Lex

Way to contradict yourself. (I'd hardly consider them educated, anyway, but that's something I'd rather not get into here.) I don't care if it's lined with roses and smells like fresh apple pie. It's hardly useful -- especially since shit tends to happen quite differently from what you predict. This is exactly why people repeatedly say to wait and see.

Not even the RTS was that slow (and so long as the lifts worked, that was slow). Perhaps this talk about accessibility wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't doubled down on those coach platforms...

A mechanical problem on a single train doesn't carry the same weight as a mechanical problem on the platform that will affect all trains.

Perhaps it says you should just stop making them entirely. 😏

Apparently, you missed my response to someone else, as it was a comparison. (There's other problems I see with the line of thought, but the main issue is the apparent thought that I was speaking in absolutes.) In general, the traffic is horrendous. A move that risks placing considerably more strain on the roads without some sort of abatement is a recipe for disaster, Moreover, that issue applies primarily to the peaks, whereas the worst of the impacts under this plan are off-peak/reverse peak (not even the peak impacts are remotely enough to justify canning congestion pricing).

It was a comparison, not an absolute.

This is far more viable in the Bronx than in Queens or on that rock sitting closer to NJ than Brooklyn. (I'm not saying that I would do that, just that it's nowhere near as bad up there as in some other areas.) Yes, let's do absolutely nothing to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. That's a great idea. /s

I'd willingly trade BxM3 service north of 262nd Street for Sunday service. (Seriously, why is that still a thing?)

It's now out. They decided to retain peak Q50 service in Co-Op City (on the same damn route, no less). They also decided to leave the Bx38 intact and revive the Bx25 designation (in an effective reversal of the pre-2010 patterns between the latter and the Bx26). The Bx30 was shifted down Boston Road to end at Pelham Parkway because yes. F for the express bus service...

Have the 2011s fared better?

That's what they did before that G.O., so why they decided not to for that one weekend is beyond me.

Aren't those sitting at depots known for shoddy maintenance?

That one could've been avoided if they just used the designation. (The same goes for that scenario with regards to the , as does that " to Burnside Avenue" crap they pulled with regards to the .)

I know Charleston relieved some of the pressure when it opened, but I have a hard time imagining that Staten Island has enough space for that.

That'll be an uphill battle, and not just because of the NIMBY mindset...

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.

Taking unrelated bitterness (for a nonsensical commute!) out on the drivers, I see...

The first day of the busway had drivers crawling just to stick to the schedule. Make of that what you will.

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).

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).

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.

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.

Yeah, that's the problem. 🤦‍♀️

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?

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.