Mysterious2train

There was an M14C. The M14D used to go straight up Avenue D to 14th St, and and the M14C used the current M14D routing on Avenue C and 10th St. After 9/11, due to fears that an M14 would be used by a terrorist to attack the Con Ed plant at 14th St and Avenue D (or something) the M14D was routed onto the M14C travel path used today, and the M14C was just re-named the M14D.

Southbound trains fly into Franklin Ave, as long as there's no congestion and the T/O doesn't break early.

The made a map for late night service, so why not this?

@ IRT Bronx Express *Shrugs* Any suggestions on your end? The wants to do something for the area (or at least make it look like they're doing something)...

If you want the Bx41 LTD removed, I have some pretty disappointing news for you about it in a year or two

The cut some service on the Bx33 during Rush Hour, AM Rush Hour service [and part of PM Rush Hour] is down from every 12 minutes to every 15 minutes. The shoulder periods of PM Rush had service cut from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes. The really thinks no one uses the route. At the very least, the should've kept the extra bus per hour in the 'peak' direction [to St. Nicholas in the AM, from St. Nicholas in the PM] Now the bus is actually kinda crowded. Unrelated, but the bus was oddly late yesterday. I got to St. Nicholas and 135th St around 3:38 Pm, right when the B/O pulled in coming from the Bronx. He did the normal routine, turn around at 137th and lay over at 136th St. The next trip to the Bronx was supposed to leave at 3:47, but he didn't come over until 3:54. According to the schedule to he was supposed to get to St. Nicholas from the Bronx at 3:34, I guess that would explain why he took extra lay over time...

You're still looking at the same old side of the station as always, it's just that the red tiles on all sides have been removed, not just on the side of the new platform. The new platform is sealed off by those blue construction walls.

Two tracks only is understandable now where money is tight and the line is decades in waiting, but this lack of capacity could really backfire down the line. More Below 63rd than above it, since the will be limited by the . Might not happen, but then again, I doubt anyone thought the would be so used either. At the very least, they should leave provisions for express tracks to be built underneath if needed, like on 6th Ave.

The map for SAS gives the noncommittal answer of "transfer under consideration" for most possible transfers to other lines. It seems the only transfer that's definitely going to be made is at Grand St. At Houston St, at least part of the station will likely be right underneath the station, so it's puzzling the only considering the possibility of it. At 3rd Ave for the train, the eastern end of the station is right around 2nd Ave, so again it should be a no-brainer to connect it to the . At 42nd St, I can understand the not wanting to build a tunnel, it'd be long, Times Sq to Port Authority long, if not longer. Depending on where the 55th St station is supposed to be, a transfer could to the could be long as well.

That's assuming there even is a transfer to the . The would be a good excuse to not have to bother building transfers to the .

After 59th St, the next set of switches isn't until Canal St, so the would have to run express the whole way to Canal St or run local. I know, people at Spring St lose out, but that's just how it is.

I disagree. The distance is longer than it looks. Just going from Water St to the at Williams St would be the length of the Port Authority to Times Square transfer, if not longer. And that's just going to the . The transfer between the and the at Fulton St is long too, longer than you'd think it be, since the and platform doesn't actually reach William St. (If you have to transfer between the two lines, you always do it at Park Place, but that's another story). If you go by the subway map, the distance between the Fulton St complex and the future Seaport station is enormous

That plan has its pros and cons. Nassau St sounds good on paper, it would send the Downtown with minimal construction and re-vitalize an underutilized line, but the stations would need to be an extended and apparently some condition with the earth makes a connection to Nassau St unfeasible. The Manhattan Bridge is a no-go, just trying to figure out all the spacing would be an academic exercise. Rutgers sounds nice, especially with the impending completion of the Culver rehabilitation. But, the Lex line gets pretty packed in Lower Manhattan (with people coming off the Ferry at Bowling Green and people coming off the at Fulton St heading uptown, and going down there to work from Uptown/Bronx, and vice-versa in the evening) Sure, the as planned won't actually connect directly to the ferry or the .... but I think it's still important to serve Lower Manhattan. I wouldn't rule out the idea of a quick connection to another line, though. Especially since an outer borough on the 's own trunk line really is far-off. I wonder where the Transit Museum would go in such a case.

I can understand the pros of a "semi-express" like what SAS is supposed to be but at the same time the lack of capacity I think will be really problematic down the line. I can understand why it's being two-tracked, with money constraints and all that, and maybe one could make the argument that as long as Lex trains aren't overflowing, the SAS is successful and I guess that's true to an extent, but that's kinda setting the bar low, isn't it? Personally I think the lack of stops at places like 50th St and 79th St and a potential stop like 61st St is doing more harm than good, but who knows? I guess it's not so bad, since the and M15 stop at those places, but that kinda goes against the point of SAS, doesn't it? Unrelated, I understand the idea of a Hanover Square station as being in-between Wall St and South Ferry, but at the same time the lack of a station at South Ferry would no doubt be inconvenient. But I guess the walk won't be too far. If you're wondering where Hanover Square is:

Busfan problems: Of course, I always hear an RTS, or a C40LF, or an Orion VII...

Sucks that it has to come to this, but why not leave provisions for express tracks in a tunnel underneath? This way, express tracks can possibly be built in the future, like on 6th Avenue. Even if it takes 50 years, that extra capacity will come in handy.

It does seem logical to run the R32s on the , doesn't it? There's even a bonus for the foamers. But I guess there's some catch, or else the would've done it already. Does the consciously want to keep the R32s underground during the harsher months? That's the only reason I can think of against putting R32s on the .

If I'm not mistaken, the current plans call for the tracks at Grand St to be built below the tracks with no physical connection. Granted, Phase 4 isn't coming around any time soon, so there is time for plans to be changed...

I just took the AP World History a couple of days ago, I think I did okay but at the same time I think I bombed one of the essays... The day after the AP, my class had to take a practice World History Regents because our school was selected for some program. Needless to say, nobody took it seriously and we were just causing a ruckus the whole time. By the way, how does the structure of the US History exam differ from the World History exam? Or are they the same?

The Q7 to Green Acres might be kind of a crazy idea but I do think there should be some route from the West to Southeast Queens, along Rockaway Blvd or something. I mean, right now you can't really get to the Southeast without going through Jamaica. I don't really see why that has to be the case.

The line is supposed to be 2 tracked the whole way from 125th St to Hanover Square. 72nd St station was supposed to have three tracks but is now going to be two tracks as well. (See here) Opinion is divided over whether or not the lack of express tracks will screw over the line in the future. (I definitely think so. Lines like the Flushing and Pelham lines today, could definitely benefit from being four-tracked and having bidirectional express service, but at least the isn't leaving out express tracks because they don't see the value of them.) Irrelevant, but the "Tracks of the NYC Subway" book actually has a track map of the Second Ave subway as planned (from Lex-125th to Hanover Square) in all of its two-tracked glory. I'd scan it, but I lost it and have no doubt it's in a landfill somewhere... The online track maps don't have this little 'sneak peak'.

A program called Inkscape. http://inkscape.org/ Inkscape files are known as SVG files. They're like PDFs in that when you zoom in, the image quality stays the same, unlike in pictures where the image quality worsens. Unlike Gregor (who also makes his maps on Inkscape), I can't really find a reliable place to upload PDFs, so I'm stuck posting small screencaps for now. I'm using a blank version of the Brooklyn Bus Map I cleaned out myself, right now we have blank bus maps for all 5 boroughs available to draw routes on.

Click on the image to make it a little bigger... The Q57, runs between Church Av/Nostrand Av (Church Av ) in Flatbush, Brooklyn and Woodhaven Blvd/Hoffman Drive (Woodhaven Blvd ) [Queens Center Mall] in Elmhurst, Queens. Turns around in Queens using the Q11, Q21 and future Q52's congested turn-around route. I don't know where to have it turn around on the Brooklyn end. Runs non-stop between Pennsylvania Av/Fulton St and Woodhaven Blvd/Myrtle Av.

Just rode Orion VII 4248 from Yukon on the B44. It felt pretty weird riding it, it still had the SI Bus Map, the depot sticker, and a S53 Bustime ad.

That "new" announcement you're thinking of actually the old announcement, from pre-2004. I have no idea why it's still there. To see more old announcements, see here