Home Author
Author

Benjamin Kabak

New Jersey Transit

NJ Transit: We moved trains to vulnerable areas

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 3, 2013

New Jersey Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein keeps digging his own grave over the agency’s response to Sandy, but no one seems willing to fire him. After spending months defending his and his employees’ actions leading up the storm — the same actions that resulted in $450 million worth of damage to vital rolling stock — Weinstein was at it again on Wednesday. This time, he sat in front of a New Jersey State Senate committee and discussed how New Jersey Transit moved trains into low-lying areas ahead of the storm.

Karen Rouse of The Record was on hand to report on Weinstein’s testimony. She summed it up:

NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein acknowledged publicly on Wednesday that the agency actually moved rail cars and locomotives into its flood-prone Meadowlands rail yard for storage just before the yard was inundated by superstorm Sandy’s floodwaters in October. The move resulted in millions in flood damage to the rail equipment.

“We brought some additional equipment in there to store during the storm,” Weinstein told members of the Senate Budget Committee during a hearing on the Christie Administration’s transportation budget Wednesday morning. At the time, he said, “there was no reason to believe it would flood.”

Weinstein did not say how many rail cars were moved into the vulnerable spot, but that it won’t happen again. More than a quarter of the agency’s rail fleet was damaged during the storm, most at the maintenance facility. “We are informed by the experience,” he said. “We won’t be bringing equipment there in the future in the event we are faced with a similar situation as we were with Sandy.”

It won’t happen again! Well, what a relief.

Now, the first question that pops to mind concerns Weinstein’s truthiness. Could he actually believe that “there was no reason to believe it would flood”? Hard to say. Four months before Sandy hit, New Jersey Transit received a report warning of flood-prone infrastructure, and the Meadowlands yard was clearly highlighted in this summary. In late 2012, Weinstein admitted that he hadn’t bothered to read the report despite the fact that New Jersey Transit had specifically commissioned it after Hurricane Irene.

To make matters worse, when handed their own storm-modeled software, New Jersey Transit officials couldn’t figure out how to use it properly. Thus, they were lead to believe that it would be perfectly fine to move trains from high-elevation areas to low-lying spots near rivers that could flood. It was, in effect, the perfect storm of ineptitude and bad planning.

During his testimony on Wednesday, Weinstein further elaborated on the decision. According to The Record, the agency had moved trains to higher ground during Irene, but “after that hurricane, NJ Transit rail crews could not access the equipment because it was surrounded by flood waters in lower-lying areas in Trenton.” So their solution involved moving the equipment into these lower-lying areas and then acting surprised when those lower lying areas flooded. How do all of these people still have their jobs anyway?

18 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Manhattan

Video: Inside the South Ferry loop

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 3, 2013

With the reopening of South Ferry set for tomorrow morning at 5 a.m., the MTA has released a seven-minute video of B-roll footage from the loop station. Take a trip through the tunnels, watch gap-fillers in action and enjoy the pan through the gussied-up station. Meanwhile, for a trip down memory lane, the last time we had video from South Ferry, it looked like a bunch of scenes out of a disaster movie.

7 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Manhattan

South Ferry loop to reopen tomorrow morning

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 3, 2013

Gap fillers, tight curve and a narrow platform mark the recommissioned South Ferry station. (Photo Courtesy: NYC Transit/ Marc A. Hermann)

The 1 train’s old South Ferry loop station will reopen at 5 a.m. tomorrow morning, the MTA announced this afternoon. The loop will operate for the foreseeable future while the newer two-track South Ferry terminal undergoes extensive repairs following its destruction at the floodwaters from Sandy’s storm surge. Those repairs should take a few years and will cost around $600 million according to estimates.

The reopening of the old loop marks the first time the MTA has closed a station only to reopen it later, but the agency did make a few key improvements. By removing a wall and building out an additional passageway, the connection between the R at Whitehall St. and the 1 at South Ferry remains in place. (I’m not sure, however, how useful such a transfer truly is.) However, only the first five cars at South Ferry will open at the curved station, and station egress points are limited. Still, just over five months after Sandy washed away the nearest subway station to the Staten Island Ferry, a temporary, imperfect solution is better than no service at all.

55 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Penn Station

A call for through-running to address Penn capacity

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 3, 2013

Last week, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer released an appropriately balanced call to develop a plan to relocate Madison Square Garden so that track capacity beneath Penn Station could eventually be increased. A close reading of the plan revealed it to be controversial in its suggestion that MSG be granted a ten-year reprieve before facing pressure to move but also more concerned with rail capacity than with the aesthetics of a Penn Station headhouse. It was, in other words, about planning for the future and not atoning for the decision to allow the original Beaux Arts building to face the wrecking ball fifty years ago.

Not everyone seemed to appreciate the nuances of Stringer’s report. Now, I’m not referring to those who disagreed with it; there was, after all, plenty with which one could disagree. Rather, I’m referring to writers such as The Post’s Bob McManus who published a screed against Stringer’s proposal on the grounds that it was too stuck in the past. Not actually paying attention to Stringer’s report, McManus said that we should all get over Penn Station and that Moynihan Station is not a well-thought-out plan.

McManus is not incorrect on either front, but Stringer wasn’t proposing rebuilding Penn Station or adopting Moynihan as the only solution. Rather, as part of the ULURP process, Stringer wants to see the city formulate a long-term plan for the Penn Station area that focuses first on rail expansion that involves moving MSG because the support pillars block such an expansion. It’s one plan, but it’s not the only plan. I wouldn’t expect an editorial writer in The Post to pick up on nuances or spend 20 minutes reading an 18-page double-spaced report though.

What about another plan? Over the weekend, Crain’s ran an editorial from Bob Previdi calling for a different solution for Penn Station’s capacity concerns. He wrote on through-running:

Finding the $15 billion or so for Amtrak’s Gateway project has proved difficult. But there is a way to spend roughly half as much while still doubling rush-hour train traffic. It involves taking a regional approach in how we use Penn Station.

Today, many Long Island Rail Road and NJ Transit trains terminate at Penn Station by discharging their passengers, loading more passengers and heading back in the direction they came from. This causes too many at-grade movements (where trains cut across each other’s path) within the station. It slows everything down, limiting service and inconveniencing pass-through passengers.

If trains simply kept going in the direction they came from—with NJ Transit trains continuing to Long Island and LIRR trains along New Jersey routes—we could streamline operations and expand the number of destinations each railroad serves. For example, NJ Transit customers could reach JFK airport, Citi Field and the U.S. Open tennis tournament, while Long Islanders would be able to reach Newark Liberty airport, MetLife Stadium and the Prudential Center.

Achieving this would require changing equipment and updating operating procedures, but this concept is not new or radical. It’s been done in the U.S. and around the globe, including in London and Paris. Heck, even Philadelphia did it: Way back in 1984, the old Reading Terminal and Suburban Station were combined into the Center City Commuter Tunnel.

This too is an approach worth embracing because it focuses on rail capacity and costs. Amtrak’s plans seem to focus on rail capacity as long as costs are no limit, and plans from folks bemoaning the lack of Penn Station believe funds should be spent only on restoring the past. “If we are concerned about what we can afford—and how we can leave some funds to fix the existing station—then New York’s and New Jersey’s elected officials should insist that the agencies find a way to make better use of the existing track, tunnels and yards that support Penn Station,” Previdi writes.

Maximizing dollars has been a theme of mine with regards to the MTA and Port Authority. We’ve seen capital projects become fiscal sinkholes as costs and construction delays spiral out of control. We’ve seen one agency spend billions on a headhouse with less regard for rail service and another sacrifice design and flexibility to keep costs under control. Maybe for Penn Station the initial answer lies in through-running. At the least, it’s worth a closer look.

211 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Construction

Washington Heights: Fix up 181st St. already

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 2, 2013

Remember when, five months ago, a hurricane flooded the New York City subway system, thus washing out tunnels and a few stations? It certainly didn’t take too long for the MTA to get service up and running and implement solutions — from the temporary to the permanent — to restore service. The same has not happened at 181st St. in Washington Heights, and a neighborhood group is raising a stink about it.

In 2009, when a ceiling collapse at the deep station along the 1 train led to service problems and safety concerns, the MTA vowed quick, but it’s been nearly four years with only temporary construction in place. Now, WE ACT is speaking out. “When Sandy hit, they got stuff moving quickly at the South Ferry,” the group’s spokesman Jacob Carlson said. “It’s been four years since the roof collapsed and not a hammer has been lifted.”

Money doesn’t seem to be the culprit here. The MTA had vowed to start work a year ago, but each time the due date came around, the project was delayed. Last week, though, Citnalta won a $42 million contract for the work, but no start date has been unveiled. As various maintenance projects move forward, I’m left with the same concern: When the MTA has a fire under its belly lit by politicians and Board members, action happens quickly. When projects are left to languish, they languish with a vengeance. For riders at 181st St., they continue to eye the ceiling warily as repairs slowly inch down the pike.

12 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Some thoughts on FASTRACK and its results

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 2, 2013

With the arrival of FASTRACK on the J line this evening, every Manhattan trunk line has gotten to enjoy the pain and benefits of the MTA’s new maintenance program, but media coverage has been nearly non-existent. Since an initial burst of concern over longer rides for those using the subway between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., the media has largely reported the outages with none of those “straphanger-on-the-street” quotes. Although I’m usually skeptical of such coverage, maybe it has a point.

As the MTA has trumpeted FASTRACK, we’ve gotten a laundry list of accomplishments. We’ve heard about bags of debris, pounds of scrap, ties replaced, drains cleared, third rail cleaned, pumped rooms treated. We’ve also heard bits and pieces about station environments. Last week, for instance, at the Lexington Ave. local stations, crews replaced 36 signs, over 1400 station light bults and 57 square feet of floor tile. Considering the state of the MTA’s stations, though, that’s not a considerable amount of work, and riders are starting to notice.

One reader sent me the following about Queens Boulevard a few days ago, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard such sentiments:

I live along the Queens Boulevard line and I happened to get off at Queens Plaza last night. Except for the condition of the rails and trackbed, which looked nice, the station didn’t look at all rehabbed. There were still leaks coming from the walls, and that one area of the station (back of the Manhattan bound local track) where it looks as if the pipe has been leaking forever and the wall is damaged. I am not to sure what the main goals of FasTrack seem to be as far as infrastructure that doesn’t have a short term effect on service but the station was rehabbed in the last few years and I’m wondering why these weren’t fixed.

Now, the purpose of FASTRACK isn’t to fancy up stations. It takes a concerted, long-term effort to do that, and FASTRACK’s raison d’etre involves the hidden infrastructure that runs the system. Yet, it’s always felt like an incomplete program to me because that forward-facing element is missing.

When the MTA takes something away from us, it’s easier to swallow if they give us something in return. For instance, a fare hike that’s accompanied by a service increase is far more acceptable than a fare hike accompanied by either nothing or service cuts. Likewise, if riders are suffering through longer rides, closed stations and inconvenient commutes especially during the already-unreliable overnight, they expect something in return. They want those dingy stations cleaned up and repaired. They want those leaky pipes sealed. They want something more pleasant than what they have now.

For the MTA to realize this desire, FASTRACK would have to be reconceptualized. It has to become something with a notable forward-facing component. It has to offer up tangible improvements and not just online laundry lists of accomplishments. When the next MTA capital campaign features spending on the signal system, the MTA should be able to deliver countdown clocks on the B Division in return. That’s the kind of trade-off that would make FASTRACK more acceptable in the eyes of the public even if we know and recognize that may not have been the agency’s original intentions.

52 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

J train Manhattan segment set for FASTRACK

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 1, 2013

JFastrack

The roving band of FASTRACK services outages will hit the BMT Nassau Street line tonight as the J train will not operate south of Essex/Delancey Sts. Beginning each night through Friday at 10 p.m. and continuing through 5 a.m., J trains will not stop at Broad Street, Fulton Street, Chambers Street, Canal Street or the Bowery, and Transit urging riders to seek some nearby, if imperfect, alternate routes.

Here’s how Transit bills this one:

  • F and 4, 6 trains provide connecting service between J trains at Delancey Street-Essex Street and Lower Manhattan.
  • Transfer between F and J trains at Delancey Street-Essex Street
  • Transfer between F and 4 or 6 trains at Bleecker Street-Broadway/Lafayette Street.
  • A trains at Fulton Street connect with J trains at Broadway Junction
  • E trains at World Trade Center connect with J trains at Sutphin Blvd-Archer Avenue.

That the J has such low overnight ridership through Lower Manhattan means fewer New Yorkers will be inconvenienced by this change, but parallel service requires a pair of extra transfers for those trying to reach South Williamsburg and beyond. Meanwhile, it’s doubtful that the real scourge of the Nassau St. line — the decrepit Chambers St. stop — will see much, if any, improvement as FASTRACK focuses more on track infrastructure rather than stations that require top-to-bottom rehabs.

The next FASTRACK treatment comes to the Concourse line between 161st Street-Yankee Stadium and 205th Street next week.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MetroCard

MTA considering tokens as MetroCard replacement

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 1, 2013
Could tokens be making a comeback? One plan calls for their reintroduction by 2019.

Could tokens be making a comeback? One plan calls for their reintroduction by 2019.

As the MTA tries to get plans to replace the MetroCard back on track, the agency is considering reintroducing tokens as a last-ditch effort, according to multiple MTA sources. If the MetroCard reaches the end of its life, as is expected to happen by 2019, with no successor technology in place, the MTA may resort to tokens to save on fare payment system maintenance costs.

Previously, tokens had been in use since the mid-1950s when the fare jumped from a dime to 15 cents. Along with the increase came a move to offer up straphangers just one coin, but after nearly five decades, the MTA did away with tokens as calls from rider advocates for unlimited ride options and free transfers grew louder. Tokens were last accepted by the MTA on April 13, 2003.

Recently, though, as costs of maintaining the MetroCard system have increased and the early 1990s technology has aged, the MTA has tried to find a suitable next-generation replacement. An extensive pilot program throughout the mid-2000s and early 2010s involved a credit and debit card-based touch system, but recent revelations that the banking industry has not been quick to adopt the technology led the MTA to scrap these plans. It seems likely that the MTA will instead develop a proprietary payment card — if it can do so before 2019. If they cannot, we get tokens.

Initial reactions from both subway riders and those fighting for the rights of passengers have been mixed. Some are looking forward to the return of a beloved New York icon while others are worrying about the impact tokens will have on ridership. There’s no such thing, after all, as an unlimited ride token.

“Let’s not be too happy,” Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said. “We fought long and hard for unlimited ride cards, and the return of the token could drastically impact transit ridership.”

For the MTA, the token could bring about an uptick in revenue as well. With the introduction of pay-per-ride discounts and unlimited ride cards, the real cost of a subway ride dropped well below inflation-adjusted fare levels from the years before the introduction of the MetroCard. The token, without such discounts, will help the MTA beef up its finances.

On the other hand, New Yorkers long accustomed to monthly discounts and frequent rider incentives may find such a marked increase in fares and a corresponding decrease in convenience too much to handle. Additionally, no one wants to carry around bags of tokens either. They are, after all, significantly heavier than a flimsy piece of plastic.

“Our move to reexamine tokens would come only as a last-ditch effort if our technological initiatives are unsuccessful,” Tom Prendergast, the MTA’s interim executive director, said. “It’s premature to discuss these long-term plans, but we cannot close the fare gate to any option currently on the table.”

Losing the MetroCard, ultimately, would be a blow to an agency that has long struggled with technological innovation. Costs are costs, though, and if it’s better for the MTA to resort to an older fare payment system rather than burn money on maintaining what will then be a 30-year-old technology, we may have to make some sacrifices.

Still, 2019 is a long way off, and perhaps the MTA can find a technological solution before the next six years elapse.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

Again, 86th St. residents file suit over entrances, again

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on April 1, 2013

These proposed entrances for the Second Ave. Subway on 86th St. are again the subject of another federal lawsuit.

A little over two years ago, a group of Upper East Siders who live in the Yorkshire Towers building filed suit against the MTA over the location of the planned entrances for the Second Ave. Subway’s 86th St. subway station. The suit was eventually dismissed on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out, but that has not deterred these residents. Last week — for the third time — the same building filed essentially the same lawsuit, and with a little over three years of construction remaining on the project, the suit is yet another obstacle.

At issue are two station entrances where one had been originally planned. At first, the Second Ave. Subway’s 86th St. station was to be at the northeast corner, but MTA engineers determined that the building that would have hosted the station could not do so safely. So the MTA proposed two entrances on 86th St. surrounding Yorkshire Towers’ driveway. The MTA produced a Supplemental Environmental Assessment that showed how relocating the entrances would have no adverse impact on the neighborhood, and the residents threw a fit.

Putting forward a bunch of safety arguments I believed were bogus two years ago, Yorkshire Towers claimed the two entrances would create safety hazards due to the driveway. It reeked of classic NIMBYism. Here is a building on the tony Upper East Side with a mid-block, U-shaped driveway arguing that two subway entrances — both of which point away from the active driveway — would be more dangerous than not. If they are that concerned with pedestrian safety, maybe we should just shutter their driveway entirely.

The staircases at Entrance 2 have been designed to minimize passenger flow in front Yorkshire Towers by siphoning riders away from the active driveway.

But that’s neither here nor there. How, you may be wondering, can the same plaintiff be filing the same suit requesting the same relief as they did two years ago when their suit was dismissed? If you’re tempted to say they can’t, well, you wouldn’t be wrong, but with the right lawyers and today’s pleadings standards, anything is possible. This time around, the complaint clocks in at 70 pages — lengthy and dull but shorter than the one from two years ago. It has few real answers.

Essentially, the building’s argument rests on the fact that at a few meetings the plaintiffs requested, the MTA wasn’t accepting of the Yorkshire Towers’ own engineering assessments. MTA Capital Construction officials dismissed their findings outright, and now it appears as though Yorkshire Towers is again claiming that the MTA’s own assessments were faulty while trying to reset the statute of limitations from the time of the building’s last meetings with the MTA. It’s a rather nifty legal sleight of hand, but it shouldn’t lead to a different outcome.

The biggest issue now — as it was two years ago — is that the MTA’s actions weren’t outside the bounds of the agency’s authority. When it decided to move the entrances, the agency performed the studies required of it by federal law. It filed the findings according to proper procedure and were granted the ability to change the design. Just because some people don’t like the conclusion doesn’t mean it’s wrong as a matter of law.

And so we’ll go through this again. The MTA’s answer to the complaint is due soon, and the agency is sure to deny the claims. Maybe the judge will dismiss, but if this case survives, the looming construction work may have to be delayed or revised. At that point, everyone in the city will pay the price, and not just some folks concerned with their mid-block driveway.

After the jump, read the complaint.

Continue Reading
46 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 13 subway lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on March 30, 2013

Apologies for posting these a bit late. Yesterday was my 30th birthday, and I wasn’t around much at all. Busy weekend of work at the old South Ferry stop:


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, there is no 1 train service between 14th Street and Rector Street due to tunnel lighting and station work in the old South Ferry Terminal. Customers may take 2 or 3 trains and free shuttle buses as alternatives.

  • Free shuttle buses operate between Chambers Street and South Ferry.
  • 1 trains run express in both directions between 34th Street and 14th Street
  • 2 and 3 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street and Chambers Street
  • Overnight: Downtown 1 trains run local from Times Square-42nd Street to 14th Street


From 5:45 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, uptown 1 trains run express from 96th Street to 145th Street due to switch repairs south of 137th Street.


From 7:45 a.m. Saturday, March 30 to 6 p.m. Sunday, March 31, uptown 2 trains skip Bronx Park East, Pelham Parkway, Allerton Avenue and Burke Avenue due to track repairs south of Gun Hill Road.


From 11:30 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, 2 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street and Chambers Street due to tunnel lighting and station work in the old South Ferry Terminal.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, 3 trains run local in both directions between 34th Street and Chambers Street due to tunnel lighting and station work in the old South Ferry Terminal.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, March 30, and from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, March 30 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, March 31 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, March 31 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, uptown 4 trains run express from Brooklyn Bridge to 14th Street-Union Square due to rail work at Astor Place. Note: 5 trains run every 20 minutes.


From 5:45 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, downtown 4 trains skip 176th Street, Mt. Eden Avenue, 170th Street, 167th Street and 161st Street due to rail repairs south of 170th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m., Saturday, March 30, downtown 4 trains run local from 125th Street to Grand Central-42nd Street and uptown 4 trains run local from 14th Street-Union Square to 125th Street due to signal work south of 59th Street.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, March 30, downtown 5 trains run local from 125th Street to Grand Central-42nd Street and uptown 5 trains run local from 14th Street-Union Square to 125th Street due to signal work south of 59th Street.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, uptown 6 trains run express from Brooklyn Bridge to 14th Street-Union Square due to rail work at Astor Place. Note: 5 trains run every 20 minutes.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, downtown 6 trains run express from Parkchester to 3rd Avenue-138th Street due to ADA work at Hunts Point Avenue.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 6:30 a.m. Saturday, March 30, from 11:45 p.m. Saturday, March 30 to 6:30 a.m. Sunday, March 31 and from 11:45 p.m. Sunday, March 31 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, downtown A trains run express from 145th Street to Canal Street due to track maintenance north of 47th-50th Streets.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, downtown C trains run express from 145th Street to Canal Street due to track maintenance north of 47th – 50th Streets.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, there are no downtown D trains at 7th Avenue, 47th-50th Sts, 42nd Street-Bryant Park and 34th Street-Herald Square due to track maintenance north of 47th-50th Sts. Downtown D trains are rerouted via the C from 145th Street to West 4th Street. D service operates in two sections:

  • Between 205th Street and the 2nd Avenue F station
  • Between West 4th Street and Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue


From 12:15 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31 and from 12:15 a.m. to 5 a.m., Monday, April 1, Jamaica Center-bound E trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue due to track renewal north of 36th Street. (See R entry for travel information.)


From 5:30 a.m. Saturday, March 30 to 10 p.m. Sunday, March 31, there is no J train service between Broadway Junction and Jamaica Center due to track panel installation at Broadway Junction. Free shuttle buses and E trains provide alternate service via Jamaica-Van Wyck.

  • J trains operate between Chambers Street and Broadway Junction
  • Free shuttle buses operate between Broadway Junction and 121st Street, and connect with the E at Jamaica-Van Wyck, where service to and from Sutphin Blvd and Jamaica Center is available.


From 11:45 p.m. Friday, March 29 to 5 a.m. Monday, April 1, downtown N trains run express from 34th Street-Herald Square to Canal Street due to track maintenance at 8th Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, downtown R trains run express from 34th Street-Herald Square to Canal Street due to track maintenance at 8th Street.

R
From 6:30 a.m. to midnight, Saturday, March 30 and Sunday, March 31, Queens-bound R trains run express from Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Avenue due to track renewal north of 36th Street.

  • To 36th Street, Steinway Street, 46th Street, Northern Boulevard and 65th Street, customers may take the Jamaica Center-bound E or the 71st Avenue-bound R to Roosevelt Avenue and transfer to a Manhattan-bound E local or R.
  • From these stations, customers may take a Manhattan-bound E or R to Queens Plaza and transfer to a Jamaica Center-bound E or 71st Avenue-bound R.
17 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts