|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (309839) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 22 |
||
|
| (310907) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 17:45:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Feb 24 13:40:04 2016. Bump. BrooklynBus respond. |
|
|
| (310909) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 18:03:56 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 17:45:44 2016. They probably can if they're all taking the turn at 80! |
|
|
| (310910) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 18:56:15 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Feb 24 13:21:05 2016. BrooklynBus, you didn't respond to this. |
|
|
| (310911) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 18:58:22 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Feb 23 12:38:44 2016. Bump. BrooklynBus, you owe it to everyone to respond to this. |
|
|
| (310915) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 21:21:14 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 15:25:08 2016. The videos show as many vehicles as possible turn during the turning cycle which happens to be around ten. In one case one vehicle had to wait for the next cycle. In another case there were seven vehicles that had to wait for the next cycle.The number of turns at this intersection cannot be considered light by any means since the entire turn cycle shows cars turning and not all cars could get through one signal cycle. One video shows 7 cars that could not get through on the first cycle. How can you ban turns at an intersection with a heavy number of turns without creating a new turn elsewhere in the vicinity? That would be just irresponsible. And remember the videos were shot at random within minutes of each other. I have been there at other times when the queue was much longer extending past Cooper southbound and half way up the overpass northbound. Also, cars and buses are moving fast. Buses would not move any faster with an exclusive lane, so one is not necessary during the off-peak. An analyses has to be performed as to where these cars would turn if turns were banned at this intersection to see the traffic impacts and how much time would be added to car trips considering bus riders would save no time from an exclusive lane if this is typical off-peak travel which it is as far as through traffic is concerned. |
|
|
| (310916) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:01:01 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 12:23:00 2016. "The assumption you base it on is wholly irrelevant."No it isn't. If the average trip on Woodhaven is 2.7 or even 3 miles after you factor in the bridges, the time savings would be 4 or perhaps 5 minutes at the most. Still insignificant for an average trip of 60, 75, or 90 minutes. "You stated the opposite that bus lanes do not require more maintenance than ordinary lanes..." Totally untrue. You are a LIAR. I was very clearly arguing the opposite that bus lanes require extra maintenance, therefore extra cost. YOU STATED THAT REGULAR LANES REQUIRE THE SAME LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE AS BUS LANES so bus lanes do not cost extra to maintain. I successfully disputed that. Now you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. In this post you make the following two statements: 1. "Nothing is required for a bus lane that is not required for other lanes." and 2. "ordinary lanes do not need to have missing or faded bus signs replaced or rust colored pavement replaced." Therefore bus lanes need to have missing or faded signs replaced and rust color pavement replaced just as I stated. (You stated "bus lanes require what other lanes require.") YOU CAN'T TAKE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME ARGUMENT AND BE RIGHT. If you are now stating Statement 2 is true, we have no disagreement. If you still insist on Statement 1, then you are clearly incorrect. BUT YOU CAN'T IN THE SAME BREATH SAY BOTH (1) AND (2) BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSITE STATEMENTS. So you are saying the same personnel without additional overtime can maintain 1,200 machines without adding any incremental costs. THAT IS COMPLETELY SUBSTANTIATED. For it to be true, the employees must all be goofing off now when the fact is many are already putting in overtime because it is cheaper for the MTA than to hire more employees. Buses are in service for 48 hours between refueling. Less stop and go will give you slightly better fuel efficiency. I will grant you that But like 80% of the costs are labor. Fuel is like 20% if you ignore maintenance. So if run times are reduced, the bus will make more trips in the 48 hours it is in service so maintenance costs are unaffected and the drivers are still paid for 8 hours of work. If the fine revenue goes to the city and does not improve the MTA's budget, IT DOES NOT ENTER THE EQUATION. So you can't take it off the MTA's increased operating costs as you unsuccessfully tried to do. It won't help the MTA maintain the fare. So as I stated SBS puts an additional operating strain on the MTA's budget without additional riders today, not five years ago. What do you consider "cutting many stops". For the people of Rockaway, they are cutting many stops, like half of them. "The MTA seems to be looking closely here and on other SBS (And limited) routes and adjusts as needed." BS. It took a over a year and much political pressure to get a stop added at Avenue L on the B44 SBS. Riders have been asking for two years for another stop at Avenue R which the MTA rejected ALTHOUGH THE EXISTING STOPS ARE ONE MILE APART. "Nearly everybody else sees a bunch of successful improvements which have turned around the routes they are on" Who is "nearly everybody else"? You certainly can't be talking about Woodhaven residents where only 1 out of 100 supported SBS on Woodhaven. And do you mean less ridership by "turned around" because we are talking what's happening today, not what happened five years ago. |
|
|
| (310917) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:07:10 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 15:27:37 2016. "One lane in each direction would likely be a sensible change."I didn't say one lane in each direction. I said one lane total and that includes for turning and for deliveries. The number of pedestrians on 42 St between Seventh and Eighth Avenue has to exceed the number of vehicles by at least 10 to 1 which would mean vehicles get on tenth of the street which would be even less than one lane, perhaps one lane wide enough just for bikes. |
|
|
| (310918) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 22:30:33 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 21:21:14 2016. If I take you at your word, You are citing proof of up to 17 as meaning 50. Not exactly convincing.But lets have some fun! A Blow by blow commentary on Allan Rosen's Metropolitan videos! Video 1: At 11 seconds in, we have FOUR vehicles queuing to make the turn west on Metropolitan. Pans north at 16 seconds. SIX vehicles queuing to turn EAST onto Metropolitan. By the time it pans south at 28 seconds, it appears EIGHT are headed EAST. By 42 seconds, NINE are queued for the WEST turn, which is when the Left turn cycle starts. EIGHT cars make it through to the WEST. NINE make it EAST. WEST turn appears to have two vehicles waiting for the next cycle. East turn has cleared fully. That concludes the first video. Video 2: (the excitement is building... can you feel it??) Starting off, we have FIVE cars queued to turn EAST. Without seeing the WEST queue, the left turn starts at roughly 9 seconds. NINE make it WEST, without any way of telling how many are queued. NINE make it EAST, with ONE truck left trying to go EAST. Video 3: (This has to be the climax... Waiting for it...!) The video starts looking at the EASTBOUND queue. ONE car in it, quickly grows to two to three. At 10 seconds in, we pan south to the WESTBOUND queue. FIVE vehicles waiting for a WEST turn. By 31 seconds, we have panned back to the EAST queue, now holding FIVE vehicles as well. At 41 seconds, four cars come at once, bumping it up to NINE vehicles. At 49 seconds, the left turns start!!! NINE turn west. SEVEN make it to the EAST. At least one car is visible in the WEST queue by the time the left turn cycle ends. Two are waiting to turn EAST. You claim the video shows SEVEN cars having to wait for the next cycle. Never are there more than TWO seen. Why do you hate being honest so much? |
|
|
| (310919) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 22:31:52 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 21:21:14 2016. You still don't understand what bus lanes actually do. They don't have to move faster for the lane to be useful. |
|
|
| (310920) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:38:28 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 15:37:19 2016. "But when it happens at dozens of locations to thousands of cars daily the cumulative effect is significant."Yes, but not relevant to Woodhaven SBS. Not dozens of times for left turns. Excuse me. Only 21 times. Not to mention the other delays from slower moving traffic which will happens dozens of times. You see, the problem here is that you intentionally underestimate bus ridership. No, you intentionally overestimate bus ridership. You stated without any reference that DOT claims car ridership outnumbers bus ridership by 2 to 1, not 5 to 1 as I claimed. They cite 60,000 cars crossing about 5 different intersections daily and 30,000 daily bus riders. So in order for car passengers and drivers to outnumber bus passengers by 2 to 1, EVERY CAR MUST BE TRAVELING THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF WOODHAVEN AND CROSS BAY BLVD AND NO CAR IS CARRYING ANY PASSENGERS, ONLY THE DRIVER. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE At Metropolitan Avenue alone which has about 60,000 daily crossings, at least 5,000 cars (not passengers) are leaving the roadway and another 5,000 are entering, so if that is the only intersection where there are any turns occurring (clearly not the case) you already have 70,000 cars and only 30,000 bus passengers. Assuming only 1.2 passengers per car, there are now 84,000 car drivers and passengers and only 30,000 bus passengers, clearly more than a 2 to 1 ratio. Now do you think turning cars at all the other intersections won't substantially increase the 84,000 to over 100,000? What are you going to say now? That I have no proof that every car that leaves Woodhaven doesn't come back at a later intersection to continue his trip on Woodhaven? I don't. But that would be a pretty flimsy argument but probably the best you can do. And quit taking what I am saying out of context to claim I am being inconsistent. I stated 5 minutes extra for drivers is significant when it occurs thousands of times daily, which it is. I also said that a 10 minute savings for a bus passenger traveling an average of 75 minutes is insignificant. And since there are 5 times the amount of drivers and passengers on the road as there are bus passengers, the cumulative loss by drivers and passengers far exceeds the saving by bus passengers. |
|
|
| (310921) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:42:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 16:05:45 2016. You are just insane. You have now just lost all your credibility.If you can say that. Then I will say for the sake of humanity all cell phones should be banned to ensure no one crosses the street while talking on a cell phone. That would be just as crazy as banning all left turns. |
|
|
| (310922) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 22:47:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:01:01 2016. "No it isn't. If the average trip on Woodhaven is 2.7 or even 3 miles after you factor in the bridges, the time savings would be 4 or perhaps 5 minutes at the most. Still insignificant for an average trip of 60, 75, or 90 minutes."People with average trip times so long probably aren't only riding for 2.7 to 3 miles. Again, wholly made up numbers on your part. ""You stated the opposite that bus lanes do not require more maintenance than ordinary lanes..." Totally untrue. You are a LIAR. I was very clearly arguing the opposite that bus lanes require extra maintenance, therefore extra cost. YOU STATED THAT REGULAR LANES REQUIRE THE SAME LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE AS BUS LANES so bus lanes do not cost extra to maintain. I successfully disputed that. Now you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth." This has to be the pinnacle of your misunderstanding career. YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT. I WAS QUOTING YOU. THE YOU is ME there. And YES, I did do that. Seriously. learn how to follow a thread. "In this post you make the following two statements: 1. "Nothing is required for a bus lane that is not required for other lanes." and 2. "ordinary lanes do not need to have missing or faded bus signs replaced or rust colored pavement replaced." Therefore bus lanes need to have missing or faded signs replaced and rust color pavement replaced just as I stated. (You stated "bus lanes require what other lanes require.") YOU CAN'T TAKE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME ARGUMENT AND BE RIGHT. If you are now stating Statement 2 is true, we have no disagreement. If you still insist on Statement 1, then you are clearly incorrect. BUT YOU CAN'T IN THE SAME BREATH SAY BOTH (1) AND (2) BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSITE STATEMENTS." I never did. Add English and the Internet to the things which Allan Rosen don't understand. (i.e. Transit, Basic Math, Algebra, Traffic,) Signs last a long time for most people. They won't be replaced after a year because only people named Allan Rosen can't read them. Paint which has worn on the street does not need to be immediately replaced in a bus lane. It can wait for when the street being repainted anyway. "So you are saying the same personnel without additional overtime can maintain 1,200 machines without adding any incremental costs. THAT IS COMPLETELY SUBSTANTIATED." I thank you for backing me up that it is substantiated. That said, it isn't. But there ARE large economies of scale factors here. The more machines you add, the cheaper each machine ends up being to maintain. "For it to be true, the employees must all be goofing off now when the fact is many are already putting in overtime because it is cheaper for the MTA than to hire more employees." Overtime vs new hires does not seem particularly relevant. "Buses are in service for 48 hours between refueling. Less stop and go will give you slightly better fuel efficiency. I will grant you that But like 80% of the costs are labor." I'd like to see the numbers behind that, but that sounds reasonable to me. "Fuel is like 20% if you ignore maintenance. So if run times are reduced, the bus will make more trips in the 48 hours it is in service so maintenance costs are unaffected and the drivers are still paid for 8 hours of work." Yes, but you are getting MORE WORK out of BOTH the employees and the buses for that same cost, so productivity is up! "If the fine revenue goes to the city and does not improve the MTA's budget, IT DOES NOT ENTER THE EQUATION." Err. why not? City pays MTA to run the bus. City gets fine revenue from farebeaters. How is that out of the equation? "So you can't take it off the MTA's increased operating costs as you unsuccessfully tried to do. It won't help the MTA maintain the fare. So as I stated SBS puts an additional operating strain on the MTA's budget without additional riders today, not five years ago." I don't think you understand the funding structure for MTA BUS. To be continued on the next post... |
|
|
| (310923) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:49:33 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 16:03:34 2016. Yes bus riders matter less than other road users when they are outnumbered 5 to 1.On the other hand, if bus riders outnumber other road users by 5 to 1, then they matter much more. That's why it made sense to double the width of the sidewalks on Fulton Street in Downtown Brooklyn and remove two lanes of traffic and ban all cars because there bus riders did outnumber cars by 5 to 1 and pedestrian traffic was very heavy. Also there were plenty of parallel roads where traffic could be diverted to. That is clearly not the case on Woodhaven. Also pedestrian crossings are light at most intersections with the exceptions of Liberty and Jamaica Aves. |
|
|
| (310924) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:50:29 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by JerBear on Wed Feb 24 15:27:27 2016. And I have seen cars back up that far. |
|
|
| (310925) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:52:58 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Wed Feb 24 15:51:51 2016. Everyone may tend to exaggerate somewhat. But the point R30 was making was that car drivers as a group exaggerate more than everyone else and are not to be trusted. I merely asked why should be trust bus riders then? |
|
|
| (310926) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:07:17 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:01:01 2016. "What do you consider "cutting many stops". For the people of Rockaway, they are cutting many stops, like half of them."The grand total of stops to be cut in the rockaways for the Q52 : 1/5- Not half. The grand total of stops to be cut in the rockaways for the Q53 : 2/6- Not half. 3/11 isn't 1/2. It is less than a third. Furthermore, each of the discontinued stops has a retained stop very close by, AND each will still be served by local buses. ""The MTA seems to be looking closely here and on other SBS (And limited) routes and adjusts as needed." "BS. It took a over a year and much political pressure to get a stop added at Avenue L on the B44 SBS. Riders have been asking for two years for another stop at Avenue R which the MTA rejected ALTHOUGH THE EXISTING STOPS ARE ONE MILE APART."" LOL. Let us go back to our wayback machine here. B44 SBS Start date: NOVEMBER 17 2013. Avenue L stop reenstatement date. FEBRUARY 2 2014. THAT IS NOT A YEAR!!!! Under 80 days sort of disproves your point in its entirety. ""Nearly everybody else sees a bunch of successful improvements which have turned around the routes they are on" Who is "nearly everybody else"? You certainly can't be talking about Woodhaven residents where only 1 out of 100 supported SBS on Woodhaven. And do you mean less ridership by "turned around" because we are talking what's happening today, not what happened five years ago." How could it include Woodhaven. As I hope we both know, WOODHAVEN SBS HAS YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED. So I don't quite see how WOODHAVEN residents would have any idea here. |
|
|
| (310927) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:08:13 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:07:10 2016. I didn't say you said that. I said what I though would be a sensible change. Which is why I said:"One lane in each direction would likely be a sensible change." |
|
|
| (310928) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:24:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:38:28 2016. I like to stick to the ACTUAL numbers we have to work with.To be specific with regards to the counts, it is AM peak, Northbound at Myrtle. Buses: 1915 riders Cars: 3342 riders So the actual ratio is roughly 1.75 car passengers to 1 Bus rider. Those 3342 riders are split among 2516 vehicles. That is 1.33 riders per vehicle. That answers your first part. With regards to the second. Yes you are being inconsistent. You assume 75 minute travel times to go 2.3 miles? THAT DOES NOT WORK. And since there AREN'T five times the amount of drivers and passengers on the road as bus riders, it would not be nearly as big of a cumulative loss as you claim. But the REAL reason why it isn't going to be a cumulative loss is the kicker. THE WOODHAVEN REENGINEERING IS DESIGNED TO REDUCE TRAFFIC FOR CARS TOO. So your entire argument is based on a false premise. |
|
|
| (310929) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:25:23 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:42:09 2016. I never suggested all left turns should be banned. That would be crazy. |
|
|
| (310930) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:28:34 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:49:33 2016. "Yes bus riders matter less than other road users when they are outnumbered 5 to 1."No they don't. (And they aren't outnumbered by that much either) "On the other hand, if bus riders outnumber other road users by 5 to 1, then they matter much more. That's why it made sense to double the width of the sidewalks on Fulton Street in Downtown Brooklyn and remove two lanes of traffic and ban all cars because there bus riders did outnumber cars by 5 to 1 and pedestrian traffic was very heavy. Also there were plenty of parallel roads where traffic could be diverted to." Yes. "That is clearly not the case on Woodhaven." No, but nobody at all is proposing that. "Also pedestrian crossings are light at most intersections with the exceptions of Liberty and Jamaica Aves." Define light. I disagree, but such is obviously a judgement call. |
|
|
| (310931) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:29:04 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:52:58 2016. I never made such a point. |
|
|
| (310932) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:29:46 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:50:29 2016. But you have seen loads of things which didn't happen, so your judgement is questionable at best. |
|
|
| (310934) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:31:27 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 18:56:15 2016. Bump. |
|
|
| (310935) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:31:36 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 18:58:22 2016. Bump |
|
|
| (310936) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:34:36 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 16:02:17 2016. "Show me where DOT says there are two car occupants to every bus rider. Citation please or your claim IS UNFOUNDED."http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/brt-woodhaven-faq.pdf 1915 bus riders across Myrtle. 3342 Other vehicle occupants. You're welcome. LEARN HOW TO READ AND WRITE PLEASE. At least copy down the numbers correctly. It isn't 1915 and 3342. It's 1571 and 3342. But look at what else it says. IT SAYS NORTHBOUND RUSH HOUR. I was talking about a 24 hour period, not just a 2 hour period in the peak direction when bus usage is at its heaviest. Yes in the peak direction at this one intersection, car riders outnumber bus passengers by only 2 to 1. What about in the off-peak direction? What about at all the other intersections? What about during the off peak when the buses carry only 15 or 20 passengers and not 60 passengers? After you factor that all in the ratio is no longer 2 to 1. It is more like 5 to 1. As explained in another post, 2 to 1 ON A DAILY BASIS IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. It would mean that all cars carry only the driver and every car operates the entire length of Woodhaven and Cross Bay without any cars turning on or off the road. reliability is hard to argue against with regards to SBS. It is sky high compared to the other routes. If that is the case, kindly explain how the M15 which has SBS could be ranked as the LEAST RELIABLE ROUTE in all of Manhattan. Just blatantly false. NO IT'S TRUE. Then show me the citation in the M15 first year report that talks about traffic on streets other than First and Second Avenue. YOU WON"T FIND IT. Pages 20 and 21 show traffic on First and Second Avenue. That's it. No data for Third Avenue, York Avenue, or any other roadway. Number of lanes is not directly related to trip times. Numbers of lanes is directly related to road capacity and road capacity determines the speed at which cars will travel given a certain volume. And speed is directly related to trip times. What part of that do you not understand? That is not to say that other factors such as signal timing are not involved. Why should an arterial be faster than a slow residential street you ask? BECAUSE IT IS AN ARTERIAL. That's why. Slow residential streets are meant for short distance travel so the speed you travel is unimportant as it relates to your total trip time. Arterials are meant for long distance travel and are designed to be faster. Vision Zero has effectively reduced arterials to local streets which is the problem I and many others have with it. Many areas of the city do not have expressways which make faster road arterials a necessity. More unsubstantiated claims. as it relates to DOT not providing statistics for parallel roadways. IT IS QUITE SUBSTANTIATED. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE STATISTICS FOR THIRD AND YORK AVENUE IN MANHATTAN. ONLY FOR FIRST AND SECOND AVENUE ON PAGES 21 AND 22 OF THEIR REPORT. With traffic speeds being reduced REGARDLESS of SBS, Bus speeds would be reduced more than if they had their own lanes. That is not even English. I never should have asked for an explanation. You are making no sense at all. Being part of the same project MEANS THEY ARE CONNECTED. That's like saying just because both men and women are both part of the human race, they have no connection with each other. That would be utterly ridiculous. But what the hell, everything else you are saying is just as ridiculous. Here is another one: I think the real reason for having off peak bus lanes is reliability, not speed. How do you improve reliability without affecting speed? YOU CAN'T. And if bus speeds will not change in the off-peak with exclusive lanes, the only possible reason to have them is to slow down other vehicles by reducing road capacity. But DOT is saying reducing road capacity will make cars travel faster. That makes as much sense as saying if you feed starving children less, they will be less hungry. JUST UTTERLY RIDICULOUS AND UNBELIEVABLE. |
|
|
| (310937) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:38:01 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 16:05:02 2016. Yes and real data performance statistics shows SBS routes as a whole are performing worse than other routes by losing passengers at a greater route. It also shows the M15 which has SBS is the least reliable bus route in Manhattan.YES, WE ARE FINALLY REALY GETTING SOMEWHERE! |
|
|
| (310938) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:39:30 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 18:03:56 2016. No if they were all turning at 80, they wouldn't be turning at all. Don't you know anything about physics? |
|
|
| (310939) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:42:53 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 22:30:33 2016. Riveting. |
|
|
| (310940) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:44:17 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:07:17 2016. Owned. |
|
|
| (310941) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:45:19 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:07:10 2016. LOL! Pedestrians don't require as much room as vehicles do on a per unit basis! |
|
|
| (310942) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:46:28 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:25:23 2016. Owned. |
|
|
| (310943) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:47:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:42:09 2016. Huh? He hasn't lost all credibility. He hasn't even lost any credibility. In fact, these posts are INCREASING his credibility. |
|
|
| (310944) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:47:47 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:29:46 2016. Exactly. |
|
|
| (310945) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:48:19 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:29:04 2016. That's right. You never did. BrooklynBus is making up stories again. |
|
|
| (310946) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Feb 24 23:50:18 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:39:30 2016. Not true. You can turn at 80. And by you I mean certain competent drivers. |
|
|
| (310947) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:55:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:34:36 2016. "LEARN HOW TO READ AND WRITE PLEASE. At least copy down the numbers correctly. It isn't 1915 and 3342. It's 1571 and 3342."LOL. POT. KETTLE. (bad analogy, because back then I think Kettles were black. Pot calling the pillow black would be more like it. I have white pillows in case you still don't get it.) 1571 MTA bus riders. 1915 TOTAL BUS RIDERS. "But look at what else it says. IT SAYS NORTHBOUND RUSH HOUR. I was talking about a 24 hour period, not just a 2 hour period in the peak direction when bus usage is at its heaviest. Yes in the peak direction at this one intersection, car riders outnumber bus passengers by only 2 to 1. What about in the off-peak direction? What about at all the other intersections? What about during the off peak when the buses carry only 15 or 20 passengers and not 60 passengers? " 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. "After you factor that all in the ratio is no longer 2 to 1. It is more like 5 to 1. As explained in another post, 2 to 1 ON A DAILY BASIS IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. It would mean that all cars carry only the driver and every car operates the entire length of Woodhaven and Cross Bay without any cars turning on or off the road." 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? "If that is the case, kindly explain how the M15 which has SBS could be ranked as the LEAST RELIABLE ROUTE in all of Manhattan." Three words. SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY. "NO IT'S TRUE. Then show me the citation in the M15 first year report that talks about traffic on streets other than First and Second Avenue. YOU WON"T FIND IT. Pages 20 and 21 show traffic on First and Second Avenue. That's it. No data for Third Avenue, York Avenue, or any other roadway." Just because something doesnt show up in a FIRST AND SECOND AVENUE related report does not mean counts were not taken. They were. "Numbers of lanes is directly related to road capacity and road capacity determines the speed at which cars will travel given a certain volume. And speed is directly related to trip times. What part of that do you not understand? That is not to say that other factors such as signal timing are not involved." 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. "Why should an arterial be faster than a slow residential street you ask? BECAUSE IT IS AN ARTERIAL. That's why. Slow residential streets are meant for short distance travel so the speed you travel is unimportant as it relates to your total trip time. Arterials are meant for long distance travel and are designed to be faster. Vision Zero has effectively reduced arterials to local streets which is the problem I and many others have with it. Many areas of the city do not have expressways which make faster road arterials a necessity." Woodhaven is not an expressway. Vision Zero is making changes which reflect this reality. "More unsubstantiated claims. as it relates to DOT not providing statistics for parallel roadways. IT IS QUITE SUBSTANTIATED. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE STATISTICS FOR THIRD AND YORK AVENUE IN MANHATTAN. ONLY FOR FIRST AND SECOND AVENUE ON PAGES 21 AND 22 OF THEIR REPORT." I never said they provided the statistics. I said they created them. BIG difference. "With traffic speeds being reduced REGARDLESS of SBS, Bus speeds would be reduced more than if they had their own lanes. That is not even English. I never should have asked for an explanation. You are making no sense at all. Being part of the same project MEANS THEY ARE CONNECTED. That's like saying just because both men and women are both part of the human race, they have no connection with each other. That would be utterly ridiculous. But what the hell, everything else you are saying is just as ridiculous." 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. "Here is another one: I think the real reason for having off peak bus lanes is reliability, not speed. How do you improve reliability without affecting speed? YOU CAN'T." Who says you won't affect the speed? "And if bus speeds will not change in the off-peak with exclusive lanes, the only possible reason to have them is to slow down other vehicles by reducing road capacity." No, it is not the only reason. "But DOT is saying reducing road capacity will make cars travel faster. That makes as much sense as saying if you feed starving children less, they will be less hungry. JUST UTTERLY RIDICULOUS AND UNBELIEVABLE. " 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 |
|
|
| (310948) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:58:21 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:38:01 2016. "Yes and real data performance statistics shows SBS routes as a whole are performing worse than other routes by losing passengers at a greater route."Yes, but it also shows that such is not do to SBS. "It also shows the M15 which has SBS is the least reliable bus route in Manhattan." There you go again. ISOLATE the variable. What is happening on the M15 that isn't on the other SBS routes? Oh. right. ALMOST TWO MILES OF TORN UP AVENUE. Look at the other routes, and you find great improvement. |
|
|
| (310949) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:59:13 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 23:39:30 2016. Geez. Last time I try to help you by explaining how an absurd count of yours might be doable. |
|
|
| (310950) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 25 13:20:14 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:58:21 2016. "Yes, but it also shows that such is not do to SBS."Should read "Yes, but it also shows that such is not due to SBS. " |
|
|
| (310952) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Feb 25 13:37:31 2016, in response to Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 18 16:56:23 2016. LOL This thread is making BusChat more active than SubChat. |
|
|
| (310953) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Feb 25 13:41:54 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Feb 25 13:37:31 2016. But it only has limited participation (and for good reason). I'd rather see more threads and more posters. |
|
|
| (310954) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by JerBear on Thu Feb 25 13:47:51 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:50:29 2016. No, I'm saying that if 50 cars are all stacked in the left lane hoping to turn left onto Metropolitan, that I would have said "... the line to make a left southbound onto Metropolitan extended past Yellowstone from Metropolitan." because why cite the street only halfway down the backup? Plus I have never seen anyone that would wait in that line, because the last 5 cars would assume that the 10 in front of them were turning left onto Yellowstone and would move to the right and then try to wedge into the line of cars waiting to turn left after Cooper before Metropolitan. Otherwise when cars are backed up here it's in all lanes because of something blocking Woodhaven and causing major delays, and then you couldn't tell how many of those drivers want to turn left on Metropolitan and how many are trying to bypass the congestion ahead.But regardless, what this actually did was make me look at the use of Cooper, and I actually like that maneuver to decomplexify (probably not a real word) the intersection. Have the northbound drivers use 73rd and Trotting Course to go west on Metropolitan. Congratulations, you sold me on banning left turns at this intersection. |
|
|
| (310955) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 25 16:52:49 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by JerBear on Thu Feb 25 13:47:51 2016. Yes. Mr. Rosen has a gift at disproving things he is trying to prove.Conversely he also has a gift at proving things he is trying to disprove. He should try and focus his gifts on preventing the cure for cancer. |
|
|
| (310957) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Thu Feb 25 17:33:39 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 21:21:14 2016. And remember the videos were shot at random within minutes of each other.If they were shot within minutes of each other, then they weren't shot "at random." They only represent one observation of conditions, really. |
|
|
| (310963) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 25 20:05:14 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Thu Feb 25 17:33:39 2016. Not true. Typically counts are repeated to make sure it wasn't a one time occurrence. By at random I meant I just happened to be in the neighborhood for another purpose. I didn't specifically choose that time because I knew there would be problems at that time. So "at random" would be the correct terminology. |
|
|
| (310964) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 25 20:18:53 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 25 20:05:14 2016. You randomly shot three videos. You did not shoot three videos at random. |
|
|
| (310966) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Thu Feb 25 22:55:36 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 25 20:05:14 2016. Not true. Typically counts are repeated to make sure it wasn't a one time occurrence.Yes, and typically all observations are not made within minutes of each other. That helps transform them from anecdotes into data. I'm not even a planner and I know this. Why don't you? |
|
|
| (310969) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Feb 26 08:02:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Thu Feb 25 20:18:53 2016. Correct. |
|
|
| (310970) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:24:16 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by JerBear on Thu Feb 25 13:47:51 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.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. |
|
|
| (310971) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:28:12 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:58:21 2016. Where is the improvement on the M60? Oh yes, you can't count that route either because riders switched to the Q70. What about the M34? How about the B44? How many more routes will you find excuses for? Only the Bronx routes show improvement. The other four boroughs do not. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 22 |
||