Fix & Fortify - 14th Street (L Train) Tunnels Closure

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I agree. I don't, however, think that Jamaica is where that potential can be realized. Getting people off the  from there is a lost cause. The  actually has a slightly shorter end-to-end running time than the , so unless you're going to the very eastern/southern reaches of the Financial District, you're really better off on QB. With CBTC sure to make expresses even faster, that disparity will only increase.

I think where the Jamaica line can help QB is in intercepting trips coming from south of Metropolitan Ave. As we all know, many, many QB riders transfer onto the line from buses coming from that area, as even with the bus segment, a trip from, say 90th St/91st Ave in Woodhaven to Midtown is best made via Q53 to . That said, the current difference between that option and using, say,  to  is generally less than seven minutes -- a recoverable amount of time with express service. Our efforts should thus be focused on making the  attractive to those in Richmond Hill/Woodhaven -- not only is it a market with a higher potential impact, but developing it would amount to something more than creating a second viable commute option for an area which already has one. (To be clear, what makes addressing this market more attractive than throwing a bone to Jamaica is that  from Jamaica will never be able to compete except in the Lower Manhattan market, while from Richmond Hill/Woodhaven, the  is already almost competitive in Midtown markets, and the unquestionable way to go for Downtown.)

You do make a good point about the Richmond Hill/Woodhaven market. I think that crowding on the  will be reduced. I could definitely see ridership drop at Kew Gardens. A large percentage of the ridership at the station comes from bus transfers from the Q10 and the Q37 to a lesser extent. Riders at Eastern stops on the Jamaica Line sometimes take the  to Jamaica to take the  to Manhattan. These people would stick to the . The  serves more of the Financial District than the . The Dey Street Passageway could be used to get from Fulton to more areas of the Financial District, which is especially useful in the rain.

Could you see people from Southeast Queens using the  express to Broadway Junction for the  to Manhattan, instead of the , keeping in mind that they used a bus to get to the ?

[Caelestor]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

You do make a good point about the Richmond Hill/Woodhaven market. I think that crowding on the  will be reduced. I could definitely see ridership drop at Kew Gardens. A large percentage of the ridership at the station comes from bus transfers from the Q10 and the Q37 to a lesser extent. Riders at Eastern stops on the Jamaica Line sometimes take the  to Jamaica to take the  to Manhattan. These people would stick to the . The  serves more of the Financial District than the . The Dey Street Passageway could be used to get from Fulton to more areas of the Financial District, which is especially useful in the rain.

Could you see people from Southeast Queens using the  express to Broadway Junction for the  to Manhattan, instead of the , keeping in mind that they used a bus to get to the ?

The biggest issue with the  isn't how it runs in Brooklyn, but its alignment in Manhattan. The  only serves 6 stations in Manhattan: compare to the  and the  which serve 10 and 12 respectively, many of which are in the busiest part of the city (14 - 59 Sts). The  serves more neighborhoods but  trains have higher ridership because Midtown is a bigger destination than Downtown. The  also has trouble competing with the  because the latter has express service (fixable) and serves Downtown Brooklyn (not possible for the ).

In the long term, both Nassau St and Williamsburg Bridge trains need to be rerouted uptown. With over half the Williamsburg Bridge trains going to 6 Ave in 2019, long-term planning would be looking at the existing  services and thinking about another Chrystie St type project. Currently, 1.5 lines of trains head uptown via Chrystie St, and another similar project could route the remaining lines up a four-track SAS.

[RR503]

36 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

The biggest issue with the  isn't how it runs in Brooklyn, but its alignment in Manhattan. The  only serves 6 stations in Manhattan: compare to the  and the  which serve 10 and 12 respectively, many of which are in the busiest part of the city (14 - 59 Sts). The  serves more neighborhoods but  trains have higher ridership because Midtown is a bigger destination than Downtown. The  also has trouble competing with the  because the latter has express service (fixable) and serves Downtown Brooklyn (not possible for the ).

In the long term, both Nassau St and Williamsburg Bridge trains need to be rerouted uptown. With over half the Williamsburg Bridge trains going to 6 Ave in 2019, long-term planning would be looking at the existing  services and thinking about another Chrystie St type project. Currently, 1.5 lines of trains head uptown via Chrystie St, and another similar project could route the remaining lines up a four-track SAS.

The  is absolutely at a disadvantage here -- but I don't see it as being as bad as you say. The line has insane transfer density (4 of those 6 stops serve at least one, but usually 3+ other lines), making the  an excellent vehicle to further travel. 

In the long term, I agree that the  will have to be sent uptown. Issue is, of course, where. The only thing I can conceive of with current trackage would be some sort of direct link to 8th Local south of Spring St. This'd end regular service to the local tracks at Canal and to WTC, but with Downtown becoming ever less relevant (and with the 8th express tracks still extant) I don't see this as being a wholly insurmountable issue. This is all to say, of course, that SAS -- preferably one with 4 tracks -- is key. 

 

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The  is absolutely at a disadvantage here -- but I don't see it as being as bad as you say. The line has insane transfer density (4 of those 6 stops serve at least one, but usually 3+ other lines), making the  an excellent vehicle to further travel. 

In the long term, I agree that the  will have to be sent uptown. Issue is, of course, where. The only thing I can conceive of with current trackage would be some sort of direct link to 8th Local south of Spring St. This'd end regular service to the local tracks at Canal and to WTC, but with Downtown becoming ever less relevant (and with the 8th express tracks still extant) I don't see this as being a wholly insurmountable issue. This is all to say, of course, that SAS -- preferably one with 4 tracks -- is key. 

The one big hiccup is the same one that torpedoed my previous idea of the being moved to become the Culver Local while the became the Culver Express due to the also running on the same track between West 4th and Broadway-Lafayette.

Long-term, I do agree that sending the up the SAS to perhaps at least a four-track terminal at 55th Street would work.

[RR503]

16 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

The one big hiccup is the same one that torpedoed my previous idea of the being moved to become the Culver Local while the became the Culver Express due to the also running on the same track between West 4th and Broadway-Lafayette.

Hence my proposal being one of a direct link, not some service via Bway Laff. New tunnel would be required. 

[R68OnBroadway]

I personally think that if we are to redo Broadway service and connect it to a new trunk, it should be second. Likewise; my proposal if this was done-this also includes several other rerouted services from other proposals:

 Jamaica 179th to CI via Queens Blvd/Hillside/Crosstown express and 6th local. Runs express during rush hours, middays and evenings. Local (minus QBL) late nights and weekends. Bergen lower is reopened with a crossunder to allow for free transfers between directions.

 - converted to , runs from Metropolitan to a new lower level at 72nd via 2nd local. Potential future extension to Queens.

 - Broad to Jamaica, express between Woodhaven and Essex. Express stops at Woodhaven, Cypress or Crescent, Broadway Junction, Myrtle, and Essex. The center track at Marcy would merge into the other two just past the station to allow express trains to skip it. Express to Manhattan 6am-2pm, express to Jamaica 2pm-10pm. Local weekends and nights.

 - Woodhaven to Broad via local between Essex and Woodhaven. Weekdays 6am-10pm only.

 is brought back a local supplement to the  . Runs from Jamaica 179th to Church via local. 

 extended to 18th Av.

[LGA Link N Train]

Nice proposals but let's not forget. This is the 14th Street thread and not the proposals thread. However, I understand how these can portrain the train shutdown. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Nice proposals but let's not forget. This is the 14th Street thread and not the proposals thread. However, I understand how these can portrain the train shutdown. 

This is true, though the  train tunnel shutdown does present the opportunity to take a look at how reevaluating service as a whole on the Eastern Division lines post-shutdown. 

On 9/26/2018 at 7:22 PM, RR503 said:

The thought was that the express track would end at Crescent, allowing folks beyond there to get a one seat express ride into town. I think any plan for a  line 3rd track should benefit Jamaica while also encouraging growth in some of the areas along the core of the line — Crescent seemed a great place to find that happy medium.

Woodhaven could also work as a terminal, though — the Jamaica line rises to go over the RBB there, so (and I’m just spitballing here) you could build a relay track which continues at grade from Woodhaven for, say, 800 feet, while the express track (which would rise to a new platform above the existing ones) joins the current tracks at the top of the RBB rise. Let me know if this is clear — if not I’ll make a diagram.

As for a Jamaica Avenue alignment, it would be more direct, but it would entail the construction of a new El without any beneft for the residents along it — a political impossibility. 

I like the idea of starting  trains at Crescent and running local from there to Marcy Avenue with the  running peak-direction express between Crescent and Marcy. But we would need to figure out how to schedule  express and  local trains in such a way that the expresses don’t get stuck behind the locals. 

The Jamaica Ave bypass el is probably not necessary at this time, though I think it is something worth looking into later on, especially if the “new and improved”  become more popular. 

On 9/28/2018 at 6:05 PM, Caelestor said:

The biggest issue with the  isn't how it runs in Brooklyn, but its alignment in Manhattan. The  only serves 6 stations in Manhattan: compare to the  and the  which serve 10 and 12 respectively, many of which are in the busiest part of the city (14 - 59 Sts). The  serves more neighborhoods but  trains have higher ridership because Midtown is a bigger destination than Downtown. The  also has trouble competing with the  because the latter has express service (fixable) and serves Downtown Brooklyn (not possible for the ).

In the long term, both Nassau St and Williamsburg Bridge trains need to be rerouted uptown. With over half the Williamsburg Bridge trains going to 6 Ave in 2019, long-term planning would be looking at the existing  services and thinking about another Chrystie St type project. Currently, 1.5 lines of trains head uptown via Chrystie St, and another similar project could route the remaining lines up a four-track SAS.

Would we abandon the Nassau St Line stations, then? Or give them over to the SAS?

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Would we abandon the Nassau St Line stations, then? Or give them over to the SAS?

My guess is that they would be taken over the  (which would be Essex-Bay Ridge if the  was rerouted via Fulton.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This is true, though the  train tunnel shutdown does present the opportunity to take a look at how reevaluating service as a whole on the Eastern Division lines post-shutdown. 

I like the idea of starting  trains at Crescent and running local from there to Marcy Avenue with the  running peak-direction express between Crescent and Marcy. But we would need to figure out how to schedule  express and  local trains in such a way that the expresses don’t get stuck behind the locals. 

The Jamaica Ave bypass el is probably not necessary at this time, though I think it is something worth looking into later on, especially if the “new and improved”  become more popular. 

Would we abandon the Nassau St Line stations, then? Or give them over to the SAS?

I honestly think SAS should be tied in with Nassau and have a new blue .

[Jsunflyguy]

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I honestly think SAS should be tied in with Nassau and have a new blue .

If the SAS ever leaves Manhattan it would be to join the Fulton Line at Court St/Hoyt or the SIR in St George. Getting the line up the Williamsburg Bridge requires land and space that, at current, I don't think is plausible to attain. 

 

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

If the SAS ever leaves Manhattan it would be to join the Fulton Line at Court St/Hoyt or the SIR in St George. Getting the line up the Williamsburg Bridge requires land and space that, at current, I don't think is plausible to attain. 

Really speaking, if not going to SI, SAS should join some BMT route in Brooklyn. Because it's on the East Side, it'll have effectively zero transfers in Manhattan, meaning it has to make up for that with connections in the outer boroughs. Given that the IND is, well, isolated, connecting to some BMT line strikes me as the best way to maximize the line's impact. 

Fulton should then be connected to the  via the Whitehall provisions to reduce said isolation. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by RR503

[Caelestor]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Would we abandon the Nassau St Line stations, then? Or give them over to the SAS?

I am assuming that SAS Phase 3 is somehow a 4-track trunk pair, otherwise this plan wouldn't work. 

First, the Jamaica Line is through-routed with one of the SAS track pairs. The 6 Ave - Williamsburg Bridge connection is removed from regular service, allowing for service to Brooklyn.

The Nassau St stations south of Essex St are closed for conversion to SAS standards. Bowery is abandoned, but given its low ridership and proximity to Grand St, not a huge loss. Once the conversion is done, Nassau St is through-routed with the other SAS track pair.

Lastly, a new East River tunnel is built between Whitehall St and Court St (Fulton), through-routing the Broadway local and Fulton St local services. Nassau St then takes over the 4th St local service full-time.

This configuration allows for all trunk lines in Manhattan + Brooklyn / Manhattan tunnels to run closer to max capacity.

 

[RR503]

10 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I am assuming that SAS Phase 3 is somehow a 4-track trunk pair, otherwise this plan wouldn't work. 

First, the Jamaica Line is through-routed with one of the SAS track pairs. The 6 Ave - Williamsburg Bridge connection is removed from regular service, allowing for service to Brooklyn.

The Nassau St stations south of Essex St are closed for conversion to SAS standards. Bowery is abandoned, but given its low ridership and proximity to Grand St, not a huge loss. Once the conversion is done, Nassau St is through-routed with the other SAS track pair.

Lastly, a new East River tunnel is built between Whitehall St and Court St (Fulton), through-routing the Broadway local and Fulton St local services. Nassau St then takes over the 4th St local service full-time.

This configuration allows for all trunk lines in Manhattan + Brooklyn / Manhattan tunnels to run closer to max capacity.

4

Sending Jamaica/Myrtle lines to SAS basically preserves their isolation. The  has no Manhattan-bound xfer opportunities beyond Bway Jct, and the  only intercepts the . With SAS, the only meaningful (ie not involving 2 blocks of underground passageways) transfers riders would have would be  at Second Ave/Houston, and the  again at 14th. This is why I think it's so crucial that SAS be hooked up either to the Manhattan Bridge (displacing the  to Myrtle/Jamaica) or to Nassau (using the loop and displacing the  from 4th local to Fulton). Otherwise, it's connection-less. 

[LGA Link N Train]

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Sending Jamaica/Myrtle lines to SAS basically preserves their isolation. The  has no Manhattan-bound xfer opportunities beyond Bway Jct, and the  only intercepts the . With SAS, the only meaningful (ie not involving 2 blocks of underground passageways) transfers riders would have would be  at Second Ave/Houston, and the  again at 14th. This is why I think it's so crucial that SAS be hooked up either to the Manhattan Bridge (displacing the  to Myrtle/Jamaica) or to Nassau (using the loop and displacing the  from 4th local to Fulton). Otherwise, it's connection-less. 

From the conclusion that I can think of, this would be the plan (starting with the SAS-Manhattan Bridge proposal

- Bedford Pk/145 - Metro

- 205-Bway Jct or Jamaica

- Essex - Bay Ridge 

- 125/72 - Coney Island via West End or Brighton

Secondary SAS service does similar route. But possibly starting in Queens. 

- Astoria - Euclid allowing trains to go to lefferts. 

(And under the SAS-Nassau option)

- 125/72 - Bay Ridge or Chambers

Secondary SAS route does similar route

stays as is

(Maybe Jamaica-Essex or routed up 6th Avenue.) 

Astoria - Euclid. 

I'm still a little bit confused by what you're sayin though 

 

 

[RR503]

On 9/30/2018 at 1:45 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

From the conclusion that I can think of, this would be the plan (starting with the SAS-Manhattan Bridge proposal

- Bedford Pk/145 - Metro

- 205-Bway Jct or Jamaica

 - Essex - Bay Ridge 

- 125/72 - Coney Island via West End or Brighton

Secondary SAS service does similar route. But possibly starting in Queens. 

- Astoria - Euclid allowing trains to go to lefferts. 

(And under the SAS-Nassau option)

- 125/72 - Bay Ridge or Chambers

Secondary SAS route does similar route

stays as is

(Maybe Jamaica-Essex or routed up 6th Avenue.) 

Astoria - Euclid. 

I'm still a little bit confused by what you're sayin though 

You got the first part. 

If SAS was connected to Nassau, I'd imagine it'd merge into the east tracks either by Bowery or using JH1/JH2 into Chambers.  would then use the west tracks of Nassau to a turnback terminal at the current s/b platform at Chambers, and SAS would take over Lower Nassau/4th Ave in Brooklyn. This'd require connecting the current n/b 'express' at Chambers (J3 for those of you who speak chaining) to Fulton, but that isn't a terribly complicated tunnel job -- R3/4 (the layup track) runs below the current s/b track, meaning you could probably build a ramp within the current tunnel boxes. 

You'd then have:

-  as today,

-  as today,

-  to Bk via Nassau/Montague/4th lcl 

-  to Euclid 

Would a map make this easier?

___________________

Regardless of all of this, the big SAS issue today is not the south end -- it's the north. The way they've designed it today, it adds zero new capacity to the system. It's just stealing throughput from Broadway Exp. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by RR503

[R68OnBroadway]

In the future, I'd have an lower level built as express tracks for SAS where it currently is- in the end I'd have the trunk be like this:

3rd Av Branch:

(this part 2 tracks)

Fordham Plaza  (extended to relieve Bx12)

182nd-St Barnbabas

Tremont Av

Claremont Pkwy

168th St

163rd St

149th St  

138th St  

(line merges with 125th St branch to form 2nd Av line after crossing Harlem River)

125th St Branch:

(2 tracks)

 - 125th St-Broadway

- 125th St-St Nicholas Av  

 - 125th St- Lenox Av

 MNR - 125th St- Lexington Av

(line merges with Bronx branch to form 2nd Av line)

2nd Av Line:

(4 tracks from 116th to Houston, 2 tracks afterwards)

116th St  

106th St  

96th St  

86th St  

79th St  

72nd St  (and another Queens service-albeit on a level below the , lets call it the  )

(maybe) 60th St   , passageway to Lex-59th 

55th St  (local so people are more incentivized to use 63rd/60th vs 53rd)

42nd St

34th St  

23rd St  

14th St-1st Av  

Houston St-2nd Av  

 diverges to Metro

Grand St-Bowery

Chatham Sq  

Seaport  

Hanover Sq  (potentially connection to Wall  , but this could be a problem given the dangerously narrow platforms there)

South Ferry  (if possible)

Governors Island  

Line runs to St George and continues down SIR (at an underground platform) . A portal would be placed between Stapleton and Tompkinsville.

 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

If SAS was connected to Nassau, I'd imagine it'd merge into the east tracks either by Bowery or using JH1/JH2 into Chambers.  would then use the west tracks of Nassau to a turnback terminal at the current s/b platform at Chambers, and SAS would take over Lower Nassau/4th Ave in Brooklyn. This'd require connecting the current n/b 'express' at Chambers (J3 for those of you who speak chaining) to Fulton, but that isn't a terribly complicated tunnel job -- R3/4 (the layup track) runs below the current s/b track, meaning you could probably build a ramp within the current tunnel boxes. 

You'd then have:

-  as today,

-  as today,

-  to Bk via Nassau/Montague/4th lcl 

-  to Euclid 

Would a map make this easier?

Yes please! I'm better at learning things visually so that'd be helpful

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Regardless of all of this, the big SAS issue today is not the south end -- it's the north. The way they've designed it today, it adds zero new capacity to the system. It's just stealing throughput from Broadway Exp. 

In other words, the way we designed SAS for today is exclusively for the Broadway Express, am I correct?

[RR503]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Yes please! I'm better at learning things visually so that'd be helpful

Connecting to the old Bridge tracks north of Chambers:

Connecting to Bowery:

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

In other words, the way we designed SAS for today is exclusively for the Broadway Express, am I correct?

Sorta. The original plan was only Phases 1/2 -- 3/4 were tacked on after community asked. That'd have been fine if they'd provided a 30tph northern terminal or an additional pair of tracks for Phases 3 and 4, but they didn't. Today, the issue is that Phases 1/2 are a direct northern extension of the Broadway Express tracks with no turning facilities. Thus, any train that runs on them and on Phases 3/4 is a train that can't run on Broadway express -- and any train that runs on Bway exp is a train that can't run on Phase 3/4. 

Without the current design of SAS (and with a few spot improvements to transfers at Lex-63 and the Astoria terminal) something along these lines (degree of deinterlining/service patterns are completely up for debate) would be possible:

But by merit of SAS's existence, we are all but forced back to this:

_____________________________

(Again, sorry for the massive images)

@R68OnBroadway's proposal solves this issue quite well, IMO. He sends lower SAS on its own set of tracks to the Bronx, allowing full capacity to be reached on both lines. Something like this is necessary for SAS to be anything more than a multi-billion dollar operational disaster. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by RR503

[Around the Horn]

26 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Without the current design of SAS (and with a few spot improvements to transfers at Lex-63 and the Astoria terminal) something along these lines (degree of deinterlining/service patterns are completely up for debate) would be possible:

I would go one step (err... two steps) forward and deinterline CPW and QBL too, but I love this first map @RR503

[Caelestor]

In order to maximize existing and future capacity, SAS should be constructed in phases as follows:

Phase 2: As planned to Lex Ave - 125 St or diverted to 3 Ave - 149 St, though the former would make more sense once express service comes online (see below). Send all Broadway express trains towards the UES and implement the diagram by @RR503.

Phase 3: Instead of an extension south of 72 St, build an extension north from the Chrystie St Connection area. This solves two issues: the lack of a yard for the future  and the reverse branching capacity limitations of running the on 2 tracks. While incredibly disruptive to build, I've become a fan of the realignment that sends the 6 Ave express tracks towards the Williamsburg Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge northern tracks towards 2 Ave. Nassau St is relegated to a shuttle until later construction in future phases.  

All SAS Phase 3 trains run local, terminating at a new 72 St terminal below the existing  platforms or even a new 79 St - 1 Ave station. Alternatively, the BMT 63 St line is realigned such that it stops at a very deep 72 St platforms and the  takes over the entire SAS corridor. In any case, whatever line that turns right on 79 St will have a provision for future extension into Queens. Provisions are made for 4 tracks between 72 St and Houston St to support express service (see below). 

 

Phase 4: Full-length SAS corridor with express service to fully relieve the . To minimize costs and travel time, the only stops would be at the transfer stations - 116 St, 72 St, 55 St, 42 St and 14 St. At its north end, it should run under 3 Ave in the Bronx; at its south end are a few options:

1. Take over Nassau St. If so, build an express stop at Houston St.
2. Continue down Water St (current Phase 4). Build the express stop at Grand St.
3. Take over the north side of the Manhattan Bridge. The local SAS trains would be rerouted using either of the previous two options.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

In order to maximize existing and future capacity, SAS should be constructed in phases as follows:

Phase 2: As planned to Lex Ave - 125 St or diverted to 3 Ave - 149 St, though the former would make more sense once express service comes online (see below). Send all Broadway express trains towards the UES and implement the diagram by @RR503.

Phase 3: Instead of an extension south of 72 St, build an extension north from the Chrystie St Connection area. This solves two issues: the lack of a yard for the future  and the reverse branching capacity limitations of running the on 2 tracks. While incredibly disruptive to build, I've become a fan of the realignment that sends the 6 Ave express tracks towards the Williamsburg Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge northern tracks towards 2 Ave. Nassau St is relegated to a shuttle until later construction in future phases.  

All SAS Phase 3 trains run local, terminating at a new 72 St terminal below the existing  platforms or even a new 79 St - 1 Ave station. Alternatively, the BMT 63 St line is realigned such that it stops at a very deep 72 St platforms and the  takes over the entire SAS corridor. In any case, whatever line that turns right on 79 St will have a provision for future extension into Queens. Provisions are made for 4 tracks between 72 St and Houston St to support express service (see below). 

 

Phase 4: Full-length SAS corridor with express service to fully relieve the . To minimize costs and travel time, the only stops would be at the transfer stations - 116 St, 72 St, 55 St, 42 St and 14 St. At its north end, it should run under 3 Ave in the Bronx; at its south end are a few options:

1. Take over Nassau St. If so, build an express stop at Houston St.
2. Continue down Water St (current Phase 4). Build the express stop at Grand St.
3. Take over the north side of the Manhattan Bridge. The local SAS trains would be rerouted using either of the previous two options.

Weren't those tail tracks suppose to be used for the SAS at 2nd Av?

[Lance]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Weren't those tail tracks suppose to be used for the SAS at 2nd Av?

Those tail tracks east of 2 Avenue were intended for the IND second system routes, where the 6th Avenue express would run to Brooklyn via the Utica Ave line.

On a mod note, I'm going to have to ask you all to continue the conversation in the proposals thread. While tangentially connected to the upcoming closure, the possibility of any of these proposed lines and routes coming to fruition following the shutdown are extremely remote at best.

[gravescend179]

On 9/13/2018 at 2:51 PM, Wallyhorse said:

If anything, I would not be surprised if the going to 96th/2nd on weekends is made permanent and even expanded to all times similar to my / split that I proposed (where the 96th/2nd trains are and that becomes the 24/7 line, a supplemental line to the Queens Boulevard  on weekdays and the main line on weekends). 

there’s literally no need for a T train though. 

[gravescend179]

14 minutes ago, gravescend179 said:

there’s literally no need for a T train though. 

during the shutdown I mean.