#7 to NJ or lower manhattan.

[Vistausss]

@GC: 3 track station? Hmm, that's weird because on the most recent pics I only count 2 tracks at the Javits station with no room for a 3rd one...

[Trainmaster5]

I believe someone pointed out earlier that the has spent millions installing a CBTC system on the line. They are also spending millions to install a CBTC system on the line. The systems are not compatible AFAIK. How, or why, should the even consider a - combination ? The idea might look good on paper but the is not running a model railroad. Let's get real about this. Ripping out 2 CBTC systems and shutting down the Steinway tubes for years  to accomplish this ain't gonna happen. Carry on.

[Vistausss]

Exactly Trainmaster5. Which is also the reason PATH won't connect or directly serve as a transfer at the new FSTH. They ain't running a model railroad, the idea just isn't feasible. It also applies to the 'let's connect SI to Manhattan by subway' idea.

[Grand Concourse]

@GC: 3 track station? Hmm, that's weird because on the most recent pics I only count 2 tracks at the Javits station with no room for a 3rd one...

I haven't kept track over the construction and going by the original concept of a single island platform and 1 side platform station (similar to Essex on the J/M). That's what I mean by 3 track terminal. If they changed it, then my mistake.

[bobtehpanda]

The does run very frequently - probably on the tightest headways of any line, A or B division. But won't the new system allow additional trains per hour to be run? And if so, I think it should be able to accommodate a ( 9 ) West Side Local service for two or three stations. I stated upthread (and in another topic) that the ( 9 ) run up 11th Ave as far as 57th St then shift one block over to 10th/Amsterdam Ave and turn north up Amsterdam. Then merge with the at 72nd St and continue uptown from there to 137th St or 242nd St. Above 72nd St, there's no need for a third parallel subway line on the West Side and no really good place to put it, so just let the ( 9 ) join the at 72nd St. There's also no need for a far West Side line below 14th St, so just have the and ( 9 ) end there. It should turn eastward a bit below 23rd St, so it can steers clear of the water.

 

The needs all the capacity it can get - even if it was boosted to 40TPH (the norm for most systems running moving-block signalling), the 7 would likely still be full during the peak.

[bobtehpanda]

Nope. The option to build a shell *expired* in 2008. No funding = no shell. And that photo set proves it.

 

The area around where the station would be is flat and does not have the rounded walls of the tube. That's about it.

 

There is provisioning, just not a shell.

 

Did you think I was suggesting a shuttle from QBP to Main? When I said the , I meant the line all the way to Whitehall (hence, instead of it going to Astoria. The only shuttle I mentioned was QBP to Vernon Jackson).

So the line would still have full service to Manhttan; only diverted to Bway for a few years.

  It's not really for through service like that, though it would still benefit those riders going those places who don't feel like getting up and changing (as they do now anyway). It would tie together two isolated lines, (and further justify converting the to B Div). It would also increase capacity on the Williamsburg portion of the line, because the extra service short turned at Myrtle would have another function, and all the terminals (with all the backlog waiting to get into them) would no longer be in Manhattan.

 

The 60th St tubes do not nearly have the capacity to run full Roosevelt service. Currently, trains run every 2.5 min during the peak into Steinway, and trains are already crowded to standing room. Since you are not going to squeeze trains out of 60th to the point where you can run every 2.5 min into Broadway, this would either lead to a significant capacity cut and severe overcrowding.

 

You would also need to spend at least a couple weekends shaving back platform widths, and during this time it would neither be feasible to run BMT-standards trains, nor would it be safe to run IRT-standard trains (the gap would be too wide).

[Grand Concourse]

With how 'often' the 7 shutdowns used to be, I don't think shutting down the stations would be a big deal. Now how long each platforms are and if some needs to be extended would be another matter. 

As for what to do with 60th if they were to send the Flushing line via 60th st, perhaps they could shift the R over to 63rd (yes very unpopular) and run only the N up Astoria (Q going to 96th and no W brought back to back up the N, W would be the new designation for Flushing to Whitehall *agreed with what Eric said).

Since this is all fantasy: I'll go one step further, this conversion of the Flushing line should happen around the time when the R62s and some R62As are ready to be retired. That way the R188s can then be sent to the mainline and replace those trains directly (might need some more A cars since there will be more B cars around) and order more B division cars for the B division Flushing line. The segment from QBP to Javits center would probably stay as A division cars till the stienway tubes are replaced.

[Eric B]

I believe someone pointed out earlier that the has spent millions installing a CBTC system on the line. They are also spending millions to install a CBTC system on the line. The systems are not compatible AFAIK. How, or why, should the even consider a - combination ? The idea might look good on paper but the is not running a model railroad. Let's get real about this. Ripping out 2 CBTC systems and shutting down the Steinway tubes for years  to accomplish this ain't gonna happen. Carry on.

If they were going to do the work of extending and joining the lines, making the CBTC compatible would not be that much of a big deal.

The 60th St tubes do not nearly have the capacity to run full Roosevelt service. Currently, trains run every 2.5 min during the peak into Steinway, and trains are already crowded to standing room. Since you are not going to squeeze trains out of 60th to the point where you can run every 2.5 min into Broadway, this would either lead to a significant capacity cut and severe overcrowding.

 

You would also need to spend at least a couple weekends shaving back platform widths, and during this time it would neither be feasible to run BMT-standards trains, nor would it be safe to run IRT-standard trains (the gap would be too wide).

Full Roosevelt service?

The idea assumes Second ave. is open, so the is running that way, and the would likely replace it to Astoria. But while the Steinway tubes are out, the would have to be moved to Flushing. It would have to be increased, but I don't know the numbers of the current and . You might end up having to temporarily switch stuff around, like the be Astoria, the be Flushing, and the to Forest Hills so it can go by  63rd and Bway express, and not cross with the ®/(W) service at all.

 

As for shaving the platforms back, so the line could never be converted to BMT (even without joining with ), because of that... (The real reason is the money to replace the tubes, but if they were to do this idea, that obviously would have been solved).

 

Actually, it would be no different that any other time they replace platform edges, like they did recently at Continental. They do the chipping work, and use temporary wooden edges to fill in when they're not working, and then remove it when the new concrete and plastic is finished. IT would probably stay IRT until the work was finished, and then when they remove the IRT width wooden edges the night or weekend the final work is done, the new BMT width concrete and plastic would be instantly ready.

[Trainmaster5]

If they were going to do the work of extending and joining the lines, making the CBTC compatible would not be that much of a big deal.

 

 

As for shaving the platforms back, so the line could never be converted to BMT (even without joining with ), because of that... (The real reason is the money to replace the tubes, but if they were to do this idea, that obviously would have been solved).

 

Actually, it would be no different that any other time they replace platform edges, like they did recently at Continental. They do the chipping work, and use temporary wooden edges to fill in when they're not working, and then remove it when the new concrete and plastic is finished. IT would probably stay IRT until the work was finished, and then when they remove the IRT width wooden edges the night or weekend the final work is done, the new BMT width concrete and plastic would be instantly ready.

IF they were thinking that way the CBTC system on the and the would have to be the same exact system for it to work. According to AndrewJC and others that's not the case. When CBTC is rolled out system-wide there will be 3 incompatible versions, one for the , one for the and one for everything else. That's my point. Simply put it's like the R62-R62A or R142-R142A. They look alike but weren't made to run together. Carry on.

[Vistausss]

@bob: Which is what I said. There's no shell. I never said there's no provisioning (one can clearly see that there is from Second Avenue Sagas pic).

 

@Trainmaster5: It may be expensive, but other than money there's no reason why they can't fit trains with two CBTC systems.

[AndrewJC]

There's also the idea of tying together the and . It would be done in phases. The Steinway Tunnel would have to be completely replaced, and in the years it takes to do that, the current from Grand Central to the new section would be increased to BMT standards and become the . The Queens portion could also be converted to BMT, and become the (Astoria would have to go on only one service at this time. QBP to Vernon-Jackson could be a shuttle if used at all).

 

Then when it's all finished, you would have Main St. to Canarsie, and diamond express in Queens to Myrtle-Wyckoff.

 

Why? What's the advantage? You've just spent a ton of money to help the riders how exactly? Very few riders are going to go all the way to 11th Avenue to loop back east - it's faster to transfer to one of the other lines.

 

Only the shell with provisions for a two track platform has been built for the proposed station @ 10th ave and 42nd Street:

 

(Credits: MTA - http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/5836661114_0651db90e9_z.jpg)

 

What you're looking at there is the area just west of Times Square, where the tail tracks used to run. The old columns are now on stilts because the trackways have begun their steep descent to the new line.

 

This is much too far east for a 10th Avenue station, and there are no platform edges, which are the minimum a station shell would include (to allow work on the rest of the station to proceed while service is running).

 

Did you think I was suggesting a shuttle from QBP to Main? When I said the , I meant the line all the way to Whitehall (hence, instead of it going to Astoria. The only shuttle I mentioned was QBP to Vernon Jackson).

 

Congratulations, you've just slashed Flushing service to 7 tph, cut Astoria service in half, and eliminated direct Manhattan service from a rapidly growing residential part of Long Island City.

 

... which can be solved by just adjusting the platforms (or installing automatic gap fillers on the trains, under the doors) allowing the (7)'s cars to serve the stations.

 

Why would you want to run narrower trains on the L? And don't forget that the L has shorter platforms than the 7 - so this new hybrid line would run trains as short as the L's but as narrow as the 7's!

 

You'd also have to order several hundred new A Division cars while letting all of the R143's go to waste.

 

Amen. I've said this many times they need to replace those tunnels. They were meant for trolley cars, not subways. They ran it for 100yrs. I think it's time to build tunnels that can accommodate actual subway cars than to make subway cars accommodate the tunnel. b division cars have better capacity and is what's needed for Flushing. Enough with the 11 car trains crap. Keep it simple with 10 car trains.

 

Yeah, because shutting the line down for a few years to replace the Steinway tube is eminently simple. Just tell everybody who rides the 7 to stay home for that time - it's not like they have to go to work or anything!

 

@GC: 3 track station? Hmm, that's weird because on the most recent pics I only count 2 tracks at the Javits station with no room for a 3rd one...

 

It was cut from 3 tracks to 2 early in the planning stages, long before construction began, probably around 2005.

 

The area around where the station would be is flat and does not have the rounded walls of the tube. That's about it.

 

There is provisioning, just not a shell.

 

 

The 60th St tubes do not nearly have the capacity to run full Roosevelt service. Currently, trains run every 2.5 min during the peak into Steinway, and trains are already crowded to standing room. Since you are not going to squeeze trains out of 60th to the point where you can run every 2.5 min into Broadway, this would either lead to a significant capacity cut and severe overcrowding.

 

You would also need to spend at least a couple weekends shaving back platform widths, and during this time it would neither be feasible to run BMT-standards trains, nor would it be safe to run IRT-standard trains (the gap would be too wide).

 

Stations can be rounded or squared off. The tunnels are presumably squared off where TBM's couldn't be used for whatever reason. Square tunnels are no easier or harder to convert to stations than round tunnels.

 

Your capacity comments are exactly on target.

 

With how 'often' the 7 shutdowns used to be, I don't think shutting down the stations would be a big deal. Now how long each platforms are and if some needs to be extended would be another matter. 

As for what to do with 60th if they were to send the Flushing line via 60th st, perhaps they could shift the R over to 63rd (yes very unpopular) and run only the N up Astoria (Q going to 96th and no W brought back to back up the N, W would be the new designation for Flushing to Whitehall *agreed with what Eric said).

Since this is all fantasy: I'll go one step further, this conversion of the Flushing line should happen around the time when the R62s and some R62As are ready to be retired. That way the R188s can then be sent to the mainline and replace those trains directly (might need some more A cars since there will be more B cars around) and order more B division cars for the B division Flushing line. The segment from QBP to Javits center would probably stay as A division cars till the stienway tubes are replaced.

 

Congratulations, you've cut capacity on the Flushing line by 70%, cut capacity on the Astoria line by 50%, pushed more riders onto the E and M (by cutting off the direct transfer from the R to the Lex), and introduced an unnecessary Q-R merge - all for several billion dollars in capital funds!

 

To address your first sentence, I am not aware of any scheduled weekday shutdowns of 7 service into Manhattan. Queensboro Plaza doesn't have the turning capacity necessary to accommodate anywhere close to rush hour service, and N/Q (or N/W) trains can't handle the full load off of the 7 on top of the load they already carry.

[Grand Concourse]

Obviously it isn't a permanent change. If they replaced the Steinway tubes, then the Flushing line would be routed back as it does, but running 10car R160s trains instead of 11car R188s and increasing carrying capacity.                                                                                                                                 

Also, at what point does it become unfeasible to continue making trains fit the tunnel instead of the tunnel being able to handle more modern cars? It isn't like the tunnel is 50yrs old, it's 100yrs and it's probably time to build new tunnels for the subway. Who said they'd need to build the new tunnels where the stienway ones are? Maybe they could build them next to or under them and route the subway tracks accordingly so it won't be like they have to shut down the whole line while the tunnels are being built. Modern tunnels would allow bigger/wider trains to run at faster speeds to carry more people. I'd rather take the hit now if it means better service down the road.

[Vistausss]

New tubes next to it would be virtually impossible. It took years to build the current tubes because of complex geological formations causing flooding. The same applies today for anything new that would be built there.

[bobtehpanda]

If they were going to do the work of extending and joining the lines, making the CBTC compatible would not be that much of a big deal.

Full Roosevelt service?

The idea assumes Second ave. is open, so the is running that way, and the would likely replace it to Astoria. But while the Steinway tubes are out, the would have to be moved to Flushing. It would have to be increased, but I don't know the numbers of the current and . You might end up having to temporarily switch stuff around, like the be Astoria, the be Flushing, and the to Forest Hills so it can go by  63rd and Bway express, and not cross with the ®/(W) service at all.

 

As for shaving the platforms back, so the line could never be converted to BMT (even without joining with ), because of that... (The real reason is the money to replace the tubes, but if they were to do this idea, that obviously would have been solved).

 

Actually, it would be no different that any other time they replace platform edges, like they did recently at Continental. They do the chipping work, and use temporary wooden edges to fill in when they're not working, and then remove it when the new concrete and plastic is finished. IT would probably stay IRT until the work was finished, and then when they remove the IRT width wooden edges the night or weekend the final work is done, the new BMT width concrete and plastic would be instantly ready.

 

Trains run every 2.5 min during the peak on the , and are full. Unless you are somehow suggesting that you can shove trains every 2.5 min from the 7, trains every 8 mins from Astoria, and trains coming from Forest Hills into the 60th St tubes, it is a capacity cut that is going to lead to some very unhappy commuters and massive congestion on area highways. Even if Second Avenue is open, that has no impact on the fact that the 60th St tubes cannot physically accommodate more than 30TPH (assuming that every train is able to close its doors on time and switches are functioning seamlessly, which is a miracle on any part of the system).

 

Are you suggesting that the platforms be temporarily be boarded in some manner? With your draconian service cuts on the , platforms would be even more crowded than they are now during the peak, especially at massive stations like 74th-Broadway and QBP. Temporary platforms and record overcrowding would be an absolute disaster.

[AndrewJC]

Obviously it isn't a permanent change. If they replaced the Steinway tubes, then the Flushing line would be routed back as it does, but running 10car R160s trains instead of 11car R188s and increasing carrying capacity.                                                                                                                                 

Also, at what point does it become unfeasible to continue making trains fit the tunnel instead of the tunnel being able to handle more modern cars? It isn't like the tunnel is 50yrs old, it's 100yrs and it's probably time to build new tunnels for the subway. Who said they'd need to build the new tunnels where the stienway ones are? Maybe they could build them next to or under them and route the subway tracks accordingly so it won't be like they have to shut down the whole line while the tunnels are being built. Modern tunnels would allow bigger/wider trains to run at faster speeds to carry more people. I'd rather take the hit now if it means better service down the road.

 

Are you seriously suggesting replacing all of the IRT tunnels with wider tunnels? Do you know of any other subway systems that have systematically replaced existing tunnels with new wider tunnels? Do you realize that the people who ride the subway to work in the morning rush (when the trains are most crowded) don't have the option to stay home for the duration of an extended line shutdown, because they still have to feed themselves and their families, pay rent or the mortgage, etc.? An extended shutdown would force many residents out of the city and would badly hurt the city's economy.

 

And if we had the funding available to build new subway lines, wouldn't they be more useful serving underserved parts of the city or increasing capacity in overcrowded corridors? In other words, does it make sense to replace the Lex with a slightly wider Lex when the same money could build the remaining phases of SAS?

[Vistausss]

Agreed. *If* an extension of the IRT needs to be done than why not extend the farther into Queens? That way it can have a better terminal and can serve a bit more of Queens which is somewhat underserved. Or use the money to build that 10th Ave station. But I agree that for now, let's use the money for other things like SAS.

[Grand Concourse]

Are you seriously suggesting replacing all of the IRT tunnels with wider tunnels? Do you know of any other subway systems that have systematically replaced existing tunnels with new wider tunnels? Do you realize that the people who ride the subway to work in the morning rush (when the trains are most crowded) don't have the option to stay home for the duration of an extended line shutdown, because they still have to feed themselves and their families, pay rent or the mortgage, etc.? An extended shutdown would force many residents out of the city and would badly hurt the city's economy. And if we had the funding available to build new subway lines, wouldn't they be more useful serving underserved parts of the city or increasing capacity in overcrowded corridors? In other words, does it make sense to replace the Lex with a slightly wider Lex when the same money could build the remaining phases of SAS?

Where did I say replace all the IRT tunnels? (Talk about putting words in my mouth.) I only said the steinway tubes because it was never meant for subway service in the first place. I never said they should replace the tunnels for the hell of it. The point is those tubes have been restrictive for the 7. everything's been done to accommodate the tunnel. Wider tunnels for the Flushing line would allow trains to speed thru the tunnel faster than what it currently does and increase the capacity of the 7 by allowing b division trains to run on the line (and save on the hassle of having to swap trains (R62As, I know the R188s will probably never see service on any of the other lines) with the mainline A division by having to navigate thru B division). And sure the R didn't carry that many riders, but even that line had to shut down due to damage from Sandy. Where's your outrage over that?

[Vistausss]

Shutdown due to hurricane damage != Shutdown due to normal construction

[Grand Concourse]

the point is it's a full shutdown that's ongoing for over a year. People have to find other ways of getting to their destination. You can't make improvements without inconveniencing riders. Look, it's all fantasy, it'll never happen. The point is this is a discussion board. Such a change for the east river tubes has as much of a chance of happening as a 7 to New Jersey. 

[bobtehpanda]

Where did I say replace all the IRT tunnels? (Talk about putting words in my mouth.) I only said the steinway tubes because it was never meant for subway service in the first place. I never said they should replace the tunnels for the hell of it. The point is those tubes have been restrictive for the 7. everything's been done to accommodate the tunnel. Wider tunnels for the Flushing line would allow trains to speed thru the tunnel faster than what it currently does and increase the capacity of the 7 by allowing b division trains to run on the line (and save on the hassle of having to swap trains (R62As, I know the R188s will probably never see service on any of the other lines) with the mainline A division by having to navigate thru B division). And sure the R didn't carry that many riders, but even that line had to shut down due to damage from Sandy. Where's your outrage over that?

 

To be fairly honest with you, as a former daily rider of the , the speed difference in Steinway (if there even is one) is minimal. At this point in time, electric traction has developed to the point where you no longer need to build a separate car class for the grades due to extra motor requirements. It's certainly not like the slowdowns on the Manhattan Bridge.

[AndrewJC]

Where did I say replace all the IRT tunnels? (Talk about putting words in my mouth.) I only said the steinway tubes because it was never meant for subway service in the first place. I never said they should replace the tunnels for the hell of it. The point is those tubes have been restrictive for the 7. everything's been done to accommodate the tunnel. Wider tunnels for the Flushing line would allow trains to speed thru the tunnel faster than what it currently does and increase the capacity of the 7 by allowing b division trains to run on the line (and save on the hassle of having to swap trains (R62As, I know the R188s will probably never see service on any of the other lines) with the mainline A division by having to navigate thru B division). And sure the R didn't carry that many riders, but even that line had to shut down due to damage from Sandy. Where's your outrage over that?

 

Who cares what the tunnels were originally constructed for? Is there something wrong with adaptive reuse? Standard IRT cars - the same cars used on the rest of the IRT - fit just fine. The tunnels are no more restrictive than on any other IRT line. What's the issue?

 

In 2012, the R carried 6,608 riders into Manhattan between 8 and 9 am (by far the least used East River crossing), on 9 trains. The Montague shutdown displaced those riders onto numerous other lines (2, 3, 4, 5, A, B, C, D, F, N, Q) which, taken together, had enough capacity to easily absorb them. And frequency on the R in Brooklyn was only reduced slightly, to 8 tph. Every single R rider is being accommodated right now on a different train - some people have to make an extra transfer or have to walk a few extra blocks in Manhattan, but nobody's being left behind.

 

Also in 2012, the 7 carried 19,241 riders into Manhattan (nearly 3 times the ridership of the R) between 8 and 9 am, on 25 trains. Your proposed service plan would divert those trains to Whitehall Street, which can only turn 7 tph. It would also cut Astoria service, which is quite crowded (and which currently picks up many Flushing riders at Queensboro Plaza), in half. Most Flushing line riders, and many Astoria line riders, simply wouldn't be able to fit onto the few remaining crush loaded trains.

 

Rush hour riders don't ride the subway for fun. They ride the subway to get to work. They have to go to work or else they can't pay the rent. If they can't fit on the train, they can't get to work.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Such a change for the east river tubes has as much of a chance of happening as a 7 to New Jersey. 

And yet talk of extending the 7 to NJ keeps coming up. Here's a opinion piece from yesterday's Daily News:

http://nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464

 

IMO, to NJ probably has a better chance of happening than building new, wider East River tubes that would turn the in to the ( P ) (or some other letter) train. There's already so much development on both sides of the East River and you've got the nearby Midtown Tunnel to contend with as well. A new Hudson River tunnel would not be encumbered by dodging so much development. It would have major hurdles of its own, like money, politics and interstate cooperation, to deal with.

[Eric B]

 

Trains run every 2.5 min during the peak on the  , and are full. Unless you are somehow suggesting that you can shove trains every 2.5 min from the 7, trains every 8 mins from Astoria, and trains coming from Forest Hills into the 60th St tubes, it is a capacity cut that is going to lead to some very unhappy commuters and massive congestion on area highways. Even if Second Avenue is open, that has no impact on the fact that the 60th St tubes cannot physically accommodate more than 30TPH (assuming that every train is able to close its doors on time and switches are functioning seamlessly, which is a miracle on any part of the system).

 

Are you suggesting that the platforms be temporarily be boarded in some manner? With your draconian service cuts on the  , platforms would be even more crowded than they are now during the peak, especially at massive stations like 74th-Broadway and QBP. Temporary platforms and record overcrowding would be an absolute disaster.

Well, forest Hills would be eliminated by running through 63rd and keeping it on the express (Hence, why I switched the routes as I did). 

So the only merger then would be with Astoria. That could be worked out somehow, as it would have to if they ever did decide to replace the steinway tubes (which was something once planned).

 

Why? What's the advantage? You've just spent a ton of money to help the riders how exactly? Very few riders are going to go all the way to 11th Avenue to loop back east - it's faster to transfer to one of the other lines.

The original idea was to eliminate the isolated piece of IRT and integrate it with the BMT it's directly connected with, plus it would also of course add much useful capacity. (Again, it's not for through riders, though it would benefit those willing to go around the long way because they prefer one seat to transferring).

 

Don't know when or of it would ever be seen as feasible, but it is just an idea.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I believe someone pointed out earlier that the has spent millions installing a CBTC system on the line. They are also spending millions to install a CBTC system on the line. The systems are not compatible AFAIK. How, or why, should the even consider a - combination ? The idea might look good on paper but the is not running a model railroad. Let's get real about this. Ripping out 2 CBTC systems and shutting down the Steinway tubes for years  to accomplish this ain't gonna happen. Carry on.

Why on Earth did they go with two incompatible CBTC systems for the and ? Wouldn't it be easier and more cost-effective to have just one CBTC system that uses the same parts and software. Never mind linking the L and 7 into one line, it still doesn't make very much sense to have two completely different CBTC systems.

 

The needs all the capacity it can get - even if it was boosted to 40TPH (the norm for most systems running moving-block signalling), the 7 would likely still be full during the peak.

Right, it does. Now. But I think ESA and a Queens-to-SAS service might help somewhat to relieve the crowding on the . Run extra trains to/from Bayside via Port Washington Branch and the ESA tunnels to Grand Central and charge City Ticket prices.

 

There's also the upcoming Midtown East rezoning. If that officially goes through, they should include building part of SAS Phase 3 - at least to 34th St. By doing that, they can run a ( V ) service from Queens to the SAS via the 63rd St tunnel and Queens Blvd local. It won't be able to run 15 tph because of the and , but there is spare capacity on those local tracks and Queens Blvd is next in line to get CBTC signalling after the gets its new signals.

[Vistausss]

The was the first line to receive CBTC, to test it out and improve upon it. Which is what they did with the . And now they've come to a final design which will be implemented on the other lines.