|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (310973) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 26 09:42:47 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:24:16 2016. "When I saw the cars in the left turn lane backed up past Yellowstone, there was no gap in the left lane for cars to go around and swing back as you suggest. Now with that left turn banned southbound, how do you propose cars get to Metropolitan? There is no longer a proposal to make Trotting Course a two-way street."You claim Trotting course won't be made two way. DOT doesn't seem to. Considering your unreliability, you should back it up with a citation from DOT so others might consider believing you. "As far as northbound, if you look at DOT's latest document(page 21), they are no longer proposing to add a new left turn onto Cooper. And 73rd Avenue is already hopelessly congested with cars entering and leaving the shopping center parking lot. Adding many more cars will hopelessly congest that route and will ensure that the green time even when extended, will be insufficient for Metropolitan Avenue cars westbound to cross Woodhaven on the first cycle. Add to that cars will also have to deal with the traffic signal at Trotting Course and Metropolitan. You are talking about an additional five to eight minutes to make that left turn going north. " Except, yet again, you completely make up numbers without any justification. What about the 20 minutes they save elsewhere? See? I can make up numbers without any justification too!!! It doesn't make me right. In fact, if I did such, it would make me just as absurd as you are in these posts. On a more serious note- If you think a turn should be retained, advocate for it! This thing is still in its design phase, and the DOT wants to get it right! Make a cogent argument, WITHOUT MAKING UP NUMBERS, and they will at least consider what you have to say. That said, with your reputation, you may need to use a pseudonym. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|