Lex

Because those don't function primarily (or at all) as bustitution, and politicians can be rather stingy with capital funding (to say nothing of operations). Still trying to push that 💩, I see.

For what it's worth, it at least addresses the utter nonsense of eastbound buses on one route heading west in the same place as eastbound buses on a different route to the same destination heading east.

Making that station accessible was also easier because a mezzanine could be built at street level (which is evident from the old control house at that station), as well as having a bit more room around it to play with.

And that's why I can't take his proposals seriously enough to even call them decent...

That reminds me of someone's "pedestrian" observations...

And what part of the platform would it be sitting on?

Clearance...

Is the Bx30 chopped liver or something?

The most isolated part of Co-op City would be just fine with nothing more than the Bx23? Seriously?

The M125 will replace the M100 and Bx15. (It makes me wonder if the M101 will be split with the northern portion running to either 96th Street or the current M100 terminus.)

Height restrictions are a thing, especially with coach buses... Also, did you mean BxM17?

All will pass through (to some degree in the case of the BxM1), but the BxM2 will only be passing through. The BxM18, on the other hand, will serve it (probably because of the connection to Hudson Yards).

Boston Road is not that far from the Baychester Avenue station. Section 3 is in close proximity to Section 4 (where Bx28 service will be available, with a bump in frequency as compensation). That's pretty much how I expect it to play out (and it's not technically wrong).

I'm not crazy about the general concept. It's not for the lack of need (the need exists), but because any possible route for it is awful.

That's not what I meant. What I'm questioning is if there's really anything that can be done with the route (outside of serving the Hunts Point Food Market and Barretto Point Park) that won't seem rather forced. I'm honestly not convinced that the route can really expand in scope without looking like a desperate attempt to connect it to something else and maybe get some people on those buses (aside from the ones already using it, of course).

And that'll do what, exactly?

There's a reason why they went with the less sexy name. For a route connecting those two areas, everything sucks.

But what would it be anchored to? It would still need support from below.

I consider that entire concept to be a mess and a half, mostly because there aren't really any good places to run it. Hell, the proposed route reeks of trying to keep it out of the heart of Midtown and especially off of 5th Avenue (ditto for the BxM18 proposal).

This may have something to do with access points. The proposed BxM4 would access it from Jerome Avenue, whereas the current BxM2 does so at 230th Street (for reference, some BxM3 trips do so at what is effectively 240th Street). Moreover, the BxM4 currently follows Grand Concourse, Bainbridge Avenue, and Jerome Avenue, a route that can hardly be considered speedy. Whether or not the proposed alignment is actually faster remains to be seen, especially without bus/HOV lanes. (For what it's worth, I doubt it, and I have a hard time imagining that the highway would even get those lanes, given what's around it for most of the relevant stretch.)

The only thing you can really do with that route is give it the ax...

It may not be sexy, but it's certainly identifiable.

What you're proposing would be a 6/5/0 split in Brooklyn (in Manhattan, all Broadway trains will skip 49th Street, and that'll be 6/5/5). What the MTA is doing is 5/5/5 (far from great, but it's still closer to normal service, especially considering that the will still have to take on Sea Beach passengers).

Give up on it. The IRT waiting until the initial structure had already been partially constructed under Flatbush Avenue and deciding to tack a bunch of stuff onto that killed the idea before it was even brought about. Making the station deeper at this point would require extensive reconstruction of largely or completely unrelated structures just to make it feasible, which would serve as a detriment to service within and beyond Brooklyn. Had conditions been more favorable, this wouldn't be an issue, but everything works against this station.

As I've stated earlier, the staircases between the street and fare control barely count as adequate. They're narrow because trying to make them any wider is impossible (trains would be shaved, and said staircases are hugging the curb). Adding this would be utterly foolish, as the need is to get people between the street and the trains as efficiently as possible (while passing through fare control).