|
|
| Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (321363) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 11 |
||
|
| (322153) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:22:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Jan 13 21:33:18 2017. No one stated that maximum throughput on Queens Boulevard was the only goal of society so your comment is irrelevant. Further, no one is talking about adding lanes to QB, only keeping them in tact, so your comment about induced demand also is not applicable.Actually, it SBS on Woodhaven not so popular. Two Community boards voted it down. No they did not show traffic would be removed in places. They only stated that bus lanes would be created and three lanes of through traffic would be maintained in each direction. One had to be aware of the existing conditions and look at the maps to determine that lanes would be taken from general traffic. IT WAS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING ANYWHERE. That was my point. There definitely are downsides, but you just can't see them or admit them. $20 million is what was originally stated at the first few meetings. You weren't even there, and I was, but you still argue. I have the links for two of them and a screenshot of the third. But what good would it do. You would only discredit them by saying something like since they were from three different periods of time, the amount could have fluctuated and doesn't prove dishonesty. But it does. Because one shows the amount of federal, state and local funding received (approx. 38 million), and the other is a statement from a DOT report (2013) saying that the total capital cost is only $15 million. I will only post the links, if you admit a discrepancy. I also have photos showing completely worn out bus lane pavement markings on two different routes which you will discount them by saying they do not prove poor execution since the lines were in tact when the lanes took effect and it is irrelevant that they wore out. So again why should I bother? The B44SBS WAS two years late. You knew exactly what I meant. It was scheduled for implementation in 2011 and was not implemented until November, 2013. You can't refute that, so you make a bad joke. |
|
| (322154) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:23:50 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Jan 13 21:03:01 2017. Let him answer for himself. |
|
| (322155) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 14 18:24:47 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Sat Jan 14 18:04:47 2017. Crime? What does that have to do with anything. Now, in addition to your fallacious reasoning you are introducing a total non-sequitur.And I am not misquoting you or did you not say that treating illness is an example of detrimental economic activity? AlM gave an actual example of socially detrimental economic activity. You didn’t. |
|
| (322156) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:26:38 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Fri Jan 13 08:32:08 2017. You certainly are. I know exactly what I said and what would be reasonable to imply from what I stated. |
|
| (322157) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:47:27 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Jan 13 21:22:41 2017. You are making no sense at all here. No one said anything about pedestrians and bus riders not mattering.I asked him a simple yes or no question and his response was that neither of us has proved anything which says absolutely nothing and avoids the question being asked. I wasn't making any assumptions. I was using numbers that have already been quoted by other sources and proving my case that IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE to even hint that the numbers of those in cars and those in buses is anywhere near equal as fdtutf was claiming. Now you are making an equally outrageous statement that the numbers of autos are inflated because many cars make multiple trips up and down the street while bus riders tend to make only one trip each way. Where is your proof of that? I forgot, you don't need any proof to make ridiculous statements which you then claim as fact. And what would be your rationale for claiming such anyway, that once you are in a car, it doesn't cost you more to keep driving up and down the street because it is so pleasant, while bus riders have to pay a separate fare each time? Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas. And weren't you the one who claimed that most bus riders have unlimited passes so double fares are not important? So I can claim that it is more likely that bus riders are more likely to make multiple trips than auto drivers since bus riders are paying a flat rate where as cars are paying extra for each mile driven. So there goes that argument. Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders? That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data. If you take my conclusions as fact, bus lanes would be an inequitable use of space. I can just as easily twist what you say if I wanted to. So thanks for proving my case for me that SBS is a poor idea by hurting more than it helps. |
|
| (322158) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 14 18:51:50 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 14 18:24:47 2017. I read this as saying that treating [the symptoms of] a serious illness is a waste of economic resources when it would have been better to prevent it in the first place [in cases where that is possible].For example, health treatment by emergency room, where you can get treated in an emergency room if you have an episode of acute hypertension, but if you don't happen to qualify for Medicaid you can't get the system to pay for your high blood pressure medication. |
|
| (322159) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:53:47 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 17:18:19 2017. Yes virtually nobody. Who begins his trip on a synchronized road and ends it on the same synchronized road without at least one single turn?Practically no one. Not to mention that only a small percentage of roads are synchronized while the speed limit applies to all roads. So what happens on synchronized roads is not very important in terms of this discussion. As for your second comment, my example was not for synchronized roads, but for typical roadways. You are far more likely to miss a green signal by going 25 than by going 30. |
|
| (322160) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:56:45 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 17:47:31 2017. Not really. You just have them in the peak direction which means you hit a red at every other intersection going in the reverse peak instead of hitting two or three green lights in a row with even timing.Ocean Parkway, Woodhaven, and many other arterials do have progressive signals. You also wouldn't want progressive signals on most one-way streets either. |
|
| (322161) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 14 19:00:17 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Sat Jan 14 18:51:50 2017. But that wouldn’t make sense as an elaboration of “Decreasing economic activity is not universally bad. Some types of economic activity don't actually benefit society.” |
|
| (322162) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:02:05 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 10:22:07 2017. I am not making assumptions that you are making ridiculous statements and claiming they are fact.It certainly is a true statement that the average speed is lowered once the speed limit is lowered providing that cars were previously able to reach that higher speed limit and they are now abiding by the new lower speed limit. |
|
| (322163) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:05:08 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Jan 13 21:23:52 2017. "People can certainly obey a lower speed limit and still not lower the average speed."Untrue as I have already shown. Your scenario would only be true if there was so much traffic so that no one was previously able to reach the 30 mph speed limit anyway. |
|
| (322164) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:08:26 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:22:21 2017. No one stated that maximum throughput on Queens Boulevard was the only goal of society so your comment is irrelevant. Further, no one is talking about adding lanes to QB, only keeping them in tact, so your comment about induced demand also is not applicable.You obviously don't understand what induced demand is. Actually, it SBS on Woodhaven not so popular. Two Community boards voted it down. Approval by community boards has nothing to do with popularity. No they did not show traffic would be removed in places. They only stated that bus lanes would be created and three lanes of through traffic would be maintained in each direction. One had to be aware of the existing conditions and look at the maps to determine that lanes would be taken from general traffic. IT WAS NEVER EXPLICITLY STATED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING ANYWHERE. That was my point. Expecting people to read plans and have an idea what they are talking about is not dishonest, however much you like to imply that. There definitely are downsides, but you just can't see them or admit them. None that you have honestly presented. $20 million is what was originally stated at the first few meetings. You weren't even there, and I was, but you still argue. You see, there is a problem with trusting your uncited numbers. As your CITED numbers are usually incorrect, one cannot trust the ones where you do not provide a source backing you up. Especially when you DID back it up in the past, and the source cited was the cost for PLANNING the project, not actually building the thing. I have the links for two of them and a screenshot of the third. But what good would it do. You would only discredit them by saying something like since they were from three different periods of time, the amount could have fluctuated and doesn't prove dishonesty. So you are folding at me calling your bluff. But yes, costs DO change. Good to see you admit that. But it does. Because one shows the amount of federal, state and local funding received (approx. 38 million), and the other is a statement from a DOT report (2013) saying that the total capital cost is only $15 million. I will only post the links, if you admit a discrepancy. They could potentially indicate a discrepancy, but there is no reason to assume such. I also have photos showing completely worn out bus lane pavement markings on two different routes which you will discount them by saying they do not prove poor execution since the lines were in tact when the lanes took effect and it is irrelevant that they wore out. So again why should I bother? Poor maintenance is certainly a problem. But that has nothing to do with SBS whatsoever, and is an issue which must be dealt with regardless of whether SBS is in place on an avenue. The B44SBS WAS two years late. You knew exactly what I meant. It was scheduled for implementation in 2011 and was not implemented until November, 2013. You can't refute that, so you make a bad joke. Actually I thought you were making your normal absurd complaint about the report about it being late, despite the fact that there was no schedule for it. Lack of resources? Politicians being a pain and getting in the way? Whiny people like yourself obstructing? |
|
| (322165) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:18:32 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 13 09:41:48 2017. You shouldn't base your experience only on areas of the city you are familiar with. Where I live you can drive and not see a single pedestrian for five blocks or more and that is during the day. At night there are even fewer pedestrians around.And the limit does not tend to be higher on many of those streets. You practically never see a pedestrian on Knapp Street between Avenue Y and Harkness Avenue, a distance of almost a half mile, because there is nothing there but a sewage treatment plant on both sides of the street with practically no parked cars on either side of the street. Yet the speed limit there is still 25 mph which is absolutely insane because 40 mph is perfectly safe there. As for the section of Flatbush you are speaking of, before Vision Zero, the speed limit there was 45 mph and yes cars frequently traveled it at 50 mph and I can't recall hearing of a single accident there in the past 40 years. |
|
| (322166) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:31:54 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:47:27 2017. You are making no sense at all here. No one said anything about pedestrians and bus riders not mattering.You are advocating against the improvements to save the lives of pedestrians and greatly improve bus service without any indication that it would actually harm automobile users. So yes, you are very much saying that. I asked him a simple yes or no question and his response was that neither of us has proved anything which says absolutely nothing and avoids the question being asked. When there is nothing to say, why would saying nothing be in any way bad? I wasn't making any assumptions. I was using numbers that have already been quoted by other sources and proving my case that IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE to even hint that the numbers of those in cars and those in buses is anywhere near equal as fdtutf was claiming. But he isn't claiming that. And it easily could be true in many portions of the road. (It doesn't matter if it is true or not, as nobody is claiming that.) Now you are making an equally outrageous statement that the numbers of autos are inflated because many cars make multiple trips up and down the street while bus riders tend to make only one trip each way. I am making no such claim. Where is your proof of that? I forgot, you don't need any proof to make ridiculous statements which you then claim as fact. I have no proof, nor any reason to provide any proof, FOR CLAIMS I DO NOT MAKE. And what would be your rationale for claiming such anyway, that once you are in a car, it doesn't cost you more to keep driving up and down the street because it is so pleasant, while bus riders have to pay a separate fare each time? No idea. I don't make any such claim. Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas. Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car. And weren't you the one who claimed that most bus riders have unlimited passes so double fares are not important? I never made such a claim. It is true that a majority of riders use unlimiteds. So I can claim that it is more likely that bus riders are more likely to make multiple trips than auto drivers since bus riders are paying a flat rate where as cars are paying extra for each mile driven. I guess you can. I don't see what it has to do with the topic at hand. So there goes that argument. There goes the argument nobody was making. Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders? Nobody is saying that it is. That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data. Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location. If you take my conclusions as fact, bus lanes would be an inequitable use of space. 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!! I can just as easily twist what you say if I wanted to. So thanks for proving my case for me that SBS is a poor idea by hurting more than it helps. Except that unlike you, I never actually said the things you say I do. And since Woodhaven SBS is projected to HELP THE 80% IN CARS. That is a REALLY hard argument to make. |
|
| (322167) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:41:39 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:53:47 2017. Yes virtually nobody. Who begins his trip on a synchronized road and ends it on the same synchronized road without at least one single turn?Practically no one. Not to mention that only a small percentage of roads are synchronized while the speed limit applies to all roads. So what happens on synchronized roads is not very important in terms of this discussion. Have you ever been in New York City? Loads of synchronized signals. As for your second comment, my example was not for synchronized roads, but for typical roadways. You are far more likely to miss a green signal by going 25 than by going 30. In general, yes. But making/missing a signal is far from the only thing affecting average speed. |
|
| (322168) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:44:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:02:05 2017. I have made no ridiculous statements.It is definitely not a universally true statement that "the average speed is lowered once the speed limit is lowered providing that cars were previously able to reach that higher speed limit and they are now abiding by the new lower speed limit. " |
|
| (322169) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:47:47 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:05:08 2017. Entirely true. You have not shown anything to the contrary.It would also be true if SIGNAL TIMING MANDATES NO FASTER THAN 25 ANYWAY. Consider the following: People speed than wait at each light, resulting in them making the same average speed. And furthermore, There is no reason whatsoever to say that reducing the average speed is a negative outcome. |
|
| (322172) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:00:26 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:18:32 2017. You shouldn't base your experience only on areas of the city you are familiar with. Where I live you can drive and not see a single pedestrian for five blocks or more and that is during the day. At night there are even fewer pedestrians around.IRONIC STATEMENT OF THE WEEK AWARD!!! And the limit does not tend to be higher on many of those streets. You practically never see a pedestrian on Knapp Street between Avenue Y and Harkness Avenue, a distance of almost a half mile, because there is nothing there but a sewage treatment plant on both sides of the street with practically no parked cars on either side of the street. Yet the speed limit there is still 25 mph which is absolutely insane because 40 mph is perfectly safe there. A segment with unsignaled intersections AND A F'ING SCHOOL AT THE END? Yeah, great way to mow down the kids. As for the section of Flatbush you are speaking of, before Vision Zero, the speed limit there was 45 mph and yes cars frequently traveled it at 50 mph and I can't recall hearing of a single accident there in the past 40 years. 5.35 per month.Bright orange on the heat map.(2011-2014) |
|
| (322173) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 20:01:31 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 19:18:32 2017. You practically never see a pedestrian on Knapp Street between Avenue Y and Harkness Avenue, a distance of almost a half mile, because there is nothing there but a sewage treatment plant on both sides of the street with practically no parked cars on either side of the street. Yet the speed limit there is still 25 mph which is absolutely insane because 40 mph is perfectly safe thereIt's not quite perfectly safe, as per NYPD records. I guess the reason for the injury was because the motorist did not expect to see a pedestrian. Here's the record in the NYPD crash database: DATE: 09/09/2013 TIME: 15:50 BOROUGH: BROOKLYN ZIP CODE: 11235 LATITUDE: 40.5881398 LONGITUDE: -73.931783 LOCATION: (40.5881398, -73.931783) ON STREET NAME: VOORHIES AVENUE CROSS STREET NAME: KNAPP STREET OFF STREET NAME: NULL NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST KILLED: 0 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 1: Failure to Yield Right-of-Way CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 2: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 3: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 4: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 5: NULL UNIQUE KEY: 119880 VEHICLE TYPE CODE 1: PASSENGER VEHICLE VEHICLE TYPE CODE 2: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 3: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 4: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 5: NULL As for the section of Flatbush you are speaking of, before Vision Zero, the speed limit there was 45 mph and yes cars frequently traveled it at 50 mph and I can't recall hearing of a single accident there in the past 40 years. NYPD's crash database does not go back 40 years. Here are the records that include 1 pedestrian fatality. If you use the geographic coordinates, they line up on Flatbush. Let me refresh your memory for crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists along Flatbush from Ave U to the Marine Pkwy Bridge: DATE: 03/14/2015 TIME: 14:30 BOROUGH: BROOKLYN ZIP CODE: 11234 LATITUDE: 40.6098096 LONGITUDE: -73.9224976 LOCATION: (40.6098096, -73.9224976) ON STREET NAME: FLATBUSH AVENUE CROSS STREET NAME: AVENUE U OFF STREET NAME: NULL NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST KILLED: 0 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 1: Passenger Distraction CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 2: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 3: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 4: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 5: NULL UNIQUE KEY: 3187041 VEHICLE TYPE CODE 1: SMALL COM VEH(4 TIRES) VEHICLE TYPE CODE 2: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 3: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 4: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 5: NULL DATE: 10/23/2012 TIME: 6:59 BOROUGH: BROOKLYN ZIP CODE: 11234 LATITUDE: 40.6082027 LONGITUDE: -73.9207095 LOCATION: (40.6082027, -73.9207095) ON STREET NAME: AVENUE V CROSS STREET NAME: FLATBUSH AVENUE OFF STREET NAME: NULL NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST KILLED: 0 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 1: Passenger Distraction CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 2: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 3: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 4: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 5: NULL UNIQUE KEY: 126436 VEHICLE TYPE CODE 1: PASSENGER VEHICLE VEHICLE TYPE CODE 2: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 3: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 4: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 5: NULL DATE: 03/02/2015 TIME: 19:40 BOROUGH: BROOKLYN ZIP CODE: 11234 LATITUDE: 40.6073017 LONGITUDE: -73.9197094 LOCATION: (40.6073017, -73.9197094) ON STREET NAME: MILL AVENUE CROSS STREET NAME: AVENUE U OFF STREET NAME: NULL NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST KILLED: 0 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 1: Unspecified CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 2: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 3: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 4: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 5: NULL UNIQUE KEY: 3178376 VEHICLE TYPE CODE 1: SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON VEHICLE TYPE CODE 2: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 3: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 4: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 5: NULL DATE: 05/30/2015 TIME: 17:24 BOROUGH: BROOKLYN ZIP CODE: 11234 LATITUDE: 40.5965113 LONGITUDE: -73.9078755 LOCATION: (40.5965113, -73.9078755) ON STREET NAME: FLATBUSH AVENUE CROSS STREET NAME: SHORE PARKWAY OFF STREET NAME: NULL NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF CYCLIST INJURED: 1 NUMBER OF CYCLIST KILLED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST INJURED: 0 NUMBER OF MOTORIST KILLED: 0 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 1: Driver Inattention/Distraction CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 2: Traffic Control Disregarded CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 3: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 4: NULL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR VEHICLE 5: NULL UNIQUE KEY: 3238703 VEHICLE TYPE CODE 1: PASSENGER VEHICLE VEHICLE TYPE CODE 2: BICYCLE VEHICLE TYPE CODE 3: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 4: NULL VEHICLE TYPE CODE 5: NULL |
|
| (322174) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 20:03:08 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:56:45 2017. I meant progress signals in both directions simultaneously. |
|
| (322175) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:17:53 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:08:26 2017. I know exactly what induced demand is. It is an increase in the number vehicles resulting from increasing road capacity or an excess capacity. We are not talking about increasing capacity and Woodhaven certainly was not under utilized when it had five lanes each way. It was used at capacity.The past and future reductions in capacity result in longer trip times, more traffic, more air pollution, more traffic congestion, more driver impatience and pedestrian conflicts. Traffic volumes may however decrease as cars seek other routes further congesting those roadways. So that is not a good thing either. So since there was no excess capacity and no increase in road capacity is planned, induced demand is not relevant to this discussion. You obviously do not know what induced demand is. You stated that only me and those in my bubble oppose SBS on Woodhaven. When I explained that two community boards also agree with me, you just dismiss them as being insignificant and not indicative of "popularity." So I guess your position is that they are bunch of idiots who do not at all represent what the community wants. So I guess when CB9 took a vote of the hundred people in attendance at one of their meetings asking who is in favor of SBS and who is opposed, it is also irrelevant that only one person out of a hundred said he was in favor of SBS and over 100 were opposed. Of course, you will now state that they are the only hundred people who oppose it and the thousands in favor didn't bother attending the meeting. Of course you don't need any proof to allege that because you are R30A. Of course, the fact that at least three elected " have come out against SBS on Woodhaven means nothing to you either. What is your argument there? They are only three individuals speaking for themselves and their opinions don't reflect the opinions of those they were elected to represent? Downsides? I wrote a report with 35 pages of downsides. But you would only discount everything in that report. "Poor maintenance of SBS roadway markings has nothing to do with SBS?" Are you joking. Of course it does. When the roadway is not marked as was the case on Nostrand Avenue in Sheepshead Bay and the signs are so small that they illegible unless you are doing no more than 10 mph and unsuspecting drivers are receiving summonses because of that, it certainly is an indication OF POOR EXECUTION OF THE PLAN. And the project was two years late not because of funding problems. It was late because DOT met with each business association separately rather than together and still did what it wanted to do anyway. Of course you will say that was good thing. It really wasn't. They could have met with all of them in only two or three meetings with follow-up meetings (cutting two years from the process, but instead they chose to have dozens of extra meetings greatly lengthening the process. Was it to increase democracy? No. It was so they can give each group the answers it thought they wanted to hear, rather than giving the same answers to everyone. Even with all the outreach meetings, DOT still never replied to the question from CB 15 of how many parking spaces would be eliminated. All they would say was that it wouldn't be "significant." One with think that after three years of meticulous study, they at least would have that answer a few months before implementation. They didn't. Page 11 of this 2013 report, the same year Nostrand SBS was implemented, pegs "the overall project cost" as $15 million. http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/brt-routes-fullreport.pdf There is no mention of ongoing additional operating costs of $3 million a year which was requested of the MTA Board. (An earlier MTA report states that the additional annual operating costs are in excess of $6 million.) So not mentioning additional operating costs IS JUST DISHONEST. Now do you want the link showing approved federal, state, and local funding? This source says the project cost is $40.2 million. http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp Another MTA report states the cost as $44.7 million. And Page 263 of this report states it as between $32 million and $50 million. http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp SO KINDLY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NYC DOT LIED TO THE PUBLIC TO GET APPROVAL SAYING THE TOTAL PROJECT COST IS ONLY $15 MILLION? And they get away with it. Go to Page 263 of this link. Okay, so what am I misreading this time? |
|
| (322176) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:25:57 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 20:01:31 2017. I agree. One pedestrian injury in forty years constitutes a dangerous street where the speed limit must be lowered.Similarly one pedestrian fatality in forty years definitely indicates an unsafe street warranting a lower speed limit without any investigation if speed was even a factor in either accident. PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK. You can look up any street in the city and you will probably find one pedestrian injury or fatality on any given street. So I guess by that standard, every single street can be considered dangerous. And your justification for lowering the speed limit that your chance of survival improves with a lower speed limit, is only try if everyone actually abides by the lower speed limit. In most cases, they do not, because in many cases it does not make sense. Most drivers drive at a safe speed. |
|
| (322177) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:26:37 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 20:03:08 2017. Of course, that is not possible. |
|
| (322178) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:37:39 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:17:53 2017. I know exactly what induced demand is. It is an increase in the number vehicles resulting from increasing road capacity or an excess capacity. We are not talking about increasing capacity and Woodhaven certainly was not under utilized when it had five lanes each way. It was used at capacity.<The past and future reductions in capacity result in longer trip times, more traffic, more air pollution, more traffic congestion, more driver impatience and pedestrian conflicts. Traffic volumes may however decrease as cars seek other routes further congesting those roadways. So that is not a good thing either. Reduced capacity reduces demand. That said, it is far from obvious that capacity is actually being reduced. So since there was no excess capacity and no increase in road capacity is planned, induced demand is not relevant to this discussion. You obviously do not know what induced demand is. And if capacity is being reduced, demand will be reduced. The other half of induced demand. Now I am not saying it is relevant to the reality here, as I am accepting neither that all of the existing capacity is used, nor that there will be a real capacity reduction, but if both are in fact true, induced demand is certainly a relevant concept. You stated that only me and those in my bubble oppose SBS on Woodhaven. When I explained that two community boards also agree with me, you just dismiss them as being insignificant and not indicative of "popularity." So I guess your position is that they are bunch of idiots who do not at all represent what the community wants. So I guess when CB9 took a vote of the hundred people in attendance at one of their meetings asking who is in favor of SBS and who is opposed, it is also irrelevant that only one person out of a hundred said he was in favor of SBS and over 100 were opposed. Yes, polls taken at an anti-transit venue will often result in anti-transit results. Of course, you will now state that they are the only hundred people who oppose it and the thousands in favor didn't bother attending the meeting. Of course you don't need any proof to allege that because you are R30A. Never made such a claim. I just said the contrary is not based in reality. I am sure the VRA wasn't that happy at KKK meetings. Of course, the fact that at least three elected " have come out against SBS on Woodhaven means nothing to you either. What is your argument there? They are only three individuals speaking for themselves and their opinions don't reflect the opinions of those they were elected to represent? Very much so. Views of elected officials often do not represent substantial portions of the electorate. You realize 3 isn't a high number? Downsides? I wrote a report with 35 pages of downsides. But you would only discount everything in that report. Yes, as it is largely filled with false statements, irrelevant statements, false assumptions, and misinterpretations "Poor maintenance of SBS roadway markings has nothing to do with SBS?" Are you joking. Of course it does. When the roadway is not marked as was the case on Nostrand Avenue in Sheepshead Bay and the signs are so small that they illegible unless you are doing no more than 10 mph and unsuspecting drivers are receiving summonses because of that, it certainly is an indication OF POOR EXECUTION OF THE PLAN. That is POOR MAINTENANCE. That is a problem with streets REGARDLESS OF SBS. And the project was two years late not because of funding problems. It was late because DOT met with each business association separately rather than together and still did what it wanted to do anyway. Of course you will say that was good thing. It really wasn't. They could have met with all of them in only two or three meetings with follow-up meetings (cutting two years from the process, but instead they chose to have dozens of extra meetings greatly lengthening the process. And if they didnt do that, you'd complain that they rammed it through without taking enough opinions. Was it to increase democracy? No. It was so they can give each group the answers it thought they wanted to hear, rather than giving the same answers to everyone. Different audiences have different relevant answers to their questions. Even with all the outreach meetings, DOT still never replied to the question from CB 15 of how many parking spaces would be eliminated. All they would say was that it wouldn't be "significant." One with think that after three years of meticulous study, they at least would have that answer a few months before implementation. They didn't. Perhaps it is not yet determined as to the exact number? Page 11 of this 2013 report, the same year Nostrand SBS was implemented, pegs "the overall project cost" as $15 million. http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/downloads/pdf/brt-routes-fullreport.pdf There is no mention of ongoing additional operating costs of $3 million a year which was requested of the MTA Board. (An earlier MTA report states that the additional annual operating costs are in excess of $6 million.) So not mentioning additional operating costs IS JUST DISHONEST. Now do you want the link showing approved federal, state, and local funding? This source says the project cost is $40.2 million. http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp Another MTA report states the cost as $44.7 million. And Page 263 of this report states it as between $32 million and $50 million. http://usdotblog.typepad.com/secretarysblog/2012/11/new-york-looks-to-the-future-with-nostrand-avenue-brt.html#.WHrJNIWcFjp SO KINDLY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NYC DOT LIED TO THE PUBLIC TO GET APPROVAL SAYING THE TOTAL PROJECT COST IS ONLY $15 MILLION? And they get away with it. Go to Page 263 of this link. Okay, so what am I misreading this time? Prices go up over time? Differing scope being referred to? Any number of possible rational explanations? |
|
| (322179) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:43:43 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 20:25:57 2017. 5.85 collisions per month. More than half of the Collisions on Flatbush south of Kings Highway. It is possible I missed an intersection, but it appears to have the most collisions of any intersection within a mile radius. |
|
| (322180) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 14 21:11:07 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:56:45 2017. Apropos of absolutely nothing, 3rd Ave in Manhattan from 8th Street to 24th is a 2-way avenue which has permanently implemented progressive lights in the uptown direction (which makes sense, since north of 24th it is 1-way uptown). |
|
| (322181) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 21:49:40 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Sat Jan 14 21:11:07 2017. Makes sense. |
|
| (322182) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 21:52:25 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by JerBear on Wed Jan 11 14:19:11 2017. The section near Union Turnpike has been striped off for at least a year.I am not too sure about Woodhaven south of Atlantic and between Jamaica and Park Lane South. That could be more recent but I believe all were striped off before last summer. |
|
| (322183) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 21:54:34 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:44:21 2017. And when would that statement not be true? |
|
| (322184) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:03:23 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:41:39 2017. I didn't say there aren't loads of synchronized signals. Yes there certainly are a lot of them.So let me take a page out of your book. THE VAST MAJORITY OF STREETS DO NOT HAVE THEIR SIGNALS SYNCHRONIZED. I would estimate the percentage of street miles that are not synchronized are over 80 percent. So my point still stands that virtually no one makes their entire trip on a synchronized street without making any turns so that part of their trip is on unsyncronized streets. SO YOUR CLAIM IS RIDICULOUS. Making or missing a signal is the second most important factor affecting average speed. Only traffic would be more important. And the speed limit would be third. No one said it was the only thing or the mist mportant thing affecting speed. So quit putting words in my mouth and trying to twist what I am saying to substantiate the ridiculous points you are trying to make. |
|
| (322185) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:10:59 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:47:47 2017. Not all people speed, then wait at each light resulting in them making the same average speed. They are the exceptions not the rule.And that scenario only applies to synchronized roads anyway and the vast majority of streets do not have their signals synchronized. BUT EVERY STREET IS SUBJECT TO A LOWER SPEED LIMIT. 30 was lowered to 25. 35 was lowered to 30. And 45 was lowered 35. And reducing the average speed has many negative outcomes. All trip length times are lengthened and that includes those in buses. Non-revenue bus trip times are also lengthened. That costs the MTA more money worsening their deficit. Truck travel times are increased increasing costs which are then passed to the consumer. |
|
| (322186) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:15:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:43:43 2017. So you are saying that more than half the collisions on Flatbush south of Kings Highway occurred between Avenue U and where? The Belt or the toll booth?And what percentage of miles on Flatbush below Kings Highway is also below Avenue U? Would you also say more than half? |
|
| (322187) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 22:37:55 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 21:54:34 2017. When it isn't true!When lowering the top speed also reduces the amount of time spent at a lower than average speed. |
|
| (322188) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 22:48:24 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:03:23 2017. I didn't say there aren't loads of synchronized signals. Yes there certainly are a lot of them.So let me take a page out of your book. THE VAST MAJORITY OF STREETS DO NOT HAVE THEIR SIGNALS SYNCHRONIZED. I would estimate the percentage of street miles that are not synchronized are over 80 percent. So my point still stands that virtually no one makes their entire trip on a synchronized street without making any turns so that part of their trip is on unsyncronized streets. SO YOUR CLAIM IS RIDICULOUS. Source? The vast majority of high volume one way streets appear to have synchronization to me. Large number of trips do stay almost entirely on these streets. So yes, it is not only not ridiculous, it is blatantly true that a significant number of people could be unaffected by such a change. Making or missing a signal is the second most important factor affecting average speed. Only traffic would be more important. And the speed limit would be third. These things aren't rankable No one said it was the only thing or the mist mportant thing affecting speed. So quit putting words in my mouth and trying to twist what I am saying to substantiate the ridiculous points you are trying to make. I never said you said that. Furthermore, it is incredibly hypocritical of you to make such a statement. |
|
| (322189) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 22:54:43 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:10:59 2017. Not all people speed, then wait at each light resulting in them making the same average speed. They are the exceptions not the rule.Nobody said otherwise And that scenario only applies to synchronized roads anyway and the vast majority of streets do not have their signals synchronized. How many streets does not really matter. How much of the volume is on them is what matters. That is pretty clearly a high portion in reality if you stop and look. But what matters is whether BUT EVERY STREET IS SUBJECT TO A LOWER SPEED LIMIT. 30 was lowered to 25. 35 was lowered to 30. And 45 was lowered 35. And it needs to be lowered further. But yes, lowering the speed limit is not enough. Roads need to be engineered for lower speeds too. And reducing the average speed has many negative outcomes. All trip length times are lengthened and that includes those in buses. That is why you put in bus lanes! To solve the problem! Non-revenue bus trip times are also lengthened. That costs the MTA more money worsening their deficit. Probably insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Bus lanes on the active parts of routes would likely more than make up for this. Truck travel times are increased increasing costs which are then passed to the consumer. Again, almost certainly insignificant on a per unit basis. |
|
| (322191) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:59:23 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 20:37:39 2017. And how would you know that reduced capacity on Queens Boulevard reduces demand? I already stated that traffic volumes would probably be decreased. That would be because traffic is diverted to other routes. Not because demand is lessened with a few discretionary trips just not being made like fewer visits to relatives. so in most cases demand would not be reduced. Traffic volumes on one street does not equate with demand when there are multiple routes available which is the case most everywhere here.And the community board meeting was not an anti-transit venue. If you watch the video of the meeting you will see that numerous people asked for improved bus and transit service. Being anti-SBS on Woodhaven does not equate with being anti-transit. You can state that most of the people in the area are for SBS and it is meaningless that virtually everyone at the meeting who are against it was the exception to the general population, but you don't have a shred of evidence to back that up. It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. Different audiences who ask different questions shoukd get different answers. But the same question asked at each meeting should get the same answer. That is If each area asks how many parking spaces will be eliminated, the answer for each area will be different, but the total number remains the same. By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project. So you are saying that they still didn't know how many parking spaces they would be eliminating until they actually eliminated them because they never even bothered counting them. They coukd get the same number of opinions with fewer meetings. I would not have made that complaint as long as they answered all the questions asked of them. It is obvious they did not. When she one complained to me about there not being an Avenue R stop after implementation, I told her the time to ask for it was at the workshops before implementation. She responded that she attended every one of them and brought it up each time and was told they will look at it. In the end, they omitted it without giving any reasons until elected officials made a big stink out of it and then their reasons were not sufficient. They said not enough passengers were transferring at Avenue R to merit a stop there. However, they also needed to count non-transferring passengers as well as passengers boarding at Quentin and Avenue S as well to make a determination, because in all likelihood many of this passengers would also walk to Avenue R and use that stop if it were SBS. Prices go up over time? Guess that explains why in 2011, the MTA stated the project costed $44.7 million and in 2013, it cost only $15 million. Thanks for clearing that up. It also explains why "total project cost" does not include additional annual operating costs. Guess the MTA has their own definition of the word "total." So what are the possible rationale explanations to explain a decrease in price by two thirds? And what became of all that extra money that was never spent? And you have the nerve to call me dishonest. It is obvious who is being dishonest here and by not admitting they lied about the costs just to get public approval, you are no better than they are. You asked me for the links insinuating that I was lying by pointing out the discrepancies if I didn't provide them. So I gave you the links, and you still won't admit THEY LIED. I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct. That's why I won't post the pictures of inadequate signage and totally worn out pavement markings because you already stated that it is no indication of poor execution. So with you it does not matter what evidence is presented, you just ignore all evidence so as not to change your claims and keep claiming there is no data or the data is inadequate when I am making a point. but all your unsubstantiated facts are true because you are the one who makes them. People can see right through you. |
|
| (322192) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:04:38 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:15:21 2017. So you are saying that more than half the collisions on Flatbush south of Kings Highway occurred between Avenue U and where? The Belt or the toll booth?More than half of the collisions on Flatbush south of Kings Highway occurred at the specific intersection (I suppose set of intersections...) of Shore Pkway and Flatbush. So I guess if you want to make it into sections, whatever section contains the belt interchange has the highest number of collisions. And what percentage of miles on Flatbush below Kings Highway is also below Avenue U? Would you also say more than half? Look it up. I may later, but don't see the relevance right now. |
|
| (322193) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 23:25:17 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:04:38 2017. We were talking about the need to lower the speed limit south of Avenue U since there are very few pedestrians and the intersections are spaced far apart.The relevance is that if the portion of Flatush south of Avenue U is greater in distance than the portion between Kings Highway and the Belt, it would make perfect sense for there to be more accidents south of Avenue U than north of it and would not indicate that portion of the roadway is less safe than the portion north of Avenue U. |
|
| (322194) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:30:01 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:59:23 2017. And how would you know that reduced capacity on Queens Boulevard reduces demand? I already stated that traffic volumes would probably be decreased. That would be because traffic is diverted to other routes. Not because demand is lessened with a few discretionary trips just not being made like fewer visits to relatives. so in most cases demand would not be reduced. Traffic volumes on one street does not equate with demand when there are multiple routes available which is the case most everywhere here.Despite claims to the contrary, you still clearly do not understand induced demand. People would likely take up other modes. And the community board meeting was not an anti-transit venue. If you watch the video of the meeting you will see that numerous people asked for improved bus and transit service. Being anti-SBS on Woodhaven does not equate with being anti-transit. Yes, the community board is quite clearly anti transit considering their complaints here. Advocating against the greatest transit improvement in Queens since Archer Avenue is certainly an anti transit stance. You can state that most of the people in the area are for SBS and it is meaningless that virtually everyone at the meeting who are against it was the exception to the general population, but you don't have a shred of evidence to back that up. It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made. Different audiences who ask different questions shoukd get different answers. But the same question asked at each meeting should get the same answer. That is If each area asks how many parking spaces will be eliminated, the answer for each area will be different, but the total number remains the same. By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project. More conspiracy nonsense. So you are saying that they still didn't know how many parking spaces they would be eliminating until they actually eliminated them because they never even bothered counting them. No. They coukd get the same number of opinions with fewer meetings. I would not have made that complaint as long as they answered all the questions asked of them. It is obvious they did not. I doubt the MTA will ever answer your questions. There is nothing to be gained by doing so. Engaging a raving lunatic rarely ends well for anybody. When she one complained to me about there not being an Avenue R stop after implementation, I told her the time to ask for it was at the workshops before implementation. She responded that she attended every one of them and brought it up each time and was told they will look at it. In the end, they omitted it without giving any reasons until elected officials made a big stink out of it and then their reasons were not sufficient. Who is to say they didn't look at it? They said not enough passengers were transferring at Avenue R to merit a stop there. However, they also needed to count non-transferring passengers as well as passengers boarding at Quentin and Avenue S as well to make a determination, because in all likelihood many of this passengers would also walk to Avenue R and use that stop if it were SBS. You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.) Prices go up over time? Guess that explains why in 2011, the MTA stated the project costed $44.7 million and in 2013, it cost only $15 million. Thanks for clearing that up. It also explains why "total project cost" does not include additional annual operating costs. Guess the MTA has their own definition of the word "total." So what are the possible rationale explanations to explain a decrease in price by two thirds? And what became of all that extra money that was never spent? And you have the nerve to call me dishonest. Perhaps one was including the cost of buses and one wasn't? Perhaps one was including the incremental cost of adding SBS vs the total cost of SBS support divided over the total? Plenty of logical potential explanations. It is obvious who is being dishonest here and by not admitting they lied about the costs just to get public approval, you are no better than they are. Or, one of the other of dozens of more rational explanations. You realize, if they were lying to make it look like the spent less, they would probably be CONSISTENT in their lies, and not release higher figures? You asked me for the links insinuating that I was lying by pointing out the discrepancies if I didn't provide them. So I gave you the links, and you still won't admit THEY LIED. Because there is no reason to assume they lied. I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct. It certainly makes a difference. I knew you were incorrect, but now I know WHY you are incorrect here. That's why I won't post the pictures of inadequate signage and totally worn out pavement markings because you already stated that it is no indication of poor execution. I would hope this means you are learning, but by now I have learned such would be overly optimistic to the point of foolishness. So with you it does not matter what evidence is presented, you just ignore all evidence so as not to change your claims and keep claiming there is no data or the data is inadequate when I am making a point. I do not ignore evidence. I never receive evidence from you to ignore. Yes, you almost universally use no data or inadequate data(or absolutely irrelevant data) when you are trying to make a point. but all your unsubstantiated facts are true because you are the one who makes them. I don't deal with unsubstantiated facts. That is why I am usually not wrong. People can see right through you. I certainly hope so! I am pretty simple to see through. Pro transit, Pro pedestrian safety. |
|
| (322195) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 23:31:41 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 22:37:55 2017. And why would lowering the speed limit cause you to spend less time traveling at the lower than average speed? It would increase the amount of time you are traveling at lower than the average speed. |
|
| (322196) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:52:31 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 23:31:41 2017. If the signals are timed appropriately for the new speed!How many times do I have to repeat this???? Lowering the speed resulting in reduction of accidents in areas with frequent accidents can reduce the amount of time stuck in traffic while the accidents are cleared. |
|
| (322198) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 15 00:09:25 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 14 20:01:31 2017. Why are you including an accident at Avenue U and Mill Avenue as part of rebuttal to his claims about Flatbush Avenue? |
|
| (322199) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 15 06:57:29 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 15 00:09:25 2017. As noted in my post, plot the geographic coordinates. They lie in the middle of the median on Flatbush Ave.There are many problems with NYPD's collision reports. The form locates all collisions at an intersection. It's up to the P.O. to decide which was the travel street and which was the cross street. Thus a collision within Flatbush & Ave U intersection could be recorded as on Flatbush @ Ave U or on Ave U @ Flatbush. |
|
| (322219) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 16 19:01:04 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jan 11 12:37:06 2017. So they will become even more hazardous with narrower lanes. Why wou,d enforcement increase? |
|
| (322220) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 16 19:04:31 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Jan 11 13:20:01 2017. I was not talking about double length trailers because I know where and when they are allowed. The width remains the same. Stephen said it as 8 1/2 feet wide, about the same as a bus. Neither can safely travel in a nine foot wide lane. That was my point. |
|
| (322221) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Mon Jan 16 19:19:53 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 18:26:38 2017. Apparently you don't. But then logic has never been your strong suit. |
|
| (322222) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Mon Jan 16 19:21:08 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 14 18:24:47 2017. Crime? What does that have to do with anything.You're accusing me of supporting the broken windows theory, and apparently you don't even know what it's about! |
|
| (322223) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 16 19:35:25 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 14 19:00:17 2017. Sure it would. Treating hypertension in an emergency room setting instead of on a regular basis is an economic activity that doesn't actually benefit society.Decreasing economic activity by treating the patient on a regular, low cost, basis so he never ends up in the emergency room reduces medical economic activity but is good for society. |
|
| (322224) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 16 19:50:34 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 16 19:04:31 2017. Stephen said it as 8 1/2 feet wide, about the same as a bus. Neither can safely travel in a nine foot wide lane. That was my point.No, it can travel safely - just not as fast. That's what narrow lanes do. They force drivers to drive more slowly. |
|
| (322225) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Mon Jan 16 19:50:57 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Mon Jan 16 19:35:25 2017. I think I understand Spider-Pig's objection to this particular example: Because pharmaceuticals are absurdly expensive, treating someone regularly with drugs for hypertension might actually not be cheaper than treating an occasional hypertension attack at the ER.Of course, this ignores the fact that leaving the condition untreated would probably result in a cardiac event of some kind that might well prove fatal or require early retirement, which would result in a much more significant reduction in economic activity. Also, my argument was actually that rather than treating a condition regularly, it's much, much cheaper to actually prevent the condition from occurring in the first place. |
|
|
Page 8 of 11 |
||