Home Superstorm Sandy On the L train and taking advantage of a bad Sandy situation

On the L train and taking advantage of a bad Sandy situation

by Benjamin Kabak

For the MTA, it’s hard to find much good in the outcome from Superstorm Sandy. The saltwater that flooded the city’s subway tunnels significantly sped up an already-looming aging process, and the agency has had to spend federal dollars and manpower on restoration rather than, say, expansion. R and G train riders suffered through a lengthy service shutdown, and A and C train riders are in for a year of weekend service changes as the MTA rebuilds systems taken out by Sandy. But out of a crisis comes opportunity, and the L train is set to be the beneficiary of a bad situation.

As I mentioned over the weekend, the L train is finally — finally! — getting an upgrade New Yorkers have asked about for years. The 1st Avenue station will get an entrance at Ave. A. It’s not quite as good as a new stop at, say, Avenue C, but as I understand it, the slope and depth of the tunnel make that a near impossibility. Rather, the MTA will improve access for both Alphabet City residents and disabled riders as the new entrance will be handicapped accessible.

The work is part of a $300 million request to the FTA for Core Capacity funding. As L train ridership has nearly doubled since 1998 — the MTA cites a 98% increase over 16 years — the MTA is desperately seeking ways to handle the crowds. As part of the grant proposal, the MTA will add two trains per hour for an increase in service of around 10 percent, and the agency plans to add elevators at Bedford Ave. and a new street entrance as well. That stop has seen growth of 250% since the late 1990s and may see more yet. That’s an impressive figure for a line that could have been cut entirely in the late 1970s.

“More than 49,000 customers use the 1 Av and Bedford Av stations on an average weekday, and the stations experience overcrowding during peak periods. The area around the Bedford Av station has been rezoned to allow for almost 10,000 new residential units, and ridership is expected to continue to rise,” said New York City Transit President Carmen Bianco. “We have to increase capacity on the Canarsie Line and improve customer flow at stations to meet this increasing demand, and securing federal funding for a project of this magnitude will go a long way toward achieving that goal.”

So what does all this have to do with Hurricane Sandy? As the MTA noted in its press release regarding the funding request, the work at the 1st Ave. station will start first, and it will “be coordinated with planned repairs to the Canarsie Tube, which was flooded during Superstorm Sandy.” In other words, as a few people with knowledge of the situation have said to me, without the looming Sandy shutdowns for the L train, the new station at Ave. A wouldn’t really be feasible. The GOs for the L will enable the MTA to perform the focused work needed to build out a new entrance around a tight two-track line.

There are still some questions surrounding this work. It’s not clear how much the station improvements at 1st and Bedford Avenues will cost or how much of the money is going toward the capacity upgrades. We don’t yet know the timing either, and considering the damage to the city, it’s hard to praise Sandy for positive results. But the MTA is seemingly making the most out of a bad situation, and for that, East Village residents can now look forward to transit upgrades.

You may also like


Kai B December 17, 2014 - 12:43 am

I noticed that the Driggs Avenue exit of Bedford Avenue recently had some of its HEETs replaced with low turnstiles. A slightly less costly upgrade but very helpful during peak hours.

Main problem right now appears to be lack of mezzanine-to-street stairway capacity for the exiting crowds.

Brend January 6, 2015 - 10:28 pm

Why in the 21st century are we even talking “stairs”? Escalators should be a matter of principle! The architects who designed Grand Central Terminal avoided stairs as much as possible; they considered stairs a roadblock to efficient flow of large numbers of people.

Eric January 8, 2015 - 3:59 am

Because MTA can’t keep an escalator in working order?

Nyland8 December 17, 2014 - 7:01 am

And we all look forward to the day when the east end of the 3rd Ave station connects to the SAS – because it will probably mean I’ve lived well over 100 years!

Here’s a great idea for increasing the number of trains-per-hour on the L Line. Instead of having it cue up before 8th Ave, and then crawl into the station at 5mph, we can simply give it some tail tracks … like all the way out to Launtenberg Station.

Larry Littlefield December 17, 2014 - 9:25 am

You’d need to do something on the other end, because there are terminal capacity issues there as well.

As for tail tracks, digging up one block would do, but the signal system would have to be modified to account for the fact that the were there. I imagine Siemans would charge $4 trillion to modify its CBTC system, and it would take 50 years.

Kai B December 17, 2014 - 9:32 am

Actually ever since CBTC was turned on I feel like the trains no longer crawl into 8th Ave at 5mph.

Tower18 December 17, 2014 - 11:08 am

Oh yes they do. After standing between 6th and 8th for 3-4 minutes.

Tom December 17, 2014 - 12:14 pm

The really need to work on turning trains around at 8th Ave. in the morning and getting them out of the way. The 7 line does a much better job of this than the L. Taking the L to 8th in the morning can be agonizing.

al December 17, 2014 - 12:35 pm

The 8th Ave/14th St terminal on the L has a diamond crossover that accounts for the middle layup track between the 8th Ave and 6th Ave stations. It also lacks tail tracks. The Times Sq terminal on the 7 has tail tracks. It also has better track geometry at the diamond crossover, for it has no middle layup track between Times Sq and 5th Ave.

It might be possible to turn 40 TPH at Times Sq on the Flushing, but not at either end of line terminals on the Canarsie Line.

The rebuild at the eastern end of the Main St station now block tail track construction there, and thus limit the terminal capacity, but 111th St and Willets Point fill in as short run terminals. I haven’t seen the track geometry for 34th St to get a good handle on how many trains it can handle.

Patrick O'Hara December 17, 2014 - 2:51 pm

The Times Square Flushing Line station doesn’t have tail tracks…everything turns in the station. The new terminal at 34th Street-Hudson Yards, slated to open “soon”, will, however.

Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 3:35 pm

If I’m not mistaken, even before the extension project there was about 50′ of overrun space west of Times Square. Even though there was no third rail or signal control there, it wasn’t that if a train missed the stop mark it would crash into a buffer or concrete wall.

anonymouse December 17, 2014 - 4:05 pm

Actually, there were tail tracks all the way to 8th Avenue (running into the lower level of the 42nd St IND station) and they were long enough to store one train each. I haven’t really looked at it since they started work on the extension, but it’s possible that they truncated the tail tracks to use for construction staging space.

Eric January 8, 2015 - 4:02 am

Indeed, there are/were tail tracks.

Bob Sklar December 17, 2014 - 8:23 am

I take it this does not include construction of a free transfer between the (L) and (3) lines at Livonia/Junius? Whatever happened to that plan?


Eric December 18, 2014 - 3:36 pm

Absolutely, and that’s not the only place in the city where such a transfer is needed.

The NYC subway map is an absolutely confusing mess, and this is a big impediment to getting around for people who are not yet experts in the system. A lot of this is the result of building decisions made decades ago. But a number of connections that COULD exist, with little to no construction, do not for bureaucratic reasons. For example:

– Queens Plaza to Queensboro Plaza
– The A/C/G to any other route in Brooklyn (except the F) at Barclays
– The 3 to the L (Livonia)
– The J/M to the G (Lorimer St)
– The J/Z to the B/D (Bowery/Grand St)

If these connections existed (and they could all start off immediately as out-of-system transfers), the subway map would be much easier to understand. You could just look at your source and destination on the map and take the most direct route between them, switching lines wherever they cross each other. No need to memorize which lines have transfers where, or to look for the one spot in Manhattan where your source and destination lines have a transfer, or to go way out of your way to avoid paying a double fare.

Panthers December 19, 2014 - 11:00 am

Queens Plaza to QBP was considered late in the 60s via development in the area. I don’t think any of your transfers would work due to the stations being “far” apart. the G at Broadway to the J/M/Z is a good 5-6 blocks either direction. J/Z to B/D is 5-6 blocks apart also. If and when the 2nd Avenue line happens, then you can visit that. A/C/G at Hoyt Schermerhorn wouldn’t work either. To get to say the 7th Ave line, you’d have to tunnel under stores that have basements. The G at Fulton to Barclay’s has been discussed on the board too. I think that would make more sense.

Kai B December 19, 2014 - 9:27 pm

the G at Broadway to the J/M/Z is a good 5-6 blocks either direction.

I think it’s more like two if you use Lorimer’s west entrance.

Eric December 21, 2014 - 8:58 am

Most of these are hard to construct physically – but all are easy to make into out-of-system transfers. For starters, you could just draw a line on the subway map and make no changes to the physical environment. Better would be to put a covered sidewalk between the stops, both to protect transferrers and to indicate the correct direction. That would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars probably, virtually free by transit standards.

Here are the actual distances between each of my station pairs:
– Queens Plaza to Queensboro Plaza – 150m
– The A/C (Lafayette) and G (Fulton) to Barclays – 200m
– The 3 to the L (Livonia) – 50m
– The J/M to the G (Lorimer St) – 100m
– The J/Z to the B/D (Bowery/Grand St) – 150m
All are VERY walkable.

sonicboy678 December 18, 2014 - 7:25 pm

There was a transfer there; it was closed due to crime. Guess when the closure occurred.

Bob Sklar December 19, 2014 - 8:27 am

In the early 1960’s, I recall that there was a direct passageway leading from the Junius St station to the Livonia Av station, but it was never a free transfer.


Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 9:40 am

Two things:

Why haven’t they explored running 9-car trains? 9 cars of 143s/160s is only 4 feet longer than 8 BMT Standards, which ran on the line for many years just fine.

Why is it necessary to take a line out of service to build a staircase and an elevator? I’m no engineer, so if there’s something I’m missing please explain.

Bgriff December 17, 2014 - 11:20 am

I have always wondered this too. I don’t know about all of the stations, but the Manhattan ones at least appear to have a good amount of extra space at the ends of the platforms. If we could do like London does at some stations and have the first and last doors of the train not open, it could probably be done without any construction. Unfortunately, it would probably require re-doing all of the investments just made in CBTC and OPTO provisions.

adirondacker12800 December 17, 2014 - 11:52 am

They lengthened all of the IRT platforms back in the 50s.

Bgriff December 17, 2014 - 3:30 pm

Yes, the IRT platforms have been lengthened twice, but that was a huge amount of work. If it is possible to do it on the L without any construction, that would be much cheaper.

If we were going to lengthen platforms on the L, we might as well go all the way to the 600-foot train standard used on the IND and the BMT southern division.

Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 3:49 pm

Given the capacity issues the subway has been facing lately, I’d even argue that if we’re extending platforms we should make provisions for 750′ platforms to allow for 12-car trains. However, the expense and disruption of extending platforms by any distance is enormous, so why not simply run trains that already fit, no construction needed?

Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 3:50 pm

*make that 720 feet for 12 cars of 60-footers, my bad

Chris C December 17, 2014 - 12:30 pm

They are NOT taking the line out of service just for this work.

On the contrary they are using already scheduled line closures for the tunnel works to do this work at the same time.

Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 3:37 pm

I understand that there is more work that is being done, but Ben’s statement that “without the looming Sandy shutdowns for the L train, the new station at Ave. A wouldn’t really be feasible” makes it seem like a shutdown is needed to build some staircases and an elevator. My question is: why?

EN December 18, 2014 - 12:27 am

There is a lot of equipment in the way. Without seeing the designs I can’t tell you what exactly, but things like electrical and communication rooms exist in that general area.

al December 17, 2014 - 1:00 pm

I’ve been thinking this over, and it seems to come down to:
1) Yard Track length. Out of the Canarsie Yard and East NY Yard storage/layup/inspection tracks, less than 1/2 can handle 9 car (60′) trains. This affects the ability to send any train to any track. E NY Yard has track that can fit 2,4,6 60′ cars on them. When all 60′ SMEE retire, what will happen to 6 and 2 car slots.
2) Signal Spacing Length for block signalling and CBTC need adjustment, especially at the terminals and near switches.
3) The Video Monitors on Platforms need relocation or replacement (due to space constraints) because of T/O cab location when a 9 car train is stopped in station.

A solution may be something of a C car (NTT CBTC tachometer car) order to make car number 5 on non tachometer 4 car NTT set. This car might be 60′ with modified door placement, or a 56′ car.

As for station work, its economy of scale as tunnel work allows for larger labor and equipment mobilization, and track shutdown at the same time.

Brooklynite December 17, 2014 - 3:31 pm

Looking from a satellite, ENY Yard has pitifully short tracks, many of which cannot even fit an 8-car train. If 9-car trains were run on the J/L/M/Z, some of those tracks could simply hold 5-car sets, instead of 4-car sets as google maps shows now. If the MTA really cared, they could retrofit all the tracks in the yard to hold 9-car trains if they simply purchased a nearby gas station / body shop and reconfigured the tracks.

Given that there are no signals on the (underground part of the) line aside from near interlockings / terminals, moving signal blocks should be elementary. Isn’t moving-block signalling being used anyway?

And yes, video monitors will need to be moved. Given that they already exist, that’s simply a question of buying some wire. (Maybe that expense will finally impel the MTA to implement OPTO, but I’m not counting on it.)

IIRC 160’s can be retrofitted to be CBTC-compatible relatively easily. And please let’s not add yet another car length / door placement to the system… (think PSDs)

Christopher December 17, 2014 - 9:47 am

hope the $300m is for the whole package of post-Sandy repairs and not just a staircase. Otherwise we’re doomed. I wish we’d entrances on lots of one sided entry stations, perhaps paid for by upzoning around the new entrances.

Chris C December 17, 2014 - 12:34 pm

Reading various links and the actual press release the $300m includes 3 new substations.

Amd this $300 is different from the Sandy money

Nathanael December 19, 2014 - 4:32 am

NY isn’t going to get this $300 million any time soon. Why? Core Capacity doesn’t have that much funding.

Core Capacity has $120 million from FY2014, of which Chicago has already used $35 million, and $120 million from FY2015. That leaves $205 million. Of that, Chicago is going to get some of it and has its applications ready already. So I’d expect New York to get about $100 million from the Core Capacity grants in 2015, not more.

(Nobody but Chicago and New York are in the running for those grants at the moment. Theoretically Philadelphia and Boston and some other cities could use ’em, but they haven’t started planning yet.)

Nathanael December 19, 2014 - 4:33 am

I think it may be possible for the FTA to “flex” New Starts money into Core Capacity instead, but I’m not sure how much they’ll choose to do that.

Bolwerk December 19, 2014 - 12:37 pm

It’s probably not meant to get it soon. The headline price is $300M, but it’s probably more like half a decade or more of $25M here, $50M there, $75M here, etc..

Most likely bonded out and paid down over several hundred billion decades!

Brend January 6, 2015 - 10:31 pm

Any new entrance must have escalators (in both direction). It is ridiculous to build stairs in this day and age.

Herb Lehman December 17, 2014 - 10:05 am

I’m glad this is going to happen, but my observation is that 68th St/Lex on the 6 line has MUCH more of a dire need for a second entrance/exit than First Avenue on the L. In spite of the inexplicable community opposition, I hope that will also be on the table at some point (though I understand that the L upgrades were made possible due to Superstorm Sandy and thus, we’re comparing apples and oranges).

Demetria December 17, 2014 - 12:14 pm

Fully agreed on this. Both 68th and 77th. However at 1st avenue, the current entrance/exit is at the extreme west end of the station, whereas at the aforementioned stations, it is in the middle so this is probably a factor, so with 1st avenue you kill two birds with one stone (shorten walking distance to the station while also allowing for faster exit from the station).

Chase December 17, 2014 - 2:05 pm

I heard that the MTA has appeased the 69 St NIMBYs by purchasing a storefront on the east side of Lexington Av and the much-needed exit will be mid-block.

Apparently this convinced them that the subway riffraff would stay off their precious street. No word on whether the city has approved the giant iron gates and retinal scanners they wanted for their sidewalks.

Betsy McCoy December 17, 2014 - 4:39 pm

They did finally come to an agreement but they lost a year of the design process and now need to start over. The new design is not expected to be completed until Jan 2016 which means expect a finish of the new entrance in 2018 or 2019

Herb Lehman December 18, 2014 - 10:15 am

That’s unfortunate, but it’s still somewhat of a relief to hear that it’s actually on the MTA’s radar.

Steve December 19, 2014 - 3:01 pm

The reason that 1st Ave needs an exit/entrance at the east end is that the 1st Ave Station is the farthest east station in the entire East Village – that means that Avenues A, B, C and D are all without subway access. OTOH, there’s another station less than 1/2 a mile both north and south of 68th St. While a new 1st Ave exit doesn’t add a more eastern station, it does move access a full block east which makes a big difference to those who are walking or taking a bus from the farther reaches of Alphabet City. Additionally, with Stuyvesant Town (immediately adjacent to the station) a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) the ability to travel a block less is a very big deal to the many elderly. While 68th St also needs another access, adding one does not have as big an impact on as many people because the catchment area is not increased in the same way that an additional exit at 1st Ave is.

Tower18 December 17, 2014 - 2:42 pm

23rd at on the F/M also needs an entrance at 24th. The crowding at that station is intense, getting in and out of the one fare control at 23rd. I don’t think any such exit exists, so this might take more work.

An exit to 3rd Av at 4th Av/9th St (F/G) would be helpful, and it shouldn’t be that hard, I believe stairs were put in place at that end for construction.

Nostrand (A/C) needs the Arlington Pl exit reopened, which should only require breaking up the sidewalk, the exit exists.

7 Av (B/Q) needs the closed exit at Sterling(?) reopened.

Metropolitan (G) needs the Grand St entrance reopened.

Myrtle/Willoughby (G) needs the Willoughby entrance opened.

In this era of unstaffed stations, there’s no reason not to open these existing stairs, especially in BMT/IND stations that were built for that purpose.

Andy December 17, 2014 - 3:23 pm

All along the J and M train stations are closed staircases. They could be opened like how the eastern entrances of Marcy Ave are. Staircase goes right up to a full height turnstile.

Nyland8 December 17, 2014 - 6:08 pm


BoerumHillScott December 18, 2014 - 8:13 am

I agree with the rest, but 3rd Ave at the 4th/9th would be a large undertaking, requiring a huge amount of work to locate the fare control area(s), especially since the platforms don’t even reach to 3rd.

On the north side of the line there are private homes, and on the south side there is power substation.
With enough money and disruption it could be done, but given the density of the area and the relative closeness of other entrances, I would reopen every closed exit in the system before building one here.

Roy December 18, 2014 - 11:29 am

I’ve used the Myrtle G stop for years and long been puzzled that the Willoughby exit is shuttered. The other day when the West 4th stop had a fire and the BDFM were all screwey the F ran from Queens down the G line, and I happened to catch one, which let me off down at the far end – long past where the short G trains go. It was very odd, and kind of annoying, being let off directly in front of the shuttered Willoughby exit and having to walk all the way down the platform to the usual exit.

I doubt the closed G exits will be reopened until ridership grows to the point where they start using longer trains again (running the G past Court Square to Queensboro Plaza is a good idea, I think), but whenever that happens it will be essential to have those exits again.

Tower18 December 18, 2014 - 2:24 pm

Myrtle-Willoughby, for instance, has seen 20% ridership growth 2008-2013. It will certainly be up again for 2014. That time is now.

smartone December 17, 2014 - 8:38 pm

I live in the neighborhood and this fall the MTA was already drilling taking soil sample on both the North and South side of 14th street near Avenue A so I think they are very serious about creating this entrance regardless if they get the federal money or not.

mister December 17, 2014 - 8:55 pm

Nice piece Mr. Kabak. But you’re missing an important detail on the work in the canarsie tube that’s a much bigger deal than some new staircases, or even an elevator.

NYCT would love to reopen some of their closed entrances, but FTA is making it difficult to do so.

lop December 18, 2014 - 1:17 am

FTA is making it difficult to do so.

Care to elaborate?

Brooklynite December 18, 2014 - 10:21 am

I’m no expert in legalese but it appears that opening additional entrances may trigger the ADA requirements for a station.*

When a public entity alters an existing facility or a part of an existing facility used in providing designated public transportation services in a way that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility, the entity shall make the alterations (or ensure that the alterations are made) in such a manner, to the maximum extent feasible, that the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (http://www.fta.dot.gov/12876_3906.html, section 37.43)

*Not that that’s stopped the MTA before… the Brighton Line local stations should all be accessible by now, since each one had a complete rebuild.

Nyland8 December 18, 2014 - 10:38 am

I don’t think opening a gate can be construed as “altering” public access – and in many cases, that’s all we’re talking about. There are at least some stations whose existing access is simply closed by a big gate with a lock on it. If the ADA requires installing an elevator there before they can unlock the door, then the MTA would be building elevators throughout the system, because there are many entrances that open and close daily.

Brooklynite December 18, 2014 - 11:04 am

From the platform, sure, that would just be a question of opening a gate. However, I’m assuming the street staircases were removed for almost all of these entrances, which would mean that they would have to be rebuilt. The extent of that might qualify? I don’t know.

But then again, the MTA has blatantly violated ADA before so that can’t be the reason.

Roy December 18, 2014 - 11:31 am

At least at Myrtle/Willoughby on the G the entire exit, staircase and aboveground exit included, is still there. It’s just covered with plywood and chains. It would probably take a long weekend to get it working again. Well, maybe a little longer if you include fare control, but not much.

Brooklynite December 18, 2014 - 6:41 pm

In that case I’m not sure what the problem is. Anyone have any ideas?

The only thing that comes to mind is that in the ’80s, these exits were mostly closed for safety reasons (correct me if I’m wrong). Could it be that if such exits are reopened and a crime occurs in one of them the MTA could possibly get sued for being negligent in opening “unsafe” entrances? Sounds absurd, I know, but stranger things have happened to the MTA in court.

Bolwerk December 19, 2014 - 9:41 am

Occam’s razor: they can’t be arsed to do it.

mister December 19, 2014 - 7:55 pm

This. Since this ruling, FTA had decided that, as the lawsuit states, any renovation is an alteration. So reopening a closed staircase would require ADA accessibility.

Nyland8 December 21, 2014 - 12:56 pm

Uh … no. That’s not what it says.

“A federal district court judge agreed, saying that BECAUSE SEPTA had REPLACED an escalator and staircase down to the concourse during renovations in 1999, it was obliged to make the area accessible to the disabled.”

That’s a far cry from “any renovation is an alteration.”

Opening a locked gate is not replacing anything. There are many closed station entrances, and many closed cross-over/under passage ways throughout the system that require no more than unlocking gates and replacing light bulbs to reopen them. Likewise, if they wanted to add security cameras to make it safer, that would not qualify as space alteration.

mister December 21, 2014 - 9:38 pm

While you may or may not be correct with your interpretation, FTA’s current position is that any attempt to reopen a shuttered entrance constitutes a renovation.

As for your assertion that reopening many of the subway’s shuttered entrance requires little more than unlocking a gate and replacing some lightbulbs: you clearly don’t know the condition of many of these shuttered entrances. A great deal of them have been slabbed over at the street or walled off at the platform. Many would require new electrical work, as the old incandescent fixtures do not meet current standards and are likely broken. Some of them have water infiltration issues, some are structurally deficient. Many never received Automated Fare Collection machinery and would require all new fare arrays. Some would likely require CCTV. Many would need stair tread replacement. But as stated previously, right now FTA would require ADA access be provided. It’s an issue, one that NYCT needs some relief on in order to reopen many of these shuttered entrances.

Panthers December 19, 2014 - 11:17 am

So the question remains, how to increase capacity. I’ve noticed one thing. Since moving from the Graham Avenue stop to Dekalb on the L, the L is jam packed at night. Whereas a lot of people would get off at Bedford-Lorimer-Graham, I see a lot of people getting off the trains at Jefferson St. and Dekalb. Prices in Greenpoint-Williamsburg have driven people to Jefferson-Dekalb-Myrtle. What frustrates me is that after 9:30 or so, the trains start running every 10 minutes..15 minutes…20 minutes. There is absolutely no reason for that. I’m not advocating rush hour services. But this is ridiculous!

I think if the L was extended to the Sportsplex and even the Hudson Yards, it would benefit everyone – especially the clubs and businesses in the meatpacking district. Would NIMBYs object to the train running down 10th Avenue? I would hope not. Yeah, I know, many folks want the L extended to New Jersey. That’s another discussion for another time.

Brooklynite December 19, 2014 - 1:16 pm

According to schedule, L trains leaving 8 Av run every 4 minutes until 10:00PM, then every 5 until about 11:00, then every 10 until 12:30. 20-minute headways start at 1:30AM.

If that’s not what is happening, then that should be remedied. If 4-minute headways are not sufficient, then service should be increased to every 3 minutes (the incompetent CBTC system can’t manage more apparently).

Extending the L to the Meatpacking would remedy the issue of lack of tail tracks, but wouldn’t it be much simpler and faster to just build a hundred feet of tail tracks instead?

smartone December 20, 2014 - 7:31 pm

A question
is this new Avenue A entrance going to have access between the two tracks?
currently you can not cross over to other track on 1st Avenue Stop

To make it ADA compliment they will have to either build access tunnel between the two tracks
or two elevators

LLQBTT December 22, 2014 - 3:50 pm

Thank goodness! The overcrowding at the 1st Avenue access point is ridiculous. Plus this is a big win for Alphabet city access.


Leave a Comment