There’s a difference between 90% of American oppose something and 55% do.

There is no constituency for any sort of military annexation of Greenland and barely one for purchasing it.

Especially silly in a midterm year, but hey have at it.

Sure and it seems like the vast vast majority of Americans disagree with his strategy.

NATO is basically run by the USA, it’s a huge part of the Us security strategy. NATO is American hegemony….just ask the Russians.

How does weakening the alliance strengthen American security in any way? How does it make America stronger?

Huh? Trump has been busy broadcasting his intentions for the entire globe?

The entire point of NATO is a military org with interpreted intelligence sharing…we routinely share classified materials with NATO members and are often required to.

Greenland is already part of NATO and we already have a treaty that provides unfettered military access to the island.

The provocation makes this harder not easier.

There is no mainstream planner that believes that a nostrand Ave extension would lead to a “ridership spiral.”

I’m not sure that’s justifiable from a political, capital or operational perspective.

(Goodnight)

If simple voter preference drove complex planning decisions then the region would look very differently.

Not all “access” is the same— the core of what you’re suggesting is less nycta network expansion due to operating constraints and more bespoke rapid transit solutions… and I’m saying that…

Huh, what’s your problem? Nobody is forcing you to participate in this discussion.

…not to cease expansion of subway network infrastructure

What you’re proposing is essentially to build a separate rapid transit system because you’re worried about route length and scheduling.

If that is really the core concern the correct approach would be to optimize service patterns via Capital investments in the networks so you could break up routes

What do you mean politically sustainable?

I spend a lot of my time in transit advocacy and I’m genuinely curious here. Operationally, you would have far more flexibility by extending current infrastructure than building a new system and the capital structures to support that system.

What do you mean “politically harder to sustain?”

Extending the 2/5 another 5 miles would make it the length of the A train? (Which runs fine)

But worse transportation outcomes. The point is that the region needs improved heavy rail connectivity.

If service patterns are really unsustainable you could just change the patterns…but there are broad benefits to having heavy rail subway extensions in nyc over ALM.

But I just don’t think routes like the 2/5 are really that unreliable at all.

I should also mention that this is all contingent on keeping the same service patterns etc.

Route length would be a concern for almost any route extension in NYC. Extending the 2/5 down Nostrand would bring the 2 to about 36 miles… the D further into the BX would be 38 miles etc.

Is route length the concern here too? If any of these lines went into the Bronx, the sane concerns would be present?

The A is perfectly reliable imo, but none of the other reasons you’re citing are fatal, if you added another 10 miles to the Q you would still be only 28 miles well shorter than even 2/5.

I’m just not sure that route length is the obstacle that you present it as.

Yea the idea was that they would transfer to those lines from NJ unless going to east side.

Others have pointed out that A of gwb could potentially work.