|
|
| Re: MTA's Poor Priorities (314632) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (314780) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:31:08 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Cornell Park on Wed Jun 22 15:15:00 2016. As I said there is something called intergovernmental cooperation. During the summers of 1981 and 1982, the Feds paid the MTA to extend the B9 and B46 to Riis Park on summer weekends. Although the buses were overflowing, the Feds could not convince the MTA to continue the service after the grant ran out. So quit blaming other levels of government. The fault for not providing better bus service lies solely within the MTA because of their poor priorities which does not put the needs of the customers first. |
|
|
| (314781) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:33:20 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Cornell Park on Tue Jun 21 21:40:53 2016. I did. |
|
|
| (314782) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:35:34 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by The Silence on Mon Jun 20 15:38:27 2016. Why couldn't there be automatic gates that accept credit cards? |
|
|
| (314783) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by MR RT on Wed Jun 22 16:30:25 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:31:08 2016. When they bring out the old buses & they go from the subway station to the park ... it is a great ride ! |
|
|
| (314784) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jun 22 16:38:18 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:35:34 2016. It's the Federal Government...does it need any other explanation? |
|
|
| (314785) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 17:48:26 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Tue Jun 21 20:06:34 2016. I choose to have as little contact as possible.It's definitely possible to have less contact. |
|
|
| (314786) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 17:51:10 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:31:08 2016. During the summers of 1981 and 1982, the Feds paid the MTA to extend the B9 and B46 to Riis Park on summer weekends. Although the buses were overflowing, the Feds could not convince the MTA to continue the service after the grant ran out.That was to get people to the park. Using park property as a park & ride is a completely different story. |
|
|
| (314787) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 17:53:33 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:35:34 2016. Why couldn't there be automatic gates that accept credit cards?Who is going to pay extra for a service that might negligibly shorten the length of their trip (but probably won't)? |
|
|
| (314789) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 19:17:28 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 17:51:10 2016. Using a Federal Park is that much harder. Shea Stadium (now CitiField) is at least under NYC control. |
|
|
| (314790) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jun 22 21:57:53 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Jun 22 14:22:24 2016. Perfect example of what Im referring to. |
|
|
| (314794) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jun 22 23:04:14 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 19:17:28 2016. it isn't. The land it's built on belongs to the City, but the building itself belongs to the Mets 110%. |
|
|
| (314795) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:20:36 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 14:56:43 2016. "You obviously don't ride it on summer weekends like I do regularly to see it is packed to the gills until 9 PM with buses regularly skipping B96 and B98 St."Being over capacity in no way indicates the lack of a capacity increase. "The line at 116 St is a half block long and after stops are eliminated with SBS, it will stretch around the block and consist of several hundred people waiting for a bus." Perhaps, but with SBS, those people will be handled much quicker than they are today. |
|
|
| (314796) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Wed Jun 22 23:26:40 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:06:19 2016. I sent you a PM on NYCTF on June 13. |
|
|
| (314797) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 23:28:00 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by The Silence on Wed Jun 22 23:04:14 2016. not the parking lot and adjacent land, it is technically under NYC Parks control, with priority use by the Mets. When they tried to use part of the lot for a shopping mall, they lost in court because it was deemed park land and that requires an act of the State Legislature to allow that type of development. It is pending appeal to NYS Court of Appeals for final resolution. |
|
|
| (314798) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Wed Jun 22 23:29:07 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:20:11 2016. "Maybe we should discontinue the M60 because of traffic on the 59 St. bridge which is much more severe."I think you mean Q60. |
|
|
| (314799) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 23:30:05 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by The Silence on Wed Jun 22 23:04:14 2016. it isn't. The land it's built on belongs to the City, but the building itself belongs to the Mets 110%.Darn; that's going make Allan's plan to use the outfield grass for more commuter parking more difficult. |
|
|
| (314800) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:35:34 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 14:59:44 2016. But it wouldn't be 15 minutes faster to midtown. The B is not that much faster than the 2. In fact, considering the longer wait time, the B often is a longer ride than the 2.You are correct in assuming that it serves a different clientele. A bus running from a park and ride in a neighborhood without particularly high car ownership with a lot that does not reliably offer parking and does not have any realistic local catchment area running to the end of a subway line which is not reliably faster than AND has less frequent service than the line which the buses currently run to obviously would have no clientele at all, so yes, that is different than any line that actually has potential riders! |
|
|
| (314801) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:36:40 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:33:20 2016. You weren't being asked questions. |
|
|
| (314802) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:44:06 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:24:14 2016. Midtown is roughly a wash.(Yes, he included wait time in the IRT as well. If you read his post, it says that. ) |
|
|
| (314803) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 22 23:44:50 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Edwards! on Wed Jun 22 21:57:53 2016. No it's not. I showed how and why you are wrong. My post stands. |
|
|
| (314804) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 23:46:45 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 23:30:05 2016. You should see what happens when the US Open (and some Met games like the playoffs and series) is running. They park cars all over the park on grass and in normally free parking areas, charge money, and even have shuttle buses because some of the areas are so far out. |
|
|
| (314805) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 22 23:47:08 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:35:34 2016. pwn3d |
|
|
| (314806) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jun 23 12:09:57 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 23:46:45 2016. You should see what happens when the US Open (and some Met games like the playoffs and series) is running.Oh, I have! |
|
|
| (314809) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:20:48 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:35:34 2016. I just checked the schedules. The B and the 2 have identical travel times to 34 Street, 40 minutes. (B from Sheepshead Bay vs 2 from Flatbush Avenue) However, my proposed route would be four minutes quicker from Riis Park than the Q35: 12 minutes as compared to 16 minutes without traffic on the Belt.So under the worst scenario, trip times would be equal, but it would give Rockaway residents another option to the Q35. Anyone who would have to change from the 2 to the B or the Q in Manhattan would definitely save time as would anyone driving because they could take either bus at Riis Park instead of having to wait for just the Q 35. Breezy Point residents would save the most time because their only option now is to drive unless they drive to Belle Harbor and park on the street for the Q35. I stopped reading your incomprehensible run on sentence after your misstatement about Rockaway not having a high car ownership. But I forgot, you can allege anything you want because no proof is required when you make a statement. |
|
|
| (314810) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:23:32 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 22 17:51:10 2016. No it is not.It shows that just like the MTA didn't care about getting people to the park, they don't care either about encouraging people to get out of their cars to increase bus usage or to increase commuting options that would save the people time. |
|
|
| (314811) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:29:23 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 19:17:28 2016. The MTA could still make the attempt. But not only is there a lack of willingness to engage other agencies, even city agencies are reluctant to engage the help of other city agencies.City DOT studied improving the intersection of Guider and Coney Island Avenue for ten years which was finally concluded. They were asked to add a lane to Coney Island Avenue for about 100 feet to improve traffic flow over the Belt Parkway Bridge so it doesn't back up for 200 feet. Their response was they would have to acquire the land from NYC Parks, so they would not attempt it. That was the same branch of government. You mean to say if they started the process at the beginning of the project, it would not have been completed for ten years when the project ended? That is absolutely ridiculous. Something is very wrong. |
|
|
| (314812) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:31:12 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Wed Jun 22 23:26:40 2016. I will look at it now. |
|
|
| (314813) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:32:35 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Wed Jun 22 23:29:07 2016. I meant Q60. Sorry about that. |
|
|
| (314814) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:34:00 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Wed Jun 22 23:44:06 2016. It is. But the bus trip to Sheepshead Bay would be quicker than the Q35 to Flatbush. |
|
|
| (314815) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:03:26 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:20:48 2016. "I just checked the schedules. The B and the 2 have identical travel times to 34 Street, 40 minutes. (B from Sheepshead Bay vs 2 from Flatbush Avenue) However, my proposed route would be four minutes quicker from Riis Park than the Q35: 12 minutes as compared to 16 minutes without traffic on the Belt."A. The B runs less frequently than the 2. B. Your hypothetical bus would certainly run less frequently than the Q35, so the wait times would make for a longer trip. And the bus travel time difference is only 2 minutes according to google maps. "So under the worst scenario, trip times would be equal, but it would give Rockaway residents another option to the Q35." And split the market, likely making for longer wait times overall. "Anyone who would have to change from the 2 to the B or the Q in Manhattan would definitely save time as would anyone driving because they could take either bus at Riis Park instead of having to wait for just the Q 35." Except they can make a very simple transfer at Atlantic avenue. Problem solved. "Breezy Point residents would save the most time because their only option now is to drive unless they drive to Belle Harbor and park on the street for the Q35." Which in reality will always be the only choice, as a park and ride at Riis Park is absolutely unworkable. "I stopped reading your incomprehensible run on sentence after your misstatement about Rockaway not having a high car ownership. But I forgot, you can allege anything you want because no proof is required when you make a statement."  Rockaways have below the average car ownership rate of Queens. There's the proof for you! |
|
|
| (314816) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:04:25 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:29:23 2016. NYC Parkland is tremendously more valuable than NYC Highwayland. They should not attempt such. |
|
|
| (314817) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:05:02 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 14:34:00 2016. Not substantially. 2 minute difference according to Google maps.And the B runs less frequently than the 2... |
|
|
| (314819) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Cornell Park on Thu Jun 23 15:07:27 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 22 15:26:37 2016. How do you decide who pays to park for the beach and who gets free parking for the park and ride? |
|
|
| (314822) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Thu Jun 23 17:53:28 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by pragmatist on Wed Jun 22 23:28:00 2016. The Mets control the parking lot operations around the stadium. The staff are Mets employees. |
|
|
| (314823) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Thu Jun 23 17:59:02 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Cornell Park on Thu Jun 23 15:07:27 2016. yea, there is no way anyone would take advantage of that... |
|
|
| (314824) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 18:19:04 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:03:26 2016. I can barely make out the date. Is this map from March 2012? |
|
|
| (314826) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 18:22:58 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Cornell Park on Thu Jun 23 15:07:27 2016. You can only have it in effect for ten months of the year, or you can designate the spaces furthest from the beach area for commuters, so if they want free parking, they will have a very long walk. |
|
|
| (314827) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 20:24:20 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 18:19:04 2016. Appears to be. |
|
|
| (314829) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 20:27:32 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 20:24:20 2016. Hurricane Sandy struck in October 2012. I don't know how much the storm changed the statistics. |
|
|
| (314830) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jun 23 20:31:05 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by The silence on Thu Jun 23 17:53:28 2016. I thought they had a parking contractor, but wearing mets shirts. |
|
|
| (314832) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 20:37:44 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 20:27:32 2016. Certainly possible. My suspicion would be that it would drive car ownership down, but I admit I have no figures behind such. |
|
|
| (314833) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 21:23:21 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 20:37:44 2016. I'm not a demographer so I don't know how many people were dislocated. But since we're dealing with percentages, even though number of cars and population could have decreased, the percentage of ownership could go up if the population decreased more than the population of cars.For example, a family of four could have been dislocated but only one car. |
|
|
| (314834) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 21:33:28 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 21:23:21 2016. I believe it is a raw percentage of how many households have cars, regardless of how many people or cars are there.A family of 10 people living together with 1 car would count as much as 1 person with living alone with 10 cars in his driveway. I can't say that I particularly like the statistic, but that is what I have to work with. (Disclaimer, I do not have the actual methodology of how the data were collected, outside of it being census derived.) |
|
|
| (314835) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by nostalgia on Thu Jun 23 21:39:50 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 21:33:28 2016. I'm inclined to agree with you that household population has nothing to do with the statistic. But since you mentioned the census, that would mean the data was from the 2010 census.I used to work for the Bureau of the Census so I can fill in some information. At one time, there was the "short" form and the "long" form. The short form only asked basic household data, e.g. number of people in the household and their ages. The long form went to a sample of households and asked detailed questions, e.g. "do you have indoor plumbing?", "what is your annual natural gas(or oil) bill, etc. I vaguely remember questions about commuting to work (distance, method, and length of commute.) |
|
|
| (314836) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Cornell Park on Thu Jun 23 21:44:38 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 18:22:58 2016. Wow, you are reaching to make this sound like a great idea. You really think beach people mind a longer walk to saved $10? Newsflash- some of those people would risk their kids crossing Beach Channel Drive to save the money, if they could get away with parking along the Bay sea wall. |
|
|
| (314839) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:15:08 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:03:26 2016. "The B runs less frequently than the 2."But they also have the option of the Q. "The hypothetical bus runs less frequently than the Q35." Probably initially. But what if it turns out to be more popular than the Q35. Then that would change. Anyway, people could tKe the bus that comes first and wouldn't have to wait for the hypothetical bus if they didn't want to. And it would only split the market if no new transit rides would result. That would be highly unlikely. Atlantic Avenue is one of the most complex transfers in the system, certainly not a simple one. At the new entrance 72 stairs are required to get from the Q to the 2. An across the platform transfer is a simple transfer. But since you can define anything anyway you want and always be correct, it really doesn't matter. You have alleged parking at Riis Park is absolutely unworkable but have provided zero proof, but again you don't have to. Anything you say has to be automatically correct. And as for Rockaway having low auto ownership rates when compared to the rest of Queens, why are you comparing it to the rest of Queens? The half of Queens with higher auto ownership is miles from the closest subway. Half of Rockaway has access to the A train so why would you expect higher auto ownership there than areas without any subway service? You need to compare auto ownership in the Rockaways to other portions of the city which also has nearby subway access. Discounting Manhattan and Staten Island, when you do that, the auto ownership in the Rockaways is much higher than those other areas once you discount Flatlands which also has no subway. The only area on the map with higher auto ownership than the Rockaways (50 percent) that also has a subway is Middle Village, but only a small portion if that area has access to the M while half of Rockaway has access to the A. So don't try to make it appear that auto ownership in Rockaway is low. I don't consider 50% low. |
|
|
| (314840) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:18:03 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by Cornell Park on Thu Jun 23 21:44:38 2016. Many on New York Transit Forums like the idea and when it was published in the Rockaway Times, someone responded they would love to have access to the Brighton Line. It's only here that so many are critical of anything I propose. As soon as they see my handle, they just have to respond negatively no matter what I say. |
|
|
| (314842) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:26:41 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 15:05:02 2016. I get 13 minute with Google maps. Q35 running time is about 17 minutes so I get a four minute difference.The fact that the B runs less frequently is irrelevent since riders can also take the Q and could still take the Q 35 if it comes first. Anyway you look at it, transportation is improved with more transit options and the possibility of getting people to leave their cars at Riis Park and use mass transit for part of their trip instead of driving all the way. |
|
|
| (314845) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 23:33:46 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:15:08 2016. "But they also have the option of the Q."2 riders also have the option of the 5. "Probably initially. But what if it turns out to be more popular than the Q35. Then that would change." But it clearly wouldn't, so that is irrelevant. "Anyway, people could tKe the bus that comes first and wouldn't have to wait for the hypothetical bus if they didn't want to." They could Inbound. "And it would only split the market if no new transit rides would result. That would be highly unlikely." That is blatantly false. If there was any success it would largely cannibalize the Q35, even if some of the riders were new. "Atlantic Avenue is one of the most complex transfers in the system, certainly not a simple one. At the new entrance 72 stairs are required to get from the Q to the 2." Use the old transfer. Up stairs, walk over a short distance, walk up another longer set of stairs. Nothing is forcing people to the new end. "An across the platform transfer is a simple transfer." Yes, it is! But it is far from the only type of simple transfer. "But since you can define anything anyway you want and always be correct, it really doesn't matter." If you don't say anything that is wrong, yes, you are always correct. "You have alleged parking at Riis Park is absolutely unworkable but have provided zero proof, but again you don't have to. Anything you say has to be automatically correct." Only a lifetime of dealing with National Parks service automobile access rules. They are a pain to deal with. (And notice how everybody else here realizes this too...) "And as for Rockaway having low auto ownership rates when compared to the rest of Queens, why are you comparing it to the rest of Queens? The half of Queens with higher auto ownership is miles from the closest subway. Half of Rockaway has access to the A train so why would you expect higher auto ownership there than areas without any subway service?" Because the Rockaways are part of Queens! Easiest comparison! "You need to compare auto ownership in the Rockaways to other portions of the city which also has nearby subway access." No, I really don't. "Discounting Manhattan and Staten Island, when you do that, the auto ownership in the Rockaways is much higher than those other areas once you discount Flatlands which also has no subway." So if I ignore half the city... "The only area on the map with higher auto ownership than the Rockaways (50 percent) that also has a subway is Middle Village, but only a small portion if that area has access to the M while half of Rockaway has access to the A." The M has substantially higher ridership than the A in the neighborhoods being discussed. The Rockaway A ridership is abysmal. "So don't try to make it appear that auto ownership in Rockaway is low. I don't consider 50% low." 10% below borough average. That is low. |
|
|
| (314846) | |
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by Cornell Park on Fri Jun 24 09:14:59 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:18:03 2016. Incorrect, as to me. I am questioning it after having worked over that way and seen the beach crowd. I am questioning how you take part of federal property for this. I am questioning the removal of cash flow from NPS. Of which, these would seem to be logical questions. And i got cranky due to your spokesman, not you. Furthermore, I am not a yes man, so if you want "great idea" out of me the least you can do is explain it. And I can't say great idea at this point as your idea removes from one area to give to another.Now, why not set up at the old Neponsit nursing home, if that area is available? Last I knew, the area was fenced in with a security guard watching for trespassers. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||