|
|
| Re: What is wrong with Select Bus Service (238092) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: What is wrong with Select Bus Service |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 7 20:05:12 2011, in response to Re: What is wrong with Select Bus Service, posted by Mr RT on Thu Jul 7 08:07:11 2011. Yes, I was a little upset because you twisted what I said and tried to indicate that I wasn't sincere in my statements. That said, it's on to your Point 1:In most cases the right-of-ways we have are not wide enough for BRT so they are scaling it down. Why bother at all? Because it's better than nothing and the Federal government is giving the money away. IF we don't accept, other cities will, and then the MTA would be criticized for not doing it. That's why. Point 2: I actually mentioned East Side Access in the article and criticized why it's taking 50 years to build. I didn't realize that it is due to changes in the Project scope. If the goal, is to provide East Side Access for Long Islanders, that is what they should have done. DC 37 once suggested that they just build a new station to transfer with 33rd Street at like a tenth the cost. But that wouldn't make use of the tunnels completed 30 years ago? Instead they are building a whole new underground city. I mentioned that it is taking almost as long as the third water tunnel. But that entire paragraph was edited out. Point 3: What you say is not true. I support all the BRT features. I just don't think it is wise to eliminate a lane of traffic on Woodhaven Blvd. That street cannot afford the loss of a traffic lane because as I said, an SBS on Woodhaven alone, will not get people out of their cars. It would be a disaster. How much more expensive would it be to reactivate the Rockaway Line instead of SBS on Woodhaven? Point 5: You can't compare the Cross Bronx to a Cross Brooklyn. The Cross Bronx required massive destruction although if Moses altered his route which he was not willing to do, 3,000 fewer families would have to be relocated. In Brooklyn, it would have been built on an existing right-of-way, so there would have been very few relocations. Now, they could use that ROW for a light rail line which could continue as an air train type el along Linden Boulevard in East NY, an industrial street, and continue to Aqueduct and JFK. If not light rail, why not a real BRT line there? Point 6: Back in 2004, I suggested better corridors perhaps to the same "suit" you are referring to. They just chose the corridors they wanted after supposed public input. But they never gave reasons for their choices. They just listened and then said, this is what we picked. That is not community input. They needed to justify their choices. I also told that "suit" that it would be a mistake using two-door artics for SBS, and they should buy three-door artics. The response he gave me was that three-door artics were not structurally strong enough for NYC streets. Back in the 1960s when transit consumer groups were trying to get the MTA to purchase artics, the response was that they would never work on New York City streets. When they were asked to air-condition the IRT, their response was the cars are too small to accommodate air conditioning. When graffiti first began in the late 1960s and when the MTA was questioned around 1970 what they were going to do about it, their response was that it was passing fad and will go away by itself. Do you see a pattern here? I do. They were consistently wrong. We met at a retirement party in Woodside in February, 2003. |
|
|
|