Lex

And every one of them is cringeworthy...

That's what you meant? That section has speed restrictions in place so trains entering Nevins Street don't derail on the sharp curve. It's standard operating procedure.

How are they supposed to make that connection?

At that hour?

Well?

Why not ask someone that had heatstroke?

Don't forget the grid-related oddities and the design of Kings Highway east of Ocean Avenue. Those two things add onto the issues the B9 faces, especially since it's still better off doing what it does now in order to serve people that live in the relevant parts of Brooklyn. Honestly, even if you were to sync the lights from Avenue P up to Avenue H, the intersection with Nostrand Avenue is still too dicey to properly transition to more typical light cycles, and that's factoring in the change to Hillel Place.

A ride on the would be longer from Avenue U, but the B3 comes with a considerably shorter trip to/from Kings Plaza and a generally higher frequency (on paper, at least, as consistency is another matter entirely). It helps that neither the B2 nor B3 cross Kings Highway, whereas the B9 does.

Well, that's different.

The fact that you're asking this question tells me you aren't remotely familiar with the B6. The route is a long route with three distinct bases. The first base is between Ulmer Park Depot (Bensonhurst/Bath Beach) and Flatbush Avenue. The second is between Coney Island Avenue and Rockaway Parkway. The third is just the last bit between Rockaway Parkway and New Lots Avenue. As a long route that needs a fair few turns to more effectively serve these bases while having a tendency to get stuck in traffic and generally run slower than a route doing what it does needs to, it would be far better to split it into at least two routes that overlap between Flatbush Avenue and Coney Island Avenue than it would be to maintain the one route.

Of course. The problem is him disagreeing without disagreeing.

So we're in agreement, then?

I was pleasantly surprised to see that.

As opposed to simply making it easier for NJT to directly handle operations?

I don't think an oil change will cut it. The relatively infrequent moves on/off the Flushing Line are already subjected to a logistical nightmare. Unless you have some sort of concrete proposal to address that, we should not be trying to lean more heavily into moves between the IRT mainline and Flushing.

Who proposed that in the first place?

First off, "express" does not necessarily mean "faster". Second, if you think the crowds in Brooklyn are bad, try a train that trudged through everything north of 59th Street, only to have to pick up a bunch of people in Midtown while dropping loads of others off. Combined with the concept of proximity (hell, Brooklyn has more options in one place than Midtown), it's very easy for people to get to their destinations in approximately the same amount of time from Brooklyn as it would from Midtown (GCM's depth is especially glaring in this regard). I didn't mention this earlier, but for some who may use Atlantic Terminal (albeit a minority), it would cost significantly less than to go through Penn Station while requiring far less time on average than using a bus + subway itinerary.

Well, for one, Atlantic Terminal has existed in some form since 1877, whereas GCM hasn't even been open for a year. Then there's the number of people trying to reach parts of Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan to consider, which neither Manhattan terminus is particularly good at handling.

No, Nostrand Avenue. /s

"Their" and "they" would work just fine. I imagine the cameras are meant for seeing if unauthorized people enter the cabs, particularly if said unauthorized people try to grab the controls.

That's a level of NIMBYism I wasn't expecting to see. It certainly doesn't instill confidence in continuing to use human labor in revenue subway operations...

If we're to do this, it's certainly not with buses. (This is an even harder stance than the one I have on that B55 proposal, and I feel the biggest issue with that is the transit mode.)

Why would CRRC be necessary to turn the MTA away from BYD?

While we're at it, if we're to have these things, we may as well put them on bogies with steel wheels sitting on steel rails instead of rubber on asphalt/concrete/*insert pavement type here*. We could then hook up a bunch of overhead wires. If we're concerned about these things getting stuck in traffic, we could implement grade separation and dedicated boarding/alighting spaces, which would have the side effect of enabling higher speeds than what would be allowed on the surface. We'd still have to find a place to maintain this stuff, but anything of the sort would need adequate facilities, anyway.

Here we go again! With Volvo leaving the picture again (I'm not only talking about Prevost, but also the last time Nova left the US) and some of the other players being far smaller or outright nonexistent (assuming they were even remotely close to qualification), who can the MTA turn to for new buses after next year that isn't NFI?