Home  Maps  About

Home > BusChat

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]


view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:17:53 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:08:26 2017.

I know exactly what induced demand is. It is an increase in the number vehicles resulting from increasing road capacity or an excess capacity. We are not talking about increasing capacity and Woodhaven certainly was not under utilized when it had five lanes each way. It was used at capacity.

The past and future reductions in capacity result in longer trip times, more traffic, more air pollution, more traffic congestion, more driver impatience and pedestrian conflicts. Traffic volumes may however decrease as cars seek other routes further congesting those roadways. So that is not a good thing either.

So since there was no excess capacity and no increase in road capacity is planned, induced demand is not relevant to this discussion. You obviously do not know what induced demand is.

You stated that only me and those in my bubble oppose SBS on Woodhaven. When I explained that two community boards also agree with me, you just dismiss them as being insignificant and not indicative of "popularity." So I guess your position is that they are bunch of idiots who do not at all represent what the community wants. So I guess when CB9 took a vote of the hundred people in attendance at one of their meetings asking who is in favor of SBS and who is opposed, it is also irrelevant that only one person out of a hundred said he was in favor of SBS and over 100 were opposed.

Of course, you will now state that they are the only hundred people who oppose it and the thousands in favor didn't bother attending the meeting. Of course you don't need any proof to allege that because you are R30A.

Of course, the fact that at least three elected " have come out against SBS on Woodhaven means nothing to you either. What is your argument there? They are only three individuals speaking for themselves and their opinions don't reflect the opinions of those they were elected to represent?

Downsides? I wrote a report with 35 pages of downsides. But you would only discount everything in that report.

"Poor maintenance of SBS roadway markings has nothing to do with SBS?"

Are you joking. Of course it does. When the roadway is not marked as was the case on Nostrand Avenue in Sheepshead Bay and the signs are so small that they illegible unless you are doing no more than 10 mph and unsuspecting drivers are receiving summonses because of that, it certainly is an indication OF POOR EXECUTION OF THE PLAN.

And the project was two years late not because of funding problems. It was late because DOT met with each business association separately rather than together and still did what it wanted to do anyway. Of course you will say that was good thing.

It really wasn't. They could have met with all of them in only two or three meetings with follow-up meetings (cutting two years from the process, but instead they chose to have dozens of extra meetings greatly lengthening the process. Was it to increase democracy? No. It was so they can give each group the answers it thought they wanted to hear, rather than giving the same answers to everyone.

Even with all the outreach meetings, DOT still never replied to the question from CB 15 of how many parking spaces would be eliminated. All they would say was that it wouldn't be "significant." One with think that after three years of meticulous study, they at least would have that answer a few months before implementation. They didn't.

Page 11 of this 2013 report, the same year Nostrand SBS was implemented, pegs "the overall project cost" as $15 million.


There is no mention of ongoing additional operating costs of $3 million a year which was requested of the MTA Board. (An earlier MTA report states that the additional annual operating costs are in excess of $6 million.)

So not mentioning additional operating costs IS JUST DISHONEST.

Now do you want the link showing approved federal, state, and local funding?

This source says the project cost is $40.2 million.


Another MTA report states the cost as $44.7 million.

And Page 263 of this report states it as between $32 million and $50 million.



And they get away with it.

Go to Page 263 of this link.

Okay, so what am I misreading this time?


 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]