Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Lex

Member
  • Content Count

    674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Lex last won the day on June 26

Lex had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

307 Excellent

About Lex

  • Rank
    Regular Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That'll be an uphill battle, and not just because of the NIMBY mindset...
  2. Why not do both? (Granted, I'm actually on the fence about the , seeing that it's long enough as it is, but without a Bronx branch of Second Avenue, I don't really see any other means of bringing subway service to Gun Hill Road, not to mention the proximity to Montefiore's Moses Division...) Hell, I'd throw in something akin to AirTrain for Pelham Parkway/Fordham Road as another route.
  3. Taking unrelated bitterness (for a nonsensical commute!) out on the drivers, I see...
  4. The first day of the busway had drivers crawling just to stick to the schedule. Make of that what you will.
  5. The only part that's even remotely affected in this manner is Section 5. Even then, the damage is limited to being slightly harder to reach Bay Plaza, as everything else is like trying to reach Baychester Avenue on foot at best. (This is mitigated by the fact that bus routes and sidewalks exist to bridge the gap to the point of being moot.) The fact of the matter is, much of no one within the confines of the entire development can even be bothered to give a shit about what's immediately outside, and those immediately outside have very little to care about within aside from Bay Plaza. (The major outside destinations are either within the Bronx well away from there or Manhattan.) In other words, don't bother to address one market failure because of a different market failure that is in no small part affected by it. You said neither. You strongly implied the former. As far as I'm concerned, you made the latter up just to cover your ass, and that's not something that I'll let fly, especially since doing that will effectively defeat the purpose of even getting rid of the highway (south of Bartow Avenue, anyway, as everything north of there will fall to what I mentioned several times).
  6. Personally, I'd prefer sending it to Section 5, then in front of Bay Plaza (along Bartow Avenue). The reason? Section 5 is the most difficult part of the development to reach (albeit only to a degree, as the decision to can the peak Bx23 patterns meant the only time reaching it would really be of any concern is when both it and the Bx29 stop running).
  7. None of which apply here, as the highway predates the amusement park that predates the development, and said development already has local businesses. It was a load of nothing before even the amusement park existed. (Technically, it was mostly marsh/swamp, but as far as human land use goes, it was of no value.) Hence why merely adding housing won't address the problem. Instead, we need a targeted, multi-pronged approach. Even then, so long as we have high numbers of people who wish to come live in this city (in addition to those already here), we'll continue to have this issue. I wish the issue could be limited to the condos, but when around 100,000 apartments are vacant because they're only rarely used (by wealthy people) or have no given reason for being vacant and off the market (assumed to be for the Airbnb-type crap), it's of significant concern, which is only exacerbated by another 150,000 that are vacant for other reasons (thankfully, mostly renovations). I'm not the one who implied that a highway that doesn't remotely interfere with the subway is a barrier to extending it.
  8. Who benefits? You keep talking as if there actually is some substantial benefit (there isn't). All it would do is make it slightly easier for those living close to Bay Plaza (on the existing highway's west flank) to access it, as well as those living closest to the Baychester Avenue station (on said highway's eastern flank, which is also close to a full 1/2 mile away, rapidly eating any potential time saved) to access it. That's an extremely small selection of people, meaning the effort is nowhere near worth it. (It doesn't help that the only portion that remotely meshes well with the grid in that part of the borough is the one that's actually separated by a different highway.) Oh, that? You mean the thing brought on by a combination of demand outpacing supply, limited use of housing units that leads to unnecessary vacancies, and pricing that is well out of much of the demand's range, thereby making the situation far worse than it is? By the way, merely adding housing will repeat this cycle, much like merely adding lanes to a congested highway. Absolutely nothing. You would know this if you actually bothered to look. We're already becoming more conscious of air, water, and land pollution (in spite of Trump), and noise will also become less of an issue. In other words, the only form of pollution that area will face is visual, which won't really be helped by building a bunch of housing units in the freeway's stead. Traffic over there isn't great, but is far less offensive than for most highways in this city (hell, even the Bruckner Expressway -- the road the New England Thruway becomes -- is far worse, and that's before the Bruckner Interchange). Unlike in most places, that highway is only slightly more intrusive than when it was first built. Urban sprawl? I didn't realize we were still in the 1960s. I could've sworn you said we have a housing crisis. Exactly what inequity are you talking about? Okay, sure, let's replace the highway with more housing. That'll totally have a substantial impact on sea levels.
  9. Yeah, that's the problem. 🤦‍♀️
  10. No. Even taking Riverbay out of the equation and replacing the highway with other buildings (not getting into the pollution issue, as pollution is indisputable), the benefit is extremely limited. Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding more residences in an area that will probably be subjected to similar requirements as the existing residences in the area. Oh, joy, a ham-fisted attempt to integrate by adding a bunch of businesses that will struggle due to the ones that already exist east of 95 (with Bay Plaza being the biggest offender)... That traffic has zilch to do with any extension. And those would be?
  11. I don't know if you were paying attention, but I specifically brought up the idea that the MTA could be boneheaded enough to order more of them (not in those exact words, but the idea is still there). I already acknowledged that. That's implied, though the MTA can have the boards installed for more than one configuration (look at where shorter trains run with full-length ones). Great, all LIRR trains have the cars face a specific direction. That's not a good comparison, as all EMUs run as married pairs, whereas diesel trains have more limited consistency than electric ones.
  12. Not only does that concept have virtually no prevalence (it certainly won't be taking the world by storm anytime soon), but it only addresses the IRT's door placement issue (while opening another one concerning stations with pronounced curves). It does absolutely nothing to address the discrepancies the 75-footers bring.
  13. That's nice. Unfortunately, the issue is a physical one. The IRT's SMEEs have doorways that are directly across from each other. While the NTTs' A cars have this feature, the B/C cars don't. This is particularly problematic for the , as the combination of 5-car and 6-car sets means that any installation will require the 5-car set to be on one end and the 6-car set to be on the other, or else several cars will fail to align. (While this is already practiced, door installation will mean that trains in the reverse configuration -- which is no less safe without the doors -- will forever be barred from operating in revenue service.) The bigger issue, however, exists outside of the IRT, and that's not just a figure of speech. So long as we have those 75-footers, the options for installation will be limited, and that problem will persist if new 75-footers are ordered (for whatever reason).
  14. Perhaps you would be fortunate enough to see some traffic reductions, but beyond that, who honestly benefits? Unlike Williamsburg, you're not making it easier to traverse a single neighborhood with quite a bit of stuff going on. Instead, you have Co-op City (under Riverbay) on one side and, with the exceptions of Secor Houses and a few car/truck-related businesses, nothing but low-residential land on the other. To make matters worse, only a small portion of those living in Co-op City are remotely in walking distance now, and a Baychester Avenue bus will need to be anchored to something else of substance (the subway is not enough) to be remotely worth the expense of running. Sure, you could maybe put something in to try to offset the problems, but that would be quite the gamble, as it not only involves taking businesses/houses to really make it remotely serviceable, but there's also the radically different character of Co-op City and the areas across the highway.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.