is so farfetched. It was only cut since the MTA had to cut services. They are buying the R188s despite R62s not even near retirement age [~40+]. So who's to say if these R179s won't have additional orders? If there's a need for more trains, then they'll be bought.

 

The ran better as an express than now being local again. The area around Prince St would be much smoother again if the doesn't have to merge back with the to go over the bridge.

[Luis1985]

The ran better as an express than now being local again. The area around Prince St would be much smoother again if the doesn't have to merge back with the to go over the bridge.

 

exactly. i agree.

[TwoTimer]

The other night I was on the operating, me and a connected at 14-Union Sq and left. I passed it at Prince middle while a in front of me crossed over in front of it to go on the bridge. Once that got out the way with the small headstart I got to Dekalb, and low and behold they were holding that same for a connection. Go figure. The might just return as a rush hour service to Whitehall once that goes to the SAS. Whitehall is a better terminal than Canal by a long shot, as trains do not have to relay at Whitehall. Middays the two services are not needed up there at Astoria. Expect City Hall lower to be purely a yard by then, the will have to go somewhere else.

[2Line1291]

Who knows what's gonna happen when phase 1 of SAS is done. There's so many things that could change... The might stay in Astoria while the may go up to 96th St.

[Joel Up Front]

I read on nycsubway.org that not that many people liked the IND Second System. At least the old SAS would have helped.

[qjtransitmaster]

hell no, lol. the from Jamaica Queens, thru Manhattan, thru brooklyn, then back to Queens? not a good look. that'll be like the today. besides, ppl are used to the along Mc.Donald Av, and the via Fulton.

 

as for the to Coney Island....thats not a bad idea, but it will delay the at Stillwell.

i still feel like Church Av should be a permanent terminal for the instead of Smith-9 Sts.

 

a little wrong the E should be extended to coney island at rush hour only then let F go express but at expense of kings hwy F. G can be local to church F can be express!!!

[CTK246]

The to Coney Island...let's see how many problems I could list with that...

[Roadcruiser1]

It can't run in the Cranberry Tunnels how many times do I have to mention the Cranberry tunnels are stuffed they can't handle the . The only way the is coming to South Brooklyn, and even if it goes on the Culver Line is to build an entirely different subway line just for the . You know how much that costs billions of dollars. I rather have the sent down the Rutgers Street Tunnel south of Houston Street which is more possible, and can run as the express on the Culver Line, but it can't be considered until phase three of the Second Avenue Subway is built.

[CenSin]

It can't run in the Cranberry Tunnels how many times do I have to mention the Cranberry tunnels are stuffed they can't handle the . The only way the is coming to South Brooklyn, and even if it goes on the Culver Line is to build an entirely different subway line just for the . You know how much that costs billions of dollars. I rather have the sent down the Rutgers Street Tunnel south of Houston Street which is more possible, and can run as the express on the Culver Line, but it can't be considered until phase three of the Second Avenue Subway is built. .

The isn't even on the horizon, but the , and are all physically capable of running on the Culver line from various connecting points. And when a connection does get built between the 2 Avenue and Houston Street lines, how does that enable a Culver express any more than the existing connections? There is no cause and effect relationship the two.

[MikeGerald]

The isn't even on the horizon, but the , and are all physically capable of running on the Culver line from various connecting points. And when a connection does get built between the 2 Avenue and Houston Street lines, how does that enable a Culver express any more than the existing connections? There is no cause and effect relationship the two.

 

A single subway track can only handle up to 30 trains per hour, with all trains traveling in the same direction. This the rush hours maximum amount of trains on all of the NYC subway lines, and often on other train lines. This means a train every 2 minutes, something that E and F trains achieve regularly.

 

The A train has close to 15 trains per hour, the E-train definitely has 15 trains per hour (usually 12 an hour goes to Archer Avenue segment, while the other 3 go to 179th Street), and the has about to 6 to 8 trains an hour. Fitting both the A and C trains in the Cranberry Tunnel works - 15 + 6, or 15 + 8, are both less than 30. Of course, fitting both the A and E works = 15 + 15 = 30 trains per hour. While the combined, A, C and E does not work = 15 + 15 + 6 > 30 trains per hour.

 

Adding a train line to the Rugters Tunnel works since the F-train, has 15 trains per hour rush hours. And it goes without saying that is why the Queens Blvd line works 15 E-trains and 15 F-trains is just what fits on the express tracks.

 

The F-train and the M-train work on Sixth Avenue, where there are 15 F-trains, and 6 to 8 M-trains. The same on the Culver line with 15 F-trains, and 6 to 8 G-trains. There is some flexibility to move a few trains around the lines if there is a temporary blockage, but not enough "open-ness in the track usage schedule" for another whole active route.

 

Adding a route to the Rugters Street Tunnel as an express along the Culver line works, when whatever the express route joins/leaves the pathway of Manhattan routed trains at or near the Jay Street station. The problem in this instance is not any of the Brooklyn trackage, but the trackage about the West 4th Street station to just before the Second Avenue station on Houston Street. The local tracks are the only ones that allow switching between the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue lines. Since those local tracks are filled with F and M trains, there's little capacity for an additional route on those tracks. In order to get the E-train to travel along the Culver line in Brooklyn would require re-moving the M-train, or some other line.

 

If the Second Avenue subway line were to connect to the F-line at the Second Avenue station, or Delancy Street, or York Street stations - then such a route (to be called whatever later) could then run as the Culver express. Such a scheme would not interfere with the M-train, or upset the various other transit operations. Now whether such a track connection is practical, funded or in the plans is a complete other story.

 

Mike

[Shortline Bus]

The isn't even on the horizon, but the , and are all physically capable of running on the Culver line from various connecting points. And when a connection does get built between the 2 Avenue and Houston Street lines, how does that enable a Culver express any more than the existing connections? There is no cause and effect relationship the two.

 

Again you would create mega delays at the switchover tracks between High and Jay St. if any 8th Ave train switches to the Culver Line? There is a reason when the runs on the Line between West 4th and Jay for "GO's the most of the time is usually suspended.

 

 

The only place(I am not endorsing it)that a 8th Ave Local train can switch to the Culver tracks without causing huge 'conga line' is between the West 4th and the Bway-Lafayfette Station.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am in support of send the Second Avenue Subway onto the Culver Line or at least building a connection at Houston Street.