Lex

I started looking at it, then stopped. Honestly, even as someone who's never been out there, some of these seem rather outlandish, and the materials provided really do nothing to help resolve any confusion. (Incidentally, this plays into my disdain for color-coding bus routes by service type/using an extremely limited palette to indicate all routes.)

The concept of wide rear doors works better on two-door artics. Having the third door effectively renders it superfluous, as said door already provides more space to enter/exit (and in a more strategic location, to boot).

If there's a link, it appears to be broken. For clarity, I'm not on mobile.

This. Getting rid of them at Flatbush Avenue made the Avenue H entrance far more tolerable.

My only concern is where the elevators will go. After all, the shafts need to have a solid foundation, meaning they can't simply be placed anywhere. On a different note, I'd really like to see different fare gates from the normal turnstiles or those godforsaken HEETs.

And that explains why we don't have midday ronx service...

At this point, I'd go with something someone else proposed -- namely, having it continue north along 21st Street, possibly with provisions for a Bronx connection (this connection being one of my ideas). This won't necessarily eliminate the existing rail connections, which I'd rather keep for any non-revenue moves and revenue service when 💩 hits the fan.

Well, the part I put in bold, for one.

I'll need you to define this.

What are you even going on about?

This weekend's changes have southbound trains stopping at Pelham Parkway while skipping the other three intermediate stations on the line. Now let's see them do it for northbound trains...

Because Brooklyn doesn't need the service...

It took me a bit to notice, but someone at the MTA finally had the sense to have trains stop at Pelham Parkway when the other (intermediate) Dyre Avenue stations are skipped.

Thing is, East New York has exactly 0 runs...

That only leads to two conflicting pay formats, which is my issue with the B82 SBS at the Rockaway Parkway station.

Republican "talking points" on climate change are nothing more than that. There is no debate to be had. Now that that's out of the way, there are corridors that still don't have SBS (or true BRT, though we don't have that anywhere in this city right now) but have enough potential to benefit. Some that come to mind are Third/Lexington (the M101's leg up 10th Avenue and 125th Street certainly does no favors), Concourse (the Bx1 is a drag), Flatbush (especially baffling, considering the B41's history of failing to meet demand), and Parsons/Kissena (the ridership may not be as high as Main Street, but it's certainly no slouch, and this is keeping the relative proximity in mind).

Perhaps it would be wise to choose your words more carefully, especially if you actually do these things (you shouldn't, but there's only so much I can personally do)...

I have an idea that plays off of one that others have expressed, but I'd rather not discuss it in the subway section...

All the more reason to keep a route that doesn't have that much strain on it by itself at that yard. (For anyone who would like to dispute, the strain on the is because of strain on the and . It doesn't have a base nearly as large as what most IRT routes have.)

Chances are, it's diarrhea. Don't even bother.

Miami went to Hitachi for new cars pretty recently. As for the article itself, I'm not surprised that profits were down. Between the trade war (thanks. Trump!) and Bombardier's questionable handling of some of the more recent orders (yes, that's partially a jab at the R179s), what were they expecting?

If Tomlin's departure is any indication, Byford's team may not last for much longer.

I do. It's basically why the stopped running east of 71st Avenue only a few years after it started. You would've been better off seeing the station for yourself before saying that, considering where the crew rooms (yes, rooms) are located. (The layout also makes running the existing 18 trains quite the adventure.) Technically, they can have trains depart from either track, but it's easier for people to know which train is which based on the track. Why run two Bronx routes in a manner where they hardly support each other, and why do it with Lexington Avenue? For that matter, why inundate those stations with more trains than they need, and why not focus on providing more support for Bronx ridership? In Brooklyn, service up the West Side is largely an afterthought for riders, yet the Bronx is rather starved. We don't have any half-decent places to short-turn trains so they can serve Manhattan-Bronx ridership more effectively, and merely running more of them only addresses the issue of merely serving the Manhattan-Bronx ridership. Have you actually seen how a Lenox-180th/Unionport/239th move would look? It's not pretty, and without some sort of change to the track layout, it'll remain horrifying. We can also forget about a good chunk of existing service and probably those two stations in Harlem. (Before anyone tries to claim yet again that the MTA wouldn't dare to do anything of the sort, just look at what happened with the Queens draft, especially with the Main Street buses and the Q53.) You'd be able to achieve that now by having better and timing at 149th Street and not having trains to/from Brooklyn use the middle track.

The site's not a toilet.

In what universe is this okay?