|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (309839) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 22 |
||
|
| (310972) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:30:37 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 23:59:13 2016. Wow, you still insist that turn could be made at 80 mph? You have obviously never even driven a car. Let's see you try to make that turn at 80 mph and still be alive to talk about it, not to mention all the people you would kill doing it. You are dumber than I even thought you were. |
|
|
| (310973) | |
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. |
|
|
| (310974) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 26 09:47:31 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:28:12 2016. M34 Up.M60+Q70+Q33 Up. B44 is the only one which went down. Period. |
|
|
| (310975) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 26 09:48:14 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 09:30:37 2016. I didn't insist that it could safely be done. I stated that is the only possible way your numbers could be accurate.(That is because your numbers are not accurate.) |
|
|
| (310976) | |
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. |
|
|
| (310979) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 26 11:07:11 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 26 10:26:57 2016. ""1915 TOTAL BUS RIDERS."And where do you get that figure from?" Same figure you used. The SBS FAQ. ""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." Why does blame need to be assigned. You are the one seeming to claim that it is unrepresentative of the whole. I see no reason to assume 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." Actually, you can! They just did! As long as something works for the peak load, it stands to reason that it will work with the off peak load. If it didnt, the off peak would be the actual peak!. Do you claim that they misidentified the peak? If so, what basis do you have for that claim? ""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." How would you obtain better numbers? And besides, you still have not explained why they are not representative of the whole. "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." Why does 24 hours matter? What matters is THE PEAK. Off peak is off peak. Again, where do you come up with the idea that off peak is equal to peak? "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." GOOD. You might be learning something here!!! "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?" Well, it is certainly good information to have. How do you think they produce those counts? ""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." Two miles. and yes, two miles out of nine certainly can explain a severe reduction in reliability. Your idea is also likely true. The Queensborough bridge may well result in further reliability issues. YES, delays can be caused by external issues. SBS is not intended or expected to eliminate all of them. And furthermore, the M15 isn't the least reliable route in Manhattan. It beats the other east side north-south routes in general. "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?" Who says it doesn't have any affect on reliability? It obviously does. "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." They only did it merely to IMPROVE SERVICE ON FIRST AND SECOND AVENUE. ""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." Yes, No, but I know the counts are consistently being taken as I have seen them in many other presentations. (for EVERY avenue in Manhattan.) "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." Possibly. Would be hard to pin that on SBS though. (As, you know SAS construction is going on.) ""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." No. Just admit you don't understand how traffic works. "That will greatly increase travel times for cars and trucks which are 80% of the passenger traffic." No. Again wholly made up numbers. ""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." Arterial roadways in high density areas need to be low speed when they are not expressways. THAT is vision zero. ""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?" LOL. you are repeating yourself. But now that I think back on it again, since automobile traffic did not go down on 1st and 2nd avenues, why would you assume it moved somewhere else? We have data showing it stayed where it was! "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." Perhaps connected was a bad term to use on my part. I should have used independent. SBS and Vision Zero are INDEPENDENT. The finished design of course takes aspects from both, however, SBS is happening REGARDLESS of what happens with Vision zero. Vision zero changes are happening REGARDLESS of what happens with SBS. "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." Just because something is changed, does not mean it is the primary goal. Hell, even if something is intentionally being changed, that STILL does not mean it is the primary goal. "Exclusive lanes during the off-peak will only slow down cars further without improving bus speeds." Wholly unsubstantiated. "Therefore there is no reason to have them unless your only goal is to make car driving slow and intolerable." As improving bus speeds is NOT the sole goal of bus lanes, this does not follow. Furthermore as bus lanes are NOT expected to reduce car speeds, this is entirely unsupported. ""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." Obviously not. |
|
|
| (310991) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 26 23:45:35 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Fri Feb 26 11:07:11 2016. Obviously,someone is a car advocate...There is nothing wrong with bus and auto sharing a roadway. Even a Select Bus BRT line placed on a wide Blvd such as the Topic at hand would benefit the most when placed head to head with the CAR. |
|
|
| (310993) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 27 00:30:54 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 26 23:45:35 2016. Yup. The crazy thing is that this project will likely improve ride times for car riders too, so his fear is unfounded! |
|
|
| (310999) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 10:44:33 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Thu Feb 25 22:55:36 2016. I certainly do know that. Weekday counts are typically conducted on Tuesday , Wednesdays and Thursdays. If there are seasonal fluctuations, they are conducted several times a year.I do not live in the area, nor am I being paid to conduct counts. I took the videos when it was convenient for me and since I was interested in weekend counts, that was when I conducted them. Since I pas through the area on at least every other weekend, and always see a similar traffic pattern, the videos are certainly more than just an anecdote. If you believe the videos are atypical, then you certainly can go out and make your own videos to disprove what I have alleged. |
|
|
| (311003) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 20:50:04 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 26 23:45:35 2016. "There is nothing wrong with bus and auto sharing a roadway."The bus and car are presently sharing the roadway. No one is proposing to ban buses. "Even a Select Bus BRT line placed on a wide Blvd as the Topic at hand would benefit the most when placed head to head with the CAR." How do you figure that when there are only 30,000 daily bus riders and well over 100,000 other daily motorized users who would be harmed by having to travel up to a mile extra just to make a left turn at 21 locations and travel slower by the loss of a traffic lane? |
|
|
| (311004) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 27 21:08:34 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 20:50:04 2016. Ignoring your false numbers, you seem to really have difficulty understanding why these left turn bans are being proposed.It has NOTHING to do with buses. The purpose of the left turn bans is to REDUCE TRAFFIC FOR CARS. Do you really not understand that left turns severely reduce throughput on arterial roadways? Thats like traffic 101. jeez. |
|
|
| (311005) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Sat Feb 27 23:28:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 20:50:04 2016. You're dumb. You were already proven wrong about the 1 mile bullshit. |
|
|
| (311007) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Sun Feb 28 00:41:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 10:44:33 2016. No, they are just an anecdote. |
|
|
| (311009) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 28 09:56:08 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 27 21:08:34 2016. But the cut in throughput is not as severe without bus lanes. Bus lanes increase auto traffic in the other (non-bus) lanes thus necessitating the traffic reduction / increased throughput measures, e.g. left turn bans.Essentially, it's solving a problem that didn't have to exist (or didn't have to exist right now). |
|
|
| (311014) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 28 17:57:46 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 28 09:56:08 2016. I'd tend to disagree with you that the problem doesn't exist now. Even if they aren't crippling the capacity of Woodhaven, they are certainly slowing it down. I think you could make the argument that these turn eliminations SHOULD be done today, even if you weren't to put in the bus lanes. |
|
|
| (311017) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Sun Feb 28 21:03:15 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Feb 27 10:44:33 2016. If you believe the videos are atypical, then you certainly can go out and make your own videos to disprove what I have alleged.Or, unlike you, I can just realize that your videos don't prove anything and can safely be ignored. |
|
|
| (311025) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Feb 29 01:53:12 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Sun Feb 28 21:03:15 2016. Furthermore, they aren't just anecdotal evidence, they are anecdotal evidence AGAINST his argument!!! |
|
|
| (311045) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 2 12:29:11 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 28 17:57:46 2016. The turn eliminations cause extra travel, time, and air pollution. Not everyone needs to go straight all the time and three right turns also adds to traffic and air pollution and therefore decreases safety. Very easy to make proposals you don't have to live with. |
|
|
| (311047) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 2 12:41:54 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 2 12:29:11 2016. In New Jersey, there are jug handles. They have some issues when one turns into the cross street into the left lane when they need to move right to be properly aligned for the direction they are headed, but they are often safer than standard left turn lanes on 45 - 55 MPH highways, or even on 25 MPH congested borough streets where they had room to build them.US1 through Mercer county is all jug handles, with the left lane being perfectly aligned and against the Jersey barrier with no interrupts for those turning. All turns are from the right, slower lane. |
|
|
| (311048) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Mar 2 12:55:46 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 2 12:29:11 2016. LOL! It matter to what degree it will "add to traffic and air pollution", if at all, and/or if will actually improve conditions! It's very easy for you to claim that this would only hurt when you haven't actually studied it and when you have a perceived vested interest in preventing a preconceived result. You really don't know much about transportation planning.Also, you've not replied to the countless replied I've made to your posts recently where I've shown you to be wrong. |
|
|
| (311049) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Mar 2 14:52:20 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 2 12:29:11 2016. I am so fucking sick of motorists holding the rest of us hostage to their demands by threatening to produce even more air pollution if we don't cede 100% control of the streets to them. The air pollution you produce is your fault and no one else's. |
|
|
| (311050) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 2 14:55:36 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Wed Mar 2 14:52:20 2016. Getting back to how to make left turns, I read some place a few years ago, forgot where that UPS computer-routes their delivery drivers each day, and they are programmed to avoid left turns. UPS feels left turns take more timer sitting, wastes fuel, and are more hazardous. |
|
|
| (311051) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Mar 2 14:56:19 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Mar 2 12:29:11 2016. "The turn eliminations cause extra travel, time, and air pollution."Actually, they do the reverse. They reduce the net travel time and air pollution. "Not everyone needs to go straight all the time" Correct. "and three right turns also adds to traffic and air pollution" From that INDIVIDUAL CAR, yes. To traffic as a whole, it does the reverse. "and therefore decreases safety." No. "Very easy to make proposals you don't have to live with." Yes. But we do have to live with this one. And no, proposals like Woodhaven SBS aren't particularly easy to make. First off, a decent amount of engineering work needs to go into any successful plan. Secondly, a decent amount of political effort needs to go behind it as there are antitransit neanderthals such as yourself who don't even care that the people crossing the streets live as long as they themselves can save a couple of minutes getting to their destination in a car. |
|
|
| (311052) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Mar 2 14:57:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 2 14:55:36 2016. UPS doesn't FEEL it, they KNOW it. But yes, that is exactly what they do. |
|
|
| (311053) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Mar 2 15:00:38 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Wed Mar 2 14:52:20 2016. Rosen doesn't just support pollution. He supports vehicular manslaughter! |
|
|
| (311054) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 2 15:01:34 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Mar 2 14:57:44 2016. Here it is. (I should have Googled first) Banning Right on Red in NYC does inhibit the advantages though:"Why UPS drivers don't make left turns" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-ups-drivers-don-t-make-left-turns-172032872.html "Obviously making left turns [is] more dangerous because you’re crossing an intersection versus not,” he said. Plus, “You can keep moving in many places making right turns where left turns you have to wait. All 50 states including the District of Columbia allow right turns on red, however certain cities, like New York, ban the practice." |
|
|
| (311055) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Mar 2 15:05:56 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 2 15:01:34 2016. To the individual, banning Right on Red reduces the time advantage of right turns over right turns, although it does not eliminate them. It does nothing to reduce the safety advantage of right turns over left turns. |
|
|
| (311117) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 7 16:00:42 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Wed Mar 2 14:52:20 2016. The extra air pollution would be as a result of stupid decisions to ban left turns by useless bureaucrats making decisions for others you don't have to live with. |
|
|
| (311118) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Mar 7 16:12:45 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 7 16:00:42 2016. But banning left turns reduces pollution, so your claim makes no sense. |
|
|
| (311119) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Mon Mar 7 17:49:23 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 7 16:00:42 2016. No. Each motorist is responsible for the air pollution he or she chooses to create. No one else is responsible for that pollution. |
|
|
| (311120) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 7 19:00:55 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 7 16:00:42 2016. LOL, you keep ignoring what we tell you. |
|
|
| (311121) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 7 19:57:11 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Mar 7 16:00:42 2016. A left turns take longer to make than right turn, 3 right turns make take as long or longer than 1 left turn for the individual vehicle, but 3 right turns do not slow the left lane for everyone else, so they save gas en toto. Right turns are also safer, less chance of a rear-ender and cutting off on coming traffic with dare-devil maneuvers. That is why UPS's routing software is written to avoid left turns as much as possible. |
|
|
| (311124) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Mar 8 08:38:37 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 7 19:57:11 2016. BrooklynBus is not backing down, it seems. He has his fingers in his ears. And he claims to be objective. LOL! |
|
|
| (311125) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 8 09:26:32 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 7 19:57:11 2016. That is why UPS's routing software is written to avoid left turns as much as possible.The UPS encourages drivers to make right turns, even where such turns are illegal. Case in point is downtown Flushing at the intersection of Kissena Blv, Main St and 41st Ave. UPS trucks going north on Kissena are instructed to turn right onto 41st Ave. Such turns are illegal and endanger pedestrians crossing 41st Ave with the signal. The only legal way to enter 41st Ave going eastbound is from Main St. |
|
|
| (311126) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Mar 8 09:30:44 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 8 09:26:32 2016. I wonder if NYPD would ticket the UPS truck and if they did who would pay for it. When a totally legal and legitimate job instructs you to do the illegal. . . |
|
|
| (311127) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 8 10:06:23 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Mar 8 09:30:44 2016. When a totally legal and legitimate job instructs you to do the illegal.The "I was only following orders" defense did not work at Nuremburg. It should not work in Flushing. The fine payment is minor, compared to the points on the drivers' license. |
|
|
| (311129) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Mar 8 12:09:01 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 8 09:26:32 2016. How do you know this? |
|
|
| (311132) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:24:01 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Mon Mar 7 16:12:45 2016. It doesn't reduce air pollution when it causes you to drive an extra half mile or mile to reach your destination as I have already shown you, so stop making up lies already. |
|
|
| (311133) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:25:07 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Mon Mar 7 17:49:23 2016. But each motorist just follow the laws causing that extra pollution so you can't blame them for just following the law. |
|
|
| (311134) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:27:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 7 19:57:11 2016. Left turns do not slow down the left turn lane where there is a left turn bay and every place where left turn bans are being proposed has left turn bays. In fact DOT is considering eliminating left turn bays on Cross Bay. |
|
|
| (311135) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Mar 8 12:59:28 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Mar 8 10:06:23 2016. What's an employee to do then who wants to do the right thing? Who can be notified to report that UPS is ordering the illegal (assuming UPS is aware of the situation)? |
|
|
| (311136) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Mar 8 13:33:33 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:24:01 2016. And as I have shown, it doesn't do that.But even if it did, that does not mean that pollution would go up. |
|
|
| (311137) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Mar 8 13:35:22 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:25:07 2016. The laws do not cause added pollution. |
|
|
| (311139) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Mar 8 14:46:59 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:25:07 2016. Nobody's putting a gun to motorists' heads and forcing them to drive. |
|
|
| (311140) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Mar 8 14:50:32 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 12:27:09 2016. But the separate left-turn phase means considerably more idling for all cars that aren't turning left. Do you not get that? Where did you get your planning degree, anyway? |
|
|
| (311142) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 8 14:57:28 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Tue Mar 8 14:46:59 2016. Because everyone lives next to a train or bus and works next to the same train or bus or one which connects with it. |
|
|
| (311145) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 15:06:11 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Tue Mar 8 13:33:33 2016. All driving causes pollution so additional driving that was not previously done causes new pollution. |
|
|
| (311146) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 15:06:55 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Tue Mar 8 13:35:22 2016. But following them does. |
|
|
| (311147) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 15:09:46 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by fdtutf on Tue Mar 8 14:46:59 2016. Given mass transit choices that take double or triple the time, does force them to drive. You do not gave the right to place a value on other people's time, only your own. If you choose to make a two hour mass transit trip, that is your own business, but you have no right to tell someone else they are forbidden to make the same trip in 30 minutes by car. We still live in a democracy, in spite of what you may think. |
|
|
| (311148) | |
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Mar 8 15:10:07 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Mar 8 14:57:28 2016. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 22 |
||