paulbyron

Yikes. Didn’t know that happened.

I just saw an 8-car set of R32s ending with 3781 out of service on the northbound express track at 42-PABT. Could they be going into retirement at 207?

I think it would have to run on surface streets. Also, the is only one track; you'd need 2.

It would be capacity-constraining for both lines if it were on the same tracks, and there would be no space to make the el wider.

I think light rail runs into most of the same problems, unless it were to run on streets, in which case why bother? I think the part where it runs via the is impossible. I think a lot of this is good, but why not terminate in Midtown and skip York/96 (or build as separate lines)? Also, IIRC, the Lower Montauk Branch is still used for the odd freight train.

I think that the best option is to do nothing; service is fine as-is. But if the had major repairs needed, for example, it could probably just be cut back to 207 or 215 and your plan could go ahead.

No way in hell. I live on a cross street less than a block from Seaman, and that's TOTALLY impossible. I think the best option would be to run it either up and over a lot of buildings (most of which are about 7 stories, so probably impossible) or to dig it into a subway and under the river.

Rebuilding the Broadway Bridge shouldn't be under consideration, ever. In addition, any track over Isham should also not be under consideration because it would necessitate demolition of a large swath of Inwood Hill Park. Both would get HUGE resistance from the local community (myself included), probably unlike anything else, anywhere in the city, ever.

I thought you were proposing for it to curve across the Broadway Bridge. Under my new understanding, there would be a lot of sharp curves across the route. In addition, 218 St is wholly unsuitable for subway usage - it is surprisingly steep. By the way, I realised my post had the same comments twice. Sorry about that!

No way there are enough s to cover running all rush-hour s express, especially without Bergen St lower level.

Looks cool! But I think the 's highly limited budget could be used better on other light rail routes not already mostly served by subway service. This looks cool, but I feel this is a little bit wasteful with the 's limited budget, as the route is mostly already served by subways. I think this is a cool plan with the , but I think the engineering with the is totally impossible for 2 main reasons. First, the Broadway Bridge would be incredibly difficult to rebuild with a curve for the upper level. You could avoid this by building the curve before the bridge, but this runs into the other main problem. The Allen Hospital is right there, and it would block any development as it's (as far as I know) one of the major hospitals in the area.

I’ll DM it to the .

How should I do that? It was at the NE corner on 25 St at 23 St and .

Someone’s vandalised an OMNY reader with Sharpie saying “FTP”. (The reader still works.) While I agree with the message, their methods are appalling.

I don’t really have any thoughts on that, as I rarely go to that area. But isn’t most of it just barren industrial wasteland?

I would love to see trams all over the city! Ideally, all major bus routes not suited to subway development would be converted.

Sorry, but what does GO mean?

What I was trying to communicate in the quoted post in the post you quoted is that (in my experience) there is little rhyme or reason as to whether a given run will be R32 or R179, and often varies day-to-day. This one, however, has been consistently R32.

There’s an R32 train that has departed 42 St - PABT southbound at about 8:03 for the past few days. If anyone wants to railfan, that’s probably a good place to do so.

Regular rider here. I’ve seen plenty of trains with destination signs hopelessly wrong, from blank ones to wrong information to large amounts of burnt-out (I presume) lightbulbs, which make the sign impossible to read.

I think part of the reasoning is due to terminal capacity. JC can only turn about 12tph.

I like the idea of the BRT. I'm not sure that that specific route is best, but I'd love to see BRT in my neighbourhood. I don't think that just running shuttle trains on the West Side Line would be best, as I think it'd be better to run some Hudson Line MNR trains into the space freed up by ESA at Penn Station. This could both add service on the Hudson Line and on the Harlem and New Haven Lines into the new slots at GCT.

I can see the benefit with regards to traffic delays. But couldn't you just build a bus lane protected by barriers? It would be impossible to build along the Amtrak ROW for two reasons. First, there's a huge slope from the bridge to the ROW, and second, it would be impossible to switch from the Amtrak ROW to Dyckman St without entirely tearing up the small bridge across the road or closing the main entrance to Dyckman Fields, a very popular area of Inwood Hill Park. While light rail is cheap compared to subway, who's asking for a subway? Buses would be nearly free, as almost no infrastructure would be required compared to light rail.

Well, why not run buses along the proposed route? It would definitely be faster, as you point out. I just don't think all of the effort to build light rail would be worthwhile.

I live in Inwood, and this proposal would require MASSIVE construction unless traffic would be allowed on tracks, in which case, why not just use buses? Most of the streets (in Inwood) are only two lanes wide.