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 R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:37:39 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:17:53 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
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.
Reduced capacity reduces demand. That said, it is far from obvious that capacity is actually being reduced.

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.
And if capacity is being reduced, demand will be reduced. The other half of induced demand. Now I am not saying it is relevant to the reality here, as I am accepting neither that all of the existing capacity is used, nor that there will be a real capacity reduction, but if both are in fact true, induced demand is certainly a relevant concept.

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.
Yes, polls taken at an anti-transit venue will often result in anti-transit results.

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.
Never made such a claim. I just said the contrary is not based in reality. I am sure the VRA wasn't that happy at KKK meetings.

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?
Very much so. Views of elected officials often do not represent substantial portions of the electorate. You realize 3 isn't a high number?

Downsides? I wrote a report with 35 pages of downsides. But you would only discount everything in that report.
Yes, as it is largely filled with false statements, irrelevant statements, false assumptions, and misinterpretations

"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.
That is POOR MAINTENANCE. That is a problem with streets REGARDLESS OF SBS.

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.
And if they didnt do that, you'd complain that they rammed it through without taking enough opinions.

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.
Different audiences have different relevant answers to their questions.

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.
Perhaps it is not yet determined as to the exact number?

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

http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/brt-routes-fullreport.pdf

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.

http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp

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.

http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp

SO KINDLY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NYC DOT LIED TO THE PUBLIC TO GET APPROVAL SAYING THE TOTAL PROJECT COST IS ONLY $15 MILLION?

And they get away with it.

Go to Page 263 of this link.

Okay, so what am I misreading this time?



Prices go up over time? Differing scope being referred to? Any number of possible rational explanations?







Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]