|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (310976) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 10:26:57 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:55:09 2016. "1915 TOTAL BUS RIDERS."And where do you get that figure from? "That is the only intersection we have to use for this. Furthermore, PEAK times are when the capacity is most strained, so it is by far the most applicable time to count." And why is that the only intersection we have? Blame DOT for that. And If you are making a proposal for 27/7 exclusive bus lanes as DOT is doing, THEN YOU MUST PROVIDE 24 HOUR COUNTS TO JUSTIFY YOUR PROPOSAL. Anything else is non-professional and misleading. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE PEAK HOUR COUNTS TO JUSTIFY A PROPOSAL THAT ALSO INCLUDES NION-PEAK PERIODS. That is plainly obvious and further proves the sloppiness and incompleteness of DOT's proposal. "Lets not make up numbers when we have perfectly good numbers to use. Do you have any reason to expect that other locations are different? If so, what?" You have hit the number on the head. WE DON'T HAVE PERFECTLY GOOD NUMBERS TO USE. That is because DOT REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION how many motorized users are there daily on Woodhaven and Cross Bay that do not use buses? Instead they provided vehicular counts at selected intersections not driver and passenger counts FOR THE ENTIRE ROADWAY. And using DOT's counts, as I already pointed out to you, it is impossible for the 24 hour ratio to be only 2 to 1 for car vs bus. Because for that to be true, non of the cars could be carrying any passengers and no cars could be turning on or off Woodhaven and Cross Bay for the entire length. I am not going to fall into you trap by suggesting the counts are higher at other intersections, because you will only ask me for traffic counts I cannot provide and say I am making up numbers. It also makes no difference what the counts are at the other intersections because it still doesn't answer the question asked of DOT which is HOW MANY USERS OF THE ROADWAY ARE THERE IN MOTORIZED VEHICLES WHO DO NOT USE THE BUS? "Three words. SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY." How long is the M15? Nine miles or so? How long is the Second Avenue Construction? One mile? Sorry, that is not enough of a reason to justify it being the least reliable route in Manhattan. And the Queensboro bridge traffic has a greater effect than the Second Avenue Subway. More importantly, the MTA KNEW ABOUT THE SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY CONSTRUCTION. They also knew about the Queensboro bridge traffic. So the real question is: WHY CHOOSE THE M15 FOR SBS with its related additional expenses if SBS won't have any affect on reliability? They only did it merely to give the impression they are improving service to lessen pressure for them to ever build the lower portion of the Second Avenue subway. "Just because something doesnt show up in a FIRST AND SECOND AVENUE related report does not mean counts were not taken. They were." They were? Do you have them? If not, THEN YOUR ASSERTION IS COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED. The other possibility is that you are correct and those counts were taken but omitted from they report, BECAUSE THEY SHOWED TRAFFIC INCREASES ON THOSE STREETS. "Volume is far from a constant. The loss of a lane will not necessarily result in a reduction of speed. It could easily result in an increase of overall speed when it results in the elimination of a merge." True. The volume is far from consistent, but to suggest the elimination of merges will increase speeds is not possibility given the same volume of traffic. What the elimination of merges will do is make the speed more consistent so instead of the average speed varying from 15 to 25 mph, it will now be a consistent 10 mph. That will greatly increase travel times for cars and trucks which are 80% of the passenger traffic. "Woodhaven is not an expressway. Vision Zero is making changes which reflect this reality." It certainly isn't. No one said it was. It used to be an ARTERIAL ROADWAY. Now it will be just another local street. "I never said they provided the statistics. I said they created them. BIG difference." THOROUGHLY UNSUBSTANIATED CLAIM. And if they do have them? WHY REFUSE TO SHOW SUCH PERTINANT INFORMATION UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE? "Project A is happening citywide. Project B is happening on at location C. Project B is being designed with Project A in mind. If Project B never happens, that does not mean Project A will not either. A= Speed reductions from vision zero. B= SBS C= Woodhaven. That you do not understand this is what is ridiculous." You stated Project C was not connected to Project A. I stated they were connected. You admit Projects A and B are connected and project C is part of Project B. So if you draw a Venn Diagram, you will see that all the circles are connected and Project C lies within Project B which intersects with Project A. That makes Project C part of Project A. The fact is that while project C proposes to increase bus speeds on Woodhaven, project A negates those speed increases by lowering speed limits so we are back where we were before any of these projects started, but with a lot of extra needless expense. WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND? Case closed. "Who says you won't affect the speed?" You did by stating "I think the real reason for having off peak bus lanes is reliability, not speed." That is saying you don't think bus speeds will be affected during the off-peak which is what I have been saying all along. Exclusive lanes during the off-peak will only slow down cars further without improving bus speeds. Therefore there is no reason to have them unless your only goal is to make car driving slow and intolerable. "It is entirely believable if you actually read the plan and see what it does. You just don't seem to be able to do that" I did read the entire plan and I do see what it does. |
|
|
|