Home · Maps · About

Home > BusChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10>> : Last

< Previous Page  

Page 10 of 11

Next Page >  

(322512)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:22:38 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:30:01 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr

"Despite claims to the contrary, you still clearly do not understand induced demand. People would likely take up other modes."

I know exactly what induced demand is. People would only take other modes if those other modes improved which they haven't so they would most likely stay in their cars and use alternate slower routes further clogging up those streets and making fewer discretionary trips.

"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."

Again, you are just making things up. Anyone watching that video would conclude that they care very much about improving transit. It's just that they believe SBS is not the way to do that. Virtually everyone I hear from has a negative SBS comment for me. Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.

How many others fall into that category? There are certainly more half mile trips like his than there are trips from the first stop to the last stop where passengers can save 15 minutes. No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases. The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems. It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either. Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.

"It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."

So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS. If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.

"By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project.
More conspiracy nonsense."

Keep throwing in buzzwords like "conspiracy" because we all know that conspiracy equals crazy. And why should they be able to avoid answering questions that pertain to the entire project? They shouldn't be able to avoid answering any questions.

Me: 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.
You: No.

Me: So what are you saying?

"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."

Another tactic of yours when you have no legitimate answer to a question. Attack the questioner.

"Who is to say they didn't look at it?"

I didn't say they didn't look at adding the Avenue R stop. I said they didn't do a proper analysis and they only gave reasons after elected officials got involved. She should have been answered at the second or third workshop she attended, not being continually told they will look at it.

Me: 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: You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.)

I certainly did provide justification. They admitted to only looking at transferring passengers at Avenue R and non-transferring passengers boarding there to base their conclusion that ridership would be to little for an SBS stop. That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained. Additionally, usage isn't the only factor. IT is also important that the nearest SBS stop in either direction is one half mile away, a distance too great to expect someone to walk since some may also be walking a quarter mile or more just to reach the bus stop at Avenue R. So asking them to walk three quarters of a mile to the bus is just ridiculous as is taking the local and changing for the express when that would entail an addition fare for some.


Me: 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.

You: 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.

Me: So now that I discounted your first explanation that prices went up over time, let us assume for the moment your explanation is correct. So why would you include the cost of buses when requesting and receiving money from the feds, but omit the cost of the buses when you are trying to get community support? It is obvious the lower figures were used in all cases for the communities to make the project seem more cost effective. That is why they conveniently failed to mention the increased operating costs at every community meeting and in all their documentation. THAT IS PLAIN DISHONESTY AND OIT IS MISLEADING AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS.

"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?"

The higher figures were hidden in technical reports not easy to obtain. The lower figures were presented at meetings and on their website.

Me: 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.

You: Because there is no reason to assume they lied.

Me: There is every reason to believe they lied as I have just shown you.

Me: I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct.

You: It certainly makes a difference. I knew you were incorrect, but now I know WHY you are incorrect here.

Me: You can only state I am incorrect which means nothing since I have provided you with proof of deception which you just discounted. When providing total costs, it is essential that you provide the initial capital costs as well as the ongoing operating costs. Providing only the former is incorrect and not a true representation of total costs. It is intentional deception.

Me: 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.

You: I would hope this means you are learning, but by now I have learned such would be overly optimistic to the point of foolishness.

Me: Learning what? That trying to have a fair and honest discussion with you is just not possible? Yes I have learned that which is why responding to you ridiculous posts is no longer a priority of mine. I do it when I have nothing more important to do which is why my responses this time are two weeks late. Worn out pavement markings and inadequate signage certainly are examples of poor execution.

Me: 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.

You: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.

Me: You just ignored the proof I provided in my links how DOT was deliberately dishonest when conveying cost figures to the communities by providing ridiculous explanations. They are also dishonest by not providing estimated time savings for a typical passenger, but rely on bus trip time savings when that only benefits the MTA, not the bus rider since practically no one rides from the first to the last stop of an SBS route to take full advantage of bus travel time savings. If you go back to original documents you will find they did state the average Bx12 SBS rider will save five minutes and the average B44 SBS rider will save six minutes. But such small savings can in no way justify the many hundreds of millions extra it is costing to provide SBS service, so now all time savings are quoted from the first stop to the last stop only. THAT IS DISHONEST AND MISLEADING. When you publicly state bus trips are 20% quicker with SBS as DOT has stated, the assumption is that the average passenger trip is 20% quicker AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

You: I don't deal with unsubstantiated facts. That is why I am usually not wrong.

Me: Thanks for providing me with my laugh for today.

Me: People can see right through you.

You: I certainly hope so! I am pretty simple to see through. Pro transit, Pro pedestrian safety.

Me: I meant they can see through your BS.





(322513)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:27:31 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by JerBear on Tue Jan 17 09:16:49 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Your explanation is a rational one. But it makes certain assumptions which may or may not be correct. If correct, DOT has a responsibility to explain in a footnote perhaps how they derived at their costs. You shouldn't state city's portion of the costs and imply that is the TOTAL cost of the project. It also doesn't explain why you do not include ongoing costs as part of your total costs.

(322514)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 31 15:41:38 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 14:12:46 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Where is your proof that the majority of signals are synchronized?

Of course you don't have any because the opposite is true. They are only synchronized full time on major one-way avenues and on major two way streets in one firection only during peak hours. Those streets surely so not account for most of the street miles in NYC.


LOL. Signals can only be synchronized in one direction. If you could think up a pattern where signals are synchronized in a clear progression along the Manhattan Avenues while at the same time having a clear progression along the cross streets, you'd be a pretty amazing person.

My impression in the other 4 boroughs is that most major thoroughfares have basic synchronization but I could be wrong. However, in Manhattan, in the absence of malfunctions, I know from observation that almost every single signal is part of a planned progression along the north-south thoroughfares. There are malfunctions but there is very little evidence of other non-synchronization of signals on north-south thoroughfares.

There are of course some signals that can't be synchronized even in Manhattan. Consider Greenwich Ave and West 12th Street. You can't synchronize W 12th because it would interfere with Avenue synchronization, and you can't synchronize Greenwich Ave for the same reason. But that's an exception. Within the rectangular grid there are few such exceptions.









(322515)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:03:55 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 19:31:54 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"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."

All that is your opinion. It is not fact, so don't state it as such. The facts are that I am not advocating safety improvements for pedestrians or against something that would "greatly" improve bus service. The facts are that many believe that SBS as proposed on Woodhaven would make the street less safe for pedestrians who now may run across traffic without looking in order to catch a bus when they didn't have to do that before. Also, anyone who drives on Woodhaven knows traffic will be slower because it already is slower where the exclusive lanes have been installed,

Me: 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.

You: When there is nothing to say, why would saying nothing be in any way bad?

Me: Because saying nothing is avoiding answering the question and that is bad.

You: 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.)

Me: Why don't you just let him speak for himself? And now you go changing the parameters again as you often do when you realize you can't prove your case. Now you only want to talk about portions of the roadway instead of the entire roadway.

Me: 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.

You: I am making no such claim.

Me: So what are you claiming then?

You: Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas.
Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car.

Me: Wrong about what? I never claimed anything to the contrary.

Me: Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders?

You: Nobody is saying that it is.

Me: That is exactly what fdtutf was saying.

Me: That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data.

You: Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location.

Me: So either you accuse me of having no data, and when I do provide data, you just claim it is irrelevant. There is no way to bw right when arguing with you. Because all your opinions are facts and all my facts are just wrong opinions. And when you cant refute an argument, you just deny making the argument in the first place. That us why trying to have honest discussions with you is not possible and trying to have them is a waste of time.

You: 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!!

Me: Your arithmetic is simplistic and off. 20% of the users (bus users) getting 25% of the space is not equitable. It means cars get less space than they have now so traffic has to move slower unless significant numbers switch from car to bus and we have zero reason to believe that would be the case. Even DOT has not claimed anyone will switch from car to bus just because of SBS. It also assumes that the proportion of car and bus users remains the same through out the day which certainly is not the case. During midday, evenings and most weekends, the proportion of those in autos compared to those in buses reaches 95%, yet they still are allowed to use only 80% of the roadway. During off-hours the average bus has like 15 passengers or less, yet you would like us to believe that every bus carries 60 people. But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.

Me: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.

You: 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.

Me: Yes, whenever you can't provide justification for your argument after I have shown you how ridiculous some of your claims are, you just backtrack and claim never to have made the argument in the first place. Why not just admit you were wrong? That will be the day. Because you believe you are never wrong. And yes DOT can claim all they want SBS will help those in cars and they will be wrong as they often are. We have already seen traffic congestion increase and it will continue to increase. I am just glad I no longer need to use the street on a daily basis. My trips used to average 45 minutes to an hour. Today those same trips take 55 to 70 minutes. After SBS, it will be more like 65 or 70 minutes up tp 90 minutes, the same as a subway trip takes me during the day. So yes, if we keep slowing traffic to the point where using mass transit is just as slow, some will start switching to mass transit. Is that the plan you endorse?



(322516)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:05:49 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Mon Jan 16 19:19:53 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Says you.

(322517)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 31 16:07:37 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Tue Jan 31 15:41:38 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I think it would be good for us to clarify that there are other types of synchronization besides just having one light turn green after the other as a given vehicle reaches each one.

For example, when a bunch of lights change at the exact same time, they are synchronized with each other, even if not progressive. In this case, cars in both directions can (ideally) get through a few intersections on one green because all of the lights are green at the same time.

(322518)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 16:13:12 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 14:12:46 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"Proof" Is that the only thing you can say?
No. I believe I have demonstrated that it isn't in many posts, including within this very sentence!

Why is it that I have to prove every statement I make and you don't have to prove anything?
Because you tend to make assertions without any basis in reality. I avoid making such.

Where is your proof that the majority of signals are synchronized?
Where is my claim that the majority of signals are synchronized?

Of course you don't have any because the opposite is true.
Proof? (Relevance?)

They are only synchronized full time on major one-way avenues and on major two way streets in one firection only during peak hours. Those streets surely so not account for most of the street miles in NYC.
And how are street miles relevant in any way? Does not take into account usage.

And the signals that are synchronized for the north south avenues are not synchronized for the cross streets, so even those signals are not fully synchronized.
Nobody is saying otherwise.

And is certainly is relevant to the point because your entire theory that the lower speed limit does not lower the average speed is based on the premise that most signals are fully synchronized when in fact none are.
0/3. I never said that lower speed limits don't lower average speed, and I never based it on the premise that most signals are fully synchronized, nor does it have any relevance to what I actually stated.

And you make it appear that traveling a few miles over the speed limit is the major factor for accidents when that certainly is not the case.
Considering the steep slope of survival curves at the speed limit, traveling a few miles over the speed limit IS THE MAJOR FACTOR with regards to pedestrian survival near to the speed limit.

It's those going excessively fast which has nothing to do with the lower speed limit since they would be speeding regardless.
Yes, but now you can legally enforce it!

The only thing that more cameras will do is increase the amount of revenue the city collects by those traveling at 36 or 37 mph.
Any deterrence is worth it if it makes money. Generating revenue is worthwhile on its own.

As far as harsher penalties, that has to be done on a case by case basis. Tell me what would you do to that 85 year old man you killed a lady while backing up besides taking away his license? Would you fine him a few thousand dollars to make him more careful or lock him up for the rest of his life?
Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore Manslaughter based on the age of the perpetrator?

Yes we need better policing and more thorough investigations. I am all for that as well as retesting all drivers periodically like every time they renew their license. A written test for younger drivers and a road test for older drivers.
No disagreement here!

But you emphasis with the need to keep lowering the speed limit is utter nonsense because it won't accomplish anything.
Proof?

Queens Blvd had no pedestrian fatalities last year not because the speed limit was lowered but because fencing was installed in the center median preventing midblock crossings by jaywalkers and clearer marked crosswalks.
Proof?

We need a multi-faceted sensible approach.
Yes! So stop advocating against all attempts for such!


(322519)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 16:29:42 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 14:25:41 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I have made a number of statements and you responded with a statement like it only applies to a minority of the cases.


You are a master of changing your position.
I do not change my position unless I am presented with facts contrary to my position. As you have never presented me with such facts, I have never changed my position in a discussion in which you were involved.

After you failed to make the case that lowering the speed limit does not lower your average speed,
I both succeeded, and did not make such a claim.

your position now is that your point is only true on some streets.
My position never changed.

It is true on the vast majority of streets.
A. Proof?
B. Did not claim to the contrary.


I have already replied to your incessant requests for proof so I will not get into that again.
Yes, you have incessantly not provided any proof for any of your assertions.

And yes the goal by the city is to reduce speeds all over not only in some places.
Yes. THEY STATE SUCH OUTRIGHT.

They think by doing that fewer will drive.
Such is a worthy goal. And they are succeeding if you actually look at auto usage.

They won't without improved mass transit when people have to stand in crowded vehicles at all times of the day or night with service that may not be frequent enough.
That is why we need to improve service! (And why we are, and why people are switching to transit!)

You want the new average speed? I can only tell you what it is for me because my car keeps track of that every time I start my vehicle.
Wow! You are actually providing numbers which are conceivably real!!!!! IT IS AMAZING!!!!

It is between 7 and 12 mph hour when I am not on the highway. When I combine highway and city driving, it is between 19 and 27 mph. Do you think that is too fast?
The means are not relevant here. The extremes are!

Imagine how much lower it would be if I never exceeded the speed limit.
Oops. You just made it clear that the answer is yes to the above question.


(322520)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:31:11 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 31 16:07:37 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Correct. I forget the technical name for that. But I am finding there is less of that also. Where it used to be common to get five green signals in a row, now it is often no more than two greens and then one red. Even that would not be that bad if you don't have to wait for the entire red signal. What is annoying is the common practice in many places of a signal turning green just in time for the following signal to turn red. In my neighborhood there are three signals in a row where you have to wait for three complete red cycles. That is intentional and inexcusable.


(322521)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:38:53 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Tue Jan 31 15:41:38 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You are correct except for the point that most major thoroughfares have basic synchronization. Many do not. That includes the lower half of Nostrand Avenue and the entire Utica Avenue.

So you realize that for many or most streets,there is no synchronization which disproves R 30A's claim. He implied that since all Midtown Manhattan signals are synchronized, lowering the speed limit would not affect average speed, ignoring the fact that those signals are only synchronized for the avenues and not the crosstown streets. So even if trips would not be significantly slowed on the avenues because of synchronization. Speeds still would be slowed on the side streets when speeds are not limited by traffic.

(322522)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 31 17:03:27 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:38:53 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
LOL. Manhattan crosstown streets are typically limited by traffic even at 4 AM.

Being able to do 25 mph on a Manhattan crosstown street is an unbelievable pleasure. And 30 really isn't safe.

Other than the big ones like Houston, of course. I admit you can exceed 30 on those at many times of day.




(322523)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:05:55 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 16:13:12 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I never said that lower speed limits don't lower average speed, and I never based it on the premise that most signals are fully synchronized, nor does it have any relevance to what I actually stated.

You know what? I am through with this nonsense. Now you can talk to yourself. I will not go around in circles as you make points then deny you made them. What do you think precipitated this entire discussion?

It was you stating that lowering the speed limit does not mean a lower average speed limit. YOU DENY IT. And you have the nerve to call me old and senile. Are you going to deny saying that also? Apparently you are the one with a memory problem or else you are just lying. Go ahead ask me for proof. Well here it is. YOU SAID IT.

http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=322131

Now try to weasel out of it.

And when I asked you why, you responded with a comment that since signals on most streets are synchronized, lowering the speed limit does not affect average speed. Now you deny making that comment as well.

And as far as "proof"...

Me: Queens Blvd had no pedestrian fatalities last year not because the speed limit was lowered but because fencing was installed in the center median preventing midblock crossings by jaywalkers and clearer marked crosswalks.

You:

Proof?

Me: Just stand on Queens Blvd near 51st Avenue where I believe there is a digital overhead showing the speed you are traveling, you will see that whenever the street is not clogged with traffic, virtually everyone is exceeding the 25 mph speed limit. That means that since virtually no one is abiding by the lower speed limit, it couldn't possibly be a factor in reducing accidents and fatalities. That is jus common sense which you have none of. Of course you could argue that along the rest of the street where there are no digital displays most are abiding the speed limit there. Good luck with that argument.

I am not wasting my time replying to your other statements.





(322524)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 17:06:14 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:22:38 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"Despite claims to the contrary, you still clearly do not understand induced demand. People would likely take up other modes."
I know exactly what induced demand is. People would only take other modes if those other modes improved which they haven't so they would most likely stay in their cars and use alternate slower routes further clogging up those streets and making fewer discretionary trips.

You clearly still fail to understand induced demand. Increasing capacity increases demand. Lowering capacity lowers demand.

"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."
Again, you are just making things up. Anyone watching that video would conclude that they care very much about improving transit. It's just that they believe SBS is not the way to do that.

Yes, they oppose the creation of a viable bus system, so they are anti-transit.

Virtually everyone I hear from has a negative SBS comment for me.
Yes, Anti-transit statements tend to be made to anti-transit advocates.

Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.
This has nothing to do with SBS.

How many others fall into that category?
Wholly irrelevant.

There are certainly more half mile trips like his than there are trips from the first stop to the last stop where passengers can save 15 minutes.
Again, wholly irrelevant

No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases.
Except it has done the reverse.

The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.
Actually that would be 1.5 million, but that is not a relevant number as you have been told time and time again. Ridership went way up after SBS conversion.

It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either.
SAS Cost BILLIONS!!! Does that mean it makes no sense? A few million is a small price to pay for creating a functional service.

Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.
Improved ridership, Improved reliability, Decreased Runtime.

"It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."
So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS.

Correct.

If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.
Major logical fallacy.

"By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project.
More conspiracy nonsense."
Keep throwing in buzzwords like "conspiracy" because we all know that conspiracy equals crazy. And why should they be able to avoid answering questions that pertain to the entire project? They shouldn't be able to avoid answering any questions.

Yes, because it is crazy. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist.

Me: 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.
You: No.
Me: So what are you saying?

I am saying you are making unfounded accusations.

"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."
Another tactic of yours when you have no legitimate answer to a question. Attack the questioner.

If the question and questioner are absurd, There is nothing to be gained on their part. I believe they have correctly identified you in such a way. I believe that is why they do not respond to you.

(Gotta do stuff, will respond to the rest later.)

(322525)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:11:34 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by AlM on Tue Jan 31 17:03:27 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
The thing is Manhattan traffic is very unpredictable.

Sometimes you expect traffic and there is none but most of the time there is traffic when you least expect it which is why I try to avoid bringing my car into Manhattan at any time.

Saturday afternoon it took me 45 minutes to get across Manhattan on Houston Street and one time I went across 60th Street (or one of the parallel streets) from First Avenue to Sixth Avenue in about four minutes at 6 PM during the evening rush hour.

I was also stuck on a single block on Second Avenue on a Saturday night at 9 PM for 45 minutes near the Queensboro Bridge. Go figure.

(322527)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:45:32 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 17:06:14 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You clearly still fail to understand induced demand. Increasing capacity increases demand. Lowering capacity lowers demand.

Not entirely true. I already gave you the example of eliminating a bottleneck on the BQE 30 years ago resulted in much more free flowing traffic without any increase in demand. And lowering capacity on a street may lower demand on that street but will have little affect on overall demand shifted to other slower corridors.

Yes, Anti-transit statements tend to be made to anti-transit advocates.

The people making those comments are transit users. Why would transit users be anti-transit advocates." What you said makes zero sense because in your mind anyone who believes SBS is not a great idea is an anti-transit advocate.


Me: Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.

Me: You: This has nothing to do with SBS.

It has everything to do with SBS and every other SBS comment I made that you don't agree with, you claim is irrelevant because you can't refute them.

Me: No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases.

You: Except it has done the reverse.

Me: It definitely has not.

Me: The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.

You: Actually that would be 1.5 million, but that is not a relevant number as you have been told time and time again. Ridership went way up after SBS conversion.

Me: Where is the PROOF it was only $1.5 million? I know you don't need proof. You claiming it makes it a fact.

Me: It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either.

You: SAS Cost BILLIONS!!! Does that mean it makes no sense? A few million is a small price to pay for creating a functional service.

Me: de Blasio's plan is 20 routes. We are talking at least a half billion in capital costs and about $60 million a year in additional operating costs for less and less riders each year on most SBS routes.

Me: Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.

You: Improved ridership, Improved reliability, Decreased Runtime.

Me: Less ridership, no significant change in reliability. SBS buses bunch just as much as regular routes even with exclusive lanes. YEs, decreased runtime because of reduced bus stops causing increased walks to bus stops. It stands to reason that reducing service (i.e. eliminating bus stops would decrease running times. IT'S AVERAGE TRIP TIMES THAT MATTER TO THE BUS RIDERS NOT BUS RUNNING TIMES WHICH ONLY MATTER TO THE MTA.


You: "It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."

Me: So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS.

You: Correct.

Me: If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.

You: Major logical fallacy.

Me: No fallacy in logic. We can safely conclude that you support a plan that most people in the area oppose. Since you don't believe that most people support the plan, the converse must be true that you believe most are opposed to the plan. The only other possibility is that you won't commit to an estimate if more are for or are against the plan even though available evidence shows among those who spoke out who live in the area, the vast majority are opposed to the plan.

You :Yes, because it is crazy. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist.

Me: As I already have stated, when you can't logically argue the points, you attack the speaker.

Me: 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.

You: No.

Me: So what are you saying?

You: I am saying you are making unfounded accusations.

Me: So you are stating they did count the number of parking spaces they were removing but refusing to divulge that information three weeks before implementation when requested for that information by the Community Board, was proper.

You: If the question and questioner are absurd, There is nothing to be gained on their part. I believe they have correctly identified you in such a way. I believe that is why they do not respond to you.

Me: But your assumptions are incorrect. The questions were relevant and the questioner is someone regarded with great credibility. And your response does not explain why they would not respond to the Community Board with a proper response either. Are they not relevant also? Was the question they asked regarding the number of parking spaces to be removed not relevant also?

(322528)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 18:02:19 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:05:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
It was you stating that lowering the speed limit does not mean a lower average speed limit.
Assuming you mean lower average speed, not lower average speed limit, that is correct. I said it and it is a correct statement. That is not what I am denying I said.

YOU DENY IT.
I do not deny it. You cannot apparently comprehend what people write. That is part of what makes your statements so unreliable.
And you have the nerve to call me old and senile. Are you going to deny saying that also?
Why would I? You clearly are old and senile.

Apparently you are the one with a memory problem or else you are just lying. Go ahead ask me for proof. Well here it is. YOU SAID IT.
http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=322131
Now try to weasel out of it.

I have never denied making such a statement. You are unable to differentiate between the statement I made and the statement you think I made.

And when I asked you why, you responded with a comment that since signals on most streets are synchronized, lowering the speed limit does not affect average speed. Now you deny making that comment as well.
Correct, I deny making such a statement, as I did not make such a statement. (Your statement that I did make such a statement happens to be incorrect, however)

And as far as "proof"...
Me: Queens Blvd had no pedestrian fatalities last year not because the speed limit was lowered but because fencing was installed in the center median preventing midblock crossings by jaywalkers and clearer marked crosswalks.
You:
Proof?

(Preserved for clarity)
Me: Just stand on Queens Blvd near 51st Avenue where I believe there is a digital overhead showing the speed you are traveling, you will see that whenever the street is not clogged with traffic, virtually everyone is exceeding the 25 mph speed limit.
Ok, perhaps I'll do so when I have the time.

That means that since virtually no one is abiding by the lower speed limit, it couldn't possibly be a factor in reducing accidents and fatalities.
It very much does not mean that. Observations made in such a situation could not on their own indicate such.

That is jus common sense which you have none of.
Irony abounds!

Of course you could argue that along the rest of the street where there are no digital displays most are abiding the speed limit there.
I see no reason to assume such.

Good luck with that argument.
I never made that argument.

I am not wasting my time replying to your other statements.
lol



(322532)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 19:25:32 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:22:38 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"Who is to say they didn't look at it?"
I didn't say they didn't look at adding the Avenue R stop. I said they didn't do a proper analysis and they only gave reasons after elected officials got involved. She should have been answered at the second or third workshop she attended, not being continually told they will look at it.

There is no reason to believe that they did not do proper analysis based on anything you are saying here.

Me: 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: You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.)

I certainly did provide justification. They admitted to only looking at transferring passengers at Avenue R and non-transferring passengers boarding there to base their conclusion that ridership would be to little for an SBS stop.

Where do they admit to this?

That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained.
but there is no reason to assume they did such.

Additionally, usage isn't the only factor. IT is also important that the nearest SBS stop in either direction is one half mile away, a distance too great to expect someone to walk since some may also be walking a quarter mile or more just to reach the bus stop at Avenue R. So asking them to walk three quarters of a mile to the bus is just ridiculous as is taking the local and changing for the express when that would entail an addition fare for some.
Some stops end up being eliminated. Half a mile more isn't that much to walk for most people. And it is less for many people.


Me: 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.

You: 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.

Me: So now that I discounted your first explanation that prices went up over time, let us assume for the moment your explanation is correct. So why would you include the cost of buses when requesting and receiving money from the feds, but omit the cost of the buses when you are trying to get community support? It is obvious the lower figures were used in all cases for the communities to make the project seem more cost effective. That is why they conveniently failed to mention the increased operating costs at every community meeting and in all their documentation. THAT IS PLAIN DISHONESTY AND OIT IS MISLEADING AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS.

It isn't misleading at all. When upgrading lines, you can often get funding for aspects of the service that you would have to pay even without making the upgrades. Nothing at all dishonest.

"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?"
The higher figures were hidden in technical reports not easy to obtain. The lower figures were presented at meetings and on their website.

If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden.

Me: 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.

You: Because there is no reason to assume they lied.

Me: There is every reason to believe they lied as I have just shown you.

You have not demonstrated such

Me: I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct.

You: It certainly makes a difference. I knew you were incorrect, but now I know WHY you are incorrect here.

Me: You can only state I am incorrect which means nothing since I have provided you with proof of deception which you just discounted. When providing total costs, it is essential that you provide the initial capital costs as well as the ongoing operating costs. Providing only the former is incorrect and not a true representation of total costs. It is intentional deception.

You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.

Me: 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.

You: I would hope this means you are learning, but by now I have learned such would be overly optimistic to the point of foolishness.

Me: Learning what? That trying to have a fair and honest discussion with you is just not possible? Yes I have learned that which is why responding to you ridiculous posts is no longer a priority of mine. I do it when I have nothing more important to do which is why my responses this time are two weeks late. Worn out pavement markings and inadequate signage certainly are examples of poor execution.

Poor maintenance is not an issue related to execution. Your judgement of signage is of little consequence to reality.

Me: 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.
It does not matter what evidence is presented if all the evidence is fabricated and/or irrelevant.

You: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.

Me: You just ignored the proof I provided in my links how DOT was deliberately dishonest when conveying cost figures to the communities by providing ridiculous explanations. They are also dishonest by not providing estimated time savings for a typical passenger, but rely on bus trip time savings when that only benefits the MTA, not the bus rider since practically no one rides from the first to the last stop of an SBS route to take full advantage of bus travel time savings. If you go back to original documents you will find they did state the average Bx12 SBS rider will save five minutes and the average B44 SBS rider will save six minutes. But such small savings can in no way justify the many hundreds of millions extra it is costing to provide SBS service, so now all time savings are quoted from the first stop to the last stop only. THAT IS DISHONEST AND MISLEADING. When you publicly state bus trips are 20% quicker with SBS as DOT has stated, the assumption is that the average passenger trip is 20% quicker AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

When have they ever implied that? Cite it.

You: I don't deal with unsubstantiated facts. That is why I am usually not wrong.

Me: Thanks for providing me with my laugh for today.

I am glad reality entertains you so.

Me: People can see right through you.

You: I certainly hope so! I am pretty simple to see through. Pro transit, Pro pedestrian safety.

Me: I meant they can see through your BS.

Irony meter is rising again!



(322534)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 20:00:22 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:03:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Because saying nothing is avoiding answering the question and that is bad.
When there is no answer, questions should not be answered.
Why don't you just let him speak for himself?
He did. You just repeatedly misunderstand him and others.

And now you go changing the parameters again as you often do when you realize you can't prove your case. Now you only want to talk about portions of the roadway instead of the entire roadway.
Not changing any parameters.

Me: 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.

You: I am making no such claim.

Me: So what are you claiming then?

I am claiming you have no applicable data. I do not claim to have data that I do not have.

You: Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas.
Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car.
Me: Wrong about what? I never claimed anything to the contrary.

The Wrong was from you, so I have no idea what you are trying to say here

Me: Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders?

You: Nobody is saying that it is.

Me: That is exactly what fdtutf was saying.

No it isn't

Me: That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data.

You: Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location.

Me: So either you accuse me of having no data, and when I do provide data, you just claim it is irrelevant. There is no way to bw right when arguing with you. Because all your opinions are facts and all my facts are just wrong opinions. And when you cant refute an argument, you just deny making the argument in the first place. That us why trying to have honest discussions with you is not possible and trying to have them is a waste of time.

Most people I deal with are perfectly capable of having honest discussions with me. That is because most people I deal with are honest, unlike yourself.

You: 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!!
Me: Your arithmetic is simplistic and off. 20% of the users (bus users) getting 25% of the space is not equitable.

Considering that 4 lanes must be allocated in multiples of 25%, it is the most equitable way to allocate lanes.

It means cars get less space than they have now so traffic has to move slower unless significant numbers switch from car to bus and we have zero reason to believe that would be the case.
Capacity is not directly related to speed.
Even DOT has not claimed anyone will switch from car to bus just because of SBS.
They have not claimed otherwise either.
It also assumes that the proportion of car and bus users remains the same through out the day which certainly is not the case.


During midday, evenings and most weekends, the proportion of those in autos compared to those in buses reaches 95%, yet they still are allowed to use only 80% of the roadway.
By now you should realize, I am not going to let your bullshit fabricated statistics go without being challenged.

During off-hours the average bus has like 15 passengers or less, yet you would like us to believe that every bus carries 60 people.
More fabrications from Mr. Rosen!

But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.

I have never admitted such. I see no reason to assume such is true.

Me: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.
You: 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.
Me: Yes, whenever you can't provide justification for your argument after I have shown you how ridiculous some of your claims are, you just backtrack and claim never to have made the argument in the first place.

I have not backtracked. I have not changed my claims.

Why not just admit you were wrong? That will be the day. Because you believe you are never wrong.
I wasn't. I will never claim I am always right, but I have never seen myself be incorrect in disputing a claim of yours.

And yes DOT can claim all they want SBS will help those in cars and they will be wrong as they often are.
But there is no reason to assume so.

We have already seen traffic congestion increase and it will continue to increase.
I am just glad I no longer need to use the street on a daily basis.

My trips used to average 45 minutes to an hour. Today those same trips take 55 to 70 minutes.
Source?

After SBS, it will be more like 65 or 70 minutes up tp 90 minutes, the same as a subway trip takes me during the day.
More BrooklynBus NumbersfromtheRectum!

So yes, if we keep slowing traffic to the point where using mass transit is just as slow, some will start switching to mass transit. Is that the plan you endorse?
There is no reason to assume it will reduce car speed.

(322535)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 20:00:24 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 16:03:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Because saying nothing is avoiding answering the question and that is bad.
When there is no answer, questions should not be answered.
Why don't you just let him speak for himself?
He did. You just repeatedly misunderstand him and others.

And now you go changing the parameters again as you often do when you realize you can't prove your case. Now you only want to talk about portions of the roadway instead of the entire roadway.
Not changing any parameters.

Me: 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.

You: I am making no such claim.

Me: So what are you claiming then?

I am claiming you have no applicable data. I do not claim to have data that I do not have.

You: Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas.
Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car.
Me: Wrong about what? I never claimed anything to the contrary.

The Wrong was from you, so I have no idea what you are trying to say here

Me: Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders?

You: Nobody is saying that it is.

Me: That is exactly what fdtutf was saying.

No it isn't

Me: That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data.

You: Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location.

Me: So either you accuse me of having no data, and when I do provide data, you just claim it is irrelevant. There is no way to bw right when arguing with you. Because all your opinions are facts and all my facts are just wrong opinions. And when you cant refute an argument, you just deny making the argument in the first place. That us why trying to have honest discussions with you is not possible and trying to have them is a waste of time.

Most people I deal with are perfectly capable of having honest discussions with me. That is because most people I deal with are honest, unlike yourself.

You: 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!!
Me: Your arithmetic is simplistic and off. 20% of the users (bus users) getting 25% of the space is not equitable.

Considering that 4 lanes must be allocated in multiples of 25%, it is the most equitable way to allocate lanes.

It means cars get less space than they have now so traffic has to move slower unless significant numbers switch from car to bus and we have zero reason to believe that would be the case.
Capacity is not directly related to speed.
Even DOT has not claimed anyone will switch from car to bus just because of SBS.
They have not claimed otherwise either.
It also assumes that the proportion of car and bus users remains the same through out the day which certainly is not the case.


During midday, evenings and most weekends, the proportion of those in autos compared to those in buses reaches 95%, yet they still are allowed to use only 80% of the roadway.
By now you should realize, I am not going to let your bullshit fabricated statistics go without being challenged.

During off-hours the average bus has like 15 passengers or less, yet you would like us to believe that every bus carries 60 people.
More fabrications from Mr. Rosen!

But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.

I have never admitted such. I see no reason to assume such is true.

Me: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.
You: 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.
Me: Yes, whenever you can't provide justification for your argument after I have shown you how ridiculous some of your claims are, you just backtrack and claim never to have made the argument in the first place.

I have not backtracked. I have not changed my claims.

Why not just admit you were wrong? That will be the day. Because you believe you are never wrong.
I wasn't. I will never claim I am always right, but I have never seen myself be incorrect in disputing a claim of yours.

And yes DOT can claim all they want SBS will help those in cars and they will be wrong as they often are.
But there is no reason to assume so.

We have already seen traffic congestion increase and it will continue to increase.
I am just glad I no longer need to use the street on a daily basis.

My trips used to average 45 minutes to an hour. Today those same trips take 55 to 70 minutes.
Source?

After SBS, it will be more like 65 or 70 minutes up tp 90 minutes, the same as a subway trip takes me during the day.
More BrooklynBus NumbersfromtheRectum!

So yes, if we keep slowing traffic to the point where using mass transit is just as slow, some will start switching to mass transit. Is that the plan you endorse?
There is no reason to assume it will reduce car speed.

(322537)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by JerBear on Wed Feb 1 09:46:52 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:27:31 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Do they have that responsibility? If whomever they are presenting it to already knows how the numbers are derived, and the staff knows... I mean, I understand that you want a project budget listed somewhere, and in lieu of that you're trying to piece the numbers together yourself from various reports...
But doesn't this fall under the category of "If only government was more transparent..."?
Giving the public detailed explanations of project budgets just doesn't seem like something government does.

(322538)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by JerBear on Wed Feb 1 09:52:37 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:45:32 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"I already gave you the example of eliminating a bottleneck on the BQE 30 years ago resulted in much more free flowing traffic without any increase in demand. And lowering capacity on a street may lower demand on that street but will have little affect on overall demand shifted to other slower corridors."
See, but that's linear thinking. The whole reason why transportation models have a limited use is because you can't predict network effects. When you start to change more than a couple of variables, and when you have autonomous thinkers participating, you get these results that you can't predict. You change the status quo, you change the behaviors, and in the end it will have more than a "little affect [sic] on overall demand...".

(322540)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 11:43:12 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 17:45:32 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You clearly still fail to understand induced demand. Increasing capacity increases demand. Lowering capacity lowers demand.

Not entirely true. I already gave you the example of eliminating a bottleneck on the BQE 30 years ago resulted in much more free flowing traffic without any increase in demand. And lowering capacity on a street may lower demand on that street but will have little affect on overall demand shifted to other slower corridors.

A. You have before and after traffic counts for the BQE Bottleneck removal?
B. The second claim depends on whether or not there is capacity on the other streets.


Yes, Anti-transit statements tend to be made to anti-transit advocates.
The people making those comments are transit users. Why would transit users be anti-transit advocates." What you said makes zero sense because in your mind anyone who believes SBS is not a great idea is an anti-transit advocate.

In general any user who is complaining about the SBS project has likely been mislead by charlatans like yourself.

Me: Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.

Me: You: This has nothing to do with SBS.

It has everything to do with SBS and every other SBS comment I made that you don't agree with, you claim is irrelevant because you can't refute them.

If they were riding on the LOCAL Their problem is with the LOCAL not the SBS. It sounds as if they are complaining because the SBS is now a better alternative, but they have to walk for it. That is an example of SBS being a SUCCESS, so I suppose I was wrong when I said it was irrelevant. Look at me! I admitted to a mistake!

Me: No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases.
You: Except it has done the reverse.
Me: It definitely has not.

You still don't know how to isolate variables. Kingsborough used to have classes on basic algebra. I'd have to imagine they still do.

Me: The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.

You: Actually that would be 1.5 million, but that is not a relevant number as you have been told time and time again. Ridership went way up after SBS conversion.

Me: Where is the PROOF it was only $1.5 million? I know you don't need proof. You claiming it makes it a fact.

2010 M15 ridership: 16,070,701
2015 M15 ridership: 14,556,785
I suppose the MTA's own numbers must be false.
(Furthermore, these numbers are not relevant to the point. Annual ridership went up by over a million when comparing Before to After, which, as you have been told numerous times, are the only relevant numbers)


Me: It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either.
You: SAS Cost BILLIONS!!! Does that mean it makes no sense? A few million is a small price to pay for creating a functional service.
Me: de Blasio's plan is 20 routes. We are talking at least a half billion in capital costs and about $60 million a year in additional operating costs for less and less riders each year on most SBS routes.

Regardless of the systemwide trend of bus ridership loss, Our bus ridership is absolutely massive. And considering that SBS causes ridership to go up...

Me: Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.
You: Improved ridership, Improved reliability, Decreased Runtime.
Me: Less ridership, no significant change in reliability.

There has certainly been a significant change in reliability. There has certainly been an increase in ridership.

SBS buses bunch just as much as regular routes even with exclusive lanes.
Proof?

YEs, decreased runtime because of reduced bus stops causing increased walks to bus stops. It stands to reason that reducing service (i.e. eliminating bus stops would decrease running times. IT'S AVERAGE TRIP TIMES THAT MATTER TO THE BUS RIDERS NOT BUS RUNNING TIMES WHICH ONLY MATTER TO THE MTA.
Bus running times are directly related to trip times. They are measuring the same exact thing, just with a different metric.

You: "It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."
Me: So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS.
You: Correct.
Me: If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.
You: Major logical fallacy.
Me: No fallacy in logic. We can safely conclude that you support a plan that most people in the area oppose.

There is no reason to assume that most people oppose the plan.

Since you don't believe that most people support the plan, the converse must be true that you believe most are opposed to the plan.
YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC LOGIC. REJECTING A STATEMENT DOES NOT IMPLY VALIDITY OF THE INVERSE OR CONVERSE.

The only other possibility is that you won't commit to an estimate if more are for or are against the plan even though available evidence shows among those who spoke out who live in the area, the vast majority are opposed to the plan.
THERE IS NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

You :Yes, because it is crazy. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist.
Me: As I already have stated, when you can't logically argue the points, you attack the speaker.

If you continue to go on about a conspiracy...

Me: 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.
You: No.
Me: So what are you saying?
You: I am saying you are making unfounded accusations.
Me: So you are stating they did count the number of parking spaces they were removing but refusing to divulge that information three weeks before implementation when requested for that information by the Community Board, was proper.

I am not saying that either. I am saying you have no way of knowing how they quantified parking loss.

You: If the question and questioner are absurd, There is nothing to be gained on their part. I believe they have correctly identified you in such a way. I believe that is why they do not respond to you.
Me: But your assumptions are incorrect. The questions were relevant and the questioner is someone regarded with great credibility.

If you are referring to yourself as someone with great credibility... Well, I doubt your opinion is shared by many who would be responding to such questions.

And your response does not explain why they would not respond to the Community Board with a proper response either.
And who determines proper? You?

Are they not relevant also? Was the question they asked regarding the number of parking spaces to be removed not relevant also?
I don't see it as particularly important to the project.

(322541)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 13:15:42 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 18:02:19 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
“Assuming you mean lower average speed, not lower average speed limit, that is correct. I said it and it is a correct statement. That is not what I am denying I said.”

You stated: “Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed.”

I was saying the opposite. Upon further discussion, you replied that you were talking only about synchronized signals. So, I made the assumption that you believed most signals are synchronized. Now you are saying you don’t believe that. If that is the case, there was no point in your statement since you are only referring to a minority of the cases unless you believe the majority of traffic is on streets with synchronized signals which is not the case either. Now you are going to ask me for proof that is the case.


(322542)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 13:42:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 13:15:42 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I was saying the opposite.
I know. The opposite is false.

Upon further discussion, you replied that you were talking only about synchronized signals.
I never stated such.

So, I made the assumption that you believed most signals are synchronized.
You obviously made such an assumption, however there was nothing to base that assumption on.

Now you are saying you don’t believe that.
Correct

If that is the case, there was no point in your statement since you are only referring to a minority of the cases unless you believe the majority of traffic is on streets with synchronized signals which is not the case either.
Good for you! You realized one of the many fallacies of your statement on your own! And where did I say that it was a majority anyway?

Now you are going to ask me for proof that is the case.
Well... do you have any?

(322543)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:35:05 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 19:25:32 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Me: I didn't say they didn't look at adding the Avenue R stop. I said they didn't do a proper analysis and they only gave reasons after elected officials got involved. She should have been answered at the second or third workshop she attended, not being continually told they will look at it.

You: “There is no reason to believe that they did not do proper analysis based on anything you are saying here.”

There is every reason to believe they did not do a proper analysis as I have already explained (below). And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into it.

Me: 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: You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.)

Me: I certainly did provide justification. They admitted to only looking at transferring passengers at Avenue R and non-transferring passengers boarding there to base their conclusion that ridership would be to little for an SBS stop.

You: Where do they admit to this?

At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites.


Me: That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained.

You: “but there is no reason to assume they did such.”

I am not assuming anything but relating what they stated at the press conference. Your response obviously will be that I did not hear them correctly since you won’t be able to refute the facts.


Me: Additionally, usage isn't the only factor. IT is also important that the nearest SBS stop in either direction is one half mile away, a distance too great to expect someone to walk since some may also be walking a quarter mile or more just to reach the bus stop at Avenue R. So asking them to walk three quarters of a mile to the bus is just ridiculous as is taking the local and changing for the express when that would entail an addition fare for some.

You: “Some stops end up being eliminated. Half a mile more isn't that much to walk for most people. And it is less for many people.”
As I already stated, the half mile walk is in addition to the quarter-mile service area for the route. Three-quarters of a mile is too far to expect people to walk to get to a bus stop. Try it sometime with packages or in less than perfect weather. In order to make up the ten-minute additional walk to the closest SBS stop, someone would have to save at least ten more minutes by taking the SBS instead of the local. That means they would have to be on the bus for over six miles. The average B44 trip length is 2.3 miles long. So, using simple logic most Ave R passengers would not save time by walking extra to another SBS stop. Additionally, you are only expected to walk ten minutes to a subway. Expecting 15 for SBS passengers is not within the realm of reason.

You: “It isn't misleading at all. When upgrading lines, you can often get funding for aspects of the service that you would have to pay even without making the upgrades. Nothing at all dishonest.”
Why would you have to pay for aspects of service relating to upgrades if you don’t make the upgrades?

You: If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden.

If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is hidden.



Me: 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.

You: Because there is no reason to assume they lied.
I am not assuming they lied. They did lie and mislead by possibly only stating their costs and indicating that was the TOTAL cost. They also lied by only mentioning initial costs and omitting ongoing costs when stating they were TOTAL costs. It appears that you do not know the meaning of the words TOTAL COSTS. But DOT certainly does.

Me: There is every reason to believe they lied as I have just shown you.

You: You have not demonstrated such.
I certainly have in the above paragraph.

You: “You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.”

FTA: Capital Cost of the B44 SBS project - $38 million to 50 million.
DOT: Total Cost of the B44 SBS project - $15 million.

How many B44 SBS projects are there. If anything the DOT should have been higher because the FTA figure does not include annual operating costs which the DOT figure does since they used the word “Total.”


You: Poor maintenance is not an issue related to execution. Your judgement of signage is of little consequence to reality.
So you believe it only matters if the road markings are clear on the day of implementation and it is not important if years go by as they did in the case of the B44 with worn out lane markings. As of this writing, there are some markings that have been totally worn out for over two years. If DOT cannot properly maintain the current SBS routes, why should they be allowed to further expand the SBS system?

You: My judgement of signage?

Okay tell me if you believe that this signage is adequate for turning vehicles to inform drivers that there are exclusive bus lanes. And remember that the lane markings are completely worn out.


You: “It does not matter what evidence is presented if all the evidence is fabricated and/or irrelevant.”
Except that all the evidence is relevant and none is fabricated. Are you going to tell me the picture I linked to is a lie and not what turning drivers see?

You: 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.

Me: You just ignored the proof I provided in my links how DOT was deliberately dishonest when conveying cost figures to the communities by providing ridiculous explanations. They are also dishonest by not providing estimated time savings for a typical passenger, but rely on bus trip time savings when that only benefits the MTA, not the bus rider since practically no one rides from the first to the last stop of an SBS route to take full advantage of bus travel time savings. If you go back to original documents you will find they did state the average Bx12 SBS rider will save five minutes and the average B44 SBS rider will save six minutes. But such small savings can in no way justify the many hundreds of millions extra it is costing to provide SBS service, so now all time savings are quoted from the first stop to the last stop only. THAT IS DISHONEST AND MISLEADING. When you publicly state bus trips are 20% quicker with SBS as DOT has stated, the assumption is that the average passenger trip is 20% quicker AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

You: When have they ever implied that? Cite it.

Trottenberg has stated in numerous interviews that SBS passengers are completing trips 20 percent quicker. She promised Woodhaven passengers would save up to 30 percent of their travel time with SBS.






(322544)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:48:01 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 13:42:21 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Me: If that is the case, there was no point in your statement since you are only referring to a minority of the cases unless you believe the majority of traffic is on streets with synchronized signals which is not the case either.

You: Good for you! You realized one of the many fallacies of your statement on your own! And where did I say that it was a majority anyway?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth once again to give the misleading impression you are correct when it is plain obvious that you are incorrect.

I made the point that the lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed if people abide by the new lower limit. You countered that saying it wasn't the case. When I asked you to explain, you gave the example of synchronized signals. The assumption I made which you later stated was incorrect was that most signals are synchronized.

So I responded that if synchronization is the exception rather than the rule, it really does not matter if signals are synchronized or not when concluding that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed or not.

So therefore you bringing up synchronized signals was just a diversion as are most of the points you bring up so as to avoid discussing the topic at hand. So in conclusion you have offered zero proof to counter my argument that lowering the speed limit lowers average speed.

Instead you make up a lie and state that I realized a major fallacy in my thinking so as to end the discussion proving you are correct.

The only thing you have proved is that you are not willing or capable of having a fair discussion without diverting the subject, bringing up irrelevant points so as to confuse the reader what the subject was. You claim the other person said things he never did and draw erroneous conclusions from that. And if all else fails, you then resort to insults and buzzwords like "conspiracy" in order to discredit the other party.





(322545)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 16:10:28 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:35:05 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You: “There is no reason to believe that they did not do proper analysis based on anything you are saying here.”
There is every reason to believe they did not do a proper analysis as I have already explained (below).

You have not made any valid argument below.

And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into it.
What is there to respond to? They said they'll look into it. Standard response.


You: Where do they admit to this?
At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites.

So you have no credible source.


You: “but there is no reason to assume they did such.”
I am not assuming anything but relating what they stated at the press conference. Your response obviously will be that I did not hear them correctly since you won’t be able to refute the facts.

Slight nitpick- I do not assume it is your hearing that is faulty. I believe it is your capability of understanding. Further doubt is cast upon what you hear by your blatant dishonesty.
So yes, if you present something, you need sources. Other people can get away with things they hear, but you have abused the trust of this community far too much for any reasonable person who has experience dealing with you to give you the benefit of the doubt.


You: If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden.
If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is hidden.

If something isn't easily obtainable, that means it is not something that they expect sizable amounts of site users to regularly be accessing. Furthermore, if you can find something, it cannot be particularly hard to find. Also, poor web design would be a much more likely reason for something to not be prominent on the page, which is a problem I believe the MTA has.

You: “You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.”

FTA: Capital Cost of the B44 SBS project - $38 million to 50 million.
DOT: Total Cost of the B44 SBS project - $15 million.

How many B44 SBS projects are there. If anything the DOT should have been higher because the FTA figure does not include annual operating costs which the DOT figure does since they used the word “Total.”

As I have mentioned many times before, it is likely they are referring to different things. My guess is that the FTA cost is including actual new buses, and the DOT cost is not.


You: My judgement of signage?
Okay tell me if you believe that this signage is adequate for turning vehicles to inform drivers that there are exclusive bus lanes. And remember that the lane markings are completely worn out.

I don't see any intersection/street/lane here, let alone worn ones or ones with inadequate signage...

You: When have they ever implied that? Cite it.
Trottenberg has stated in numerous interviews that SBS passengers are completing trips 20 percent quicker. She promised Woodhaven passengers would save up to 30 percent of their travel time with SBS.

That is not implying that bus travel time reductions are the same thing as passenger travel time reductions. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they are false?



(322546)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 16:23:47 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:48:01 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Thanks for putting words in my mouth once again to give the misleading impression you are correct when it is plain obvious that you are incorrect.
Where did I do that? I see where you did that to me, in nearly every statement you claim I have made here...

I made the point that the lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed if people abide by the new lower limit.
Yes, You made an incorrect blanket statement.

You countered that saying it wasn't the case.
Correct, it is not.

When I asked you to explain, you gave the example of synchronized signals.
Correct! That is an example that I used.

The assumption I made which you later stated was incorrect was that most signals are synchronized.
Correct! That is an incorrect assumption to make based on anything I stated.

So I responded that if synchronization is the exception rather than the rule, it really does not matter if signals are synchronized or not when concluding that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed or not.
That is not exactly what you said, nor is it entirely true.

So therefore you bringing up synchronized signals was just a diversion as are most of the points you bring up so as to avoid discussing the topic at hand.
No. It is a counterexample proving your universal statement false.

So in conclusion you have offered zero proof to counter my argument that lowering the speed limit lowers average speed.
False. I offered a counterexample. Synchronized lights. Prevalence is irrelevant.

Instead you make up a lie and state that I realized a major fallacy in my thinking so as to end the discussion proving you are correct.
I made no lie. Whether or not you realize that there are fallacies in your thinking has no bearing on my correctness.

The only thing you have proved is that you are not willing or capable of having a fair discussion without diverting the subject,
I have had a fair discussion here. You are the one who repeatedly makes statements which are incorrect, and continuously asserts facts which are not based in any form of reality.

bringing up irrelevant points so as to confuse the reader what the subject was.
You brought it up. You made a factually incorrect statement. I demonstrated why it was false. That the point being made is irrelevant is not on me...

You claim the other person said things he never did and draw erroneous conclusions from that.
Amazing self projection you have going for you here...

And if all else fails, you then resort to insults and buzzwords like "conspiracy" in order to discredit the other party.
If you don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist, don't act like one. Claiming the MTA is trying to cover things up makes you look about as sane as a JFK conspiracist


(322548)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 2 00:51:33 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 16:23:47 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I made one incorrect statement by accidentally inserting the word "limit" after "average speed". You fully new what I meant. (Because you pointed out the error about ten posts later). Meanwhile you used that error to say you never made the statement I said you made.

I am sick of your games.

No you can't have an honest discussion because if that were the case, you would have immediately pointed out the error.

And as I stated using the example of synchronized lights was a calculated diversion on your part. The issue wasn't if there was one instance where lowering the speed limit would not have an affect on the average speed (which you maintain is the case) but whether it was generally true or not. And your use of alternate facts that it has no effect does not change the truth that it does.

If you want to continue playing games designed just to frustrate me, rather than having honest discussions, then you can just talk to yourself.

(322550)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 2 09:16:38 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 2 00:51:33 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I did immediately point out that error. The limit after Average speed was pointed out in the post I made following it. If you made the same mistake before, I did not notice it there. I realize that was a phrasing error, which while unfortunate, can happen to anybody.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I never said what you are claiming I said.

(322556)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 2 12:54:24 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 2 00:51:33 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
To be very clear:

"The issue wasn't if there was one instance where lowering the speed limit would not have an affect on the average speed (which you maintain is the case) but whether it was generally true or not."

This is EXACTLY what the issue is. I never claimed otherwise. You said it was universally true. I came up with a counterexample. I never denied that it was generally true.


(322569)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 2 23:28:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Thu Feb 2 12:54:24 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
But even your counter example is incorrect. You stated "Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed."

When I asked you to explain you stated when the signals are resynchronized to the lower speed, the average speed would not be lowered when the speed limit is lowered.

So if the speed limit is synchronized and the speed limit is 30 mph and assuming the road is not overloaded and you can get all (or most of) the green lights and your origin is the beginning of the street and destination is the end of the street, your average speed would be very close to 30 mph like 28 mph.

Now when you lower the limit to 25 mph, cars have to travel a little slower so you decrease capacity and fewer cars can get through on each signal so the traffic has to move slower given volume stays the same. (You would probably miss an additional light.) Your average speed is now reduced from about 28 mph to about 21 mph.

THEREFORE EVEN UNDER THOSE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, YOUR AVERAGE SPEED IS STILL LOWER WHEN YOU LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT.

The only situations where lowering the speed limit does not effect the average speed is (1) if there is so much traffic that you cannot travel at the speed limit anyway and (2) no one is abiding by the new lower speed limit anyway.

It is obvious that those two situations were taken out of the equation from the beginning and please don't tell me they weren't even if I didn't specifically mention it. IT WAS ASSUMED, just like No stopping on highways does not mean you should hit the car in front of you when it comes to a stop on the highway because of traffic.

So discounting those two possibilities, there are no circumstances where lowering the speed limit doesn't lower the average speed. EVEN THE EXAMPLE YOU CITED.

Will you admit you are wrong now? Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to.

(322572)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 3 08:57:20 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 2 23:28:44 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
But even your counter example is incorrect. You stated "Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed."

When I asked you to explain you stated when the signals are resynchronized to the lower speed, the average speed would not be lowered when the speed limit is lowered.


So if the speed limit is synchronized and the speed limit is 30 mph and assuming the road is not overloaded and you can get all (or most of) the green lights and your origin is the beginning of the street and destination is the end of the street, your average speed would be very close to 30 mph like 28 mph.
If the signals are in fact timed for 30 mph, yes. If not, no,the average speed will not be 30 mph.

Now when you lower the limit to 25 mph, cars have to travel a little slower so you decrease capacity and fewer cars can get through on each signal so the traffic has to move slower given volume stays the same.
You cannot assume volume will remain the same, nor can you assume that capacity will go down.

(You would probably miss an additional light.)
Baseless assumption.

Your average speed is now reduced from about 28 mph to about 21 mph.
Fabricated numbers with no basis in reality.

THEREFORE EVEN UNDER THOSE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, YOUR AVERAGE SPEED IS STILL LOWER WHEN YOU LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT.
This is not a universal truth, as I have repeatedly been saying.

The only situations where lowering the speed limit does not effect the average speed is (1) if there is so much traffic that you cannot travel at the speed limit anyway and (2) no one is abiding by the new lower speed limit anyway.
Or if, as I have been saying all along, road conditions make the higher speed limit unattainable for some reason.

It is obvious that those two situations were taken out of the equation from the beginning and please don't tell me they weren't even if I didn't specifically mention it.
Maybe not the beginning, but early enough that they are certainly not what I am referring to. But yes, before you mentioned them, both are certainly perfect valid counterexamples for why lowering speed limits does not necessarily lower average speed.

IT WAS ASSUMED, just like No stopping on highways does not mean you should hit the car in front of you when it comes to a stop on the highway because of traffic.
Which brings up another good example of why the universal statement is wrong. If higher speeds result in a far greater number of accidents resulting in gridlock, average speed could certainly go up with a lower speed limit.

So discounting those two possibilities, there are no circumstances where lowering the speed limit doesn't lower the average speed. EVEN THE EXAMPLE YOU CITED.
One of those two possibilities is an example of why, but isnt the general reason why the statement is false. Lowering the speed limit will not reduce the average speed, if the old limit was unattainable for any reason. That could be traffic, signals, road condition, road layout, etc. Anything whatsoever.

Will you admit you are wrong now?
Of course not.

Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to.
Why would I? I don't lie.

(322575)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 3 11:19:26 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Feb 3 08:57:20 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"If the signals are in fact timed for 30 mph, yes. If not, no,the average speed will not be 30 mph."

Yes what? Your comment says nothing and does not refute what I stated.

"You cannot assume volume will remain the same, nor can you assume that capacity will go down."

I used the incorrect word. I meant throughput, not volume. Ask any engineer. They will confirm when you lower the average speed, you lower the throughput, meaning the number of vehicles that can cross the intersection in a traffic cycle.

"(You would probably miss an additional light.)
Baseless assumption."

That is exactly what lowering throughput means. Since fewer cars get through, they have to stop more often.


"Your average speed is now reduced from about 28 mph to about 21 mph.
Fabricated numbers with no basis in reality."

No. They are realistic numbers. If you disagree, what would you say they are?

"THEREFORE EVEN UNDER THOSE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, YOUR AVERAGE SPEED IS STILL LOWER WHEN YOU LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT.
This is not a universal truth, as I have repeatedly been saying."

Yes, you have repeatedly been saying that, but you haven't shown that is the case. Even the singular example exception you gave after finally admitting that in general lowering the speed limit does lower the average speed is incorrect. Now what are you going to do. Deny you said that? And ask me for the reference? I will not go around in circles with you.

Me: The only situations where lowering the speed limit does not effect the average speed is (1) if there is so much traffic that you cannot travel at the speed limit anyway and (2) no one is abiding by the new lower speed limit anyway.

You: Or if, as I have been saying all along, road conditions make the higher speed limit unattainable for some reason.

That was never the issue.

Me: It is obvious that those two situations were taken out of the equation from the beginning and please don't tell me they weren't even if I didn't specifically mention it.

Maybe not the beginning, but early enough that they are certainly not what I am referring to. But yes, before you mentioned them, both are certainly perfect valid counterexamples for why lowering speed limits does not necessarily lower average speed.

IT WAS ASSUMED, just like No stopping on highways does not mean you should hit the car in front of you when it comes to a stop on the highway because of traffic.

You: Which brings up another good example of why the universal statement is wrong. If higher speeds result in a far greater number of accidents resulting in gridlock, average speed could certainly go up with a lower speed limit.


For that to be the case, reducing the speed limit by five miles per hour would have had to reduce the number of accidents by a HUGE amount like 80 percent. The numbers are probably not more than a couple of percentage points. And we are not only talking about accidents involving pedestrians. Would you say there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of fender benders since Vision Zero? I have not seen any statistics that indicate that. Have you?


Me: So discounting those two possibilities, there are no circumstances where lowering the speed limit doesn't lower the average speed. EVEN THE EXAMPLE YOU CITED IS INCORRECT.

You: One of those two possibilities is an example of why, but isnt the general reason why the statement is false. Lowering the speed limit will not reduce the average speed, if the old limit was unattainable for any reason. That could be traffic, signals, road condition, road layout, etc. Anything whatsoever.

As I already stated, that is not the issue. The entire discussion was based on conditions when driving at the speed limit was achievable. We were not talking about times when speed is limited by congestion and not the speed limit. as I said, THAT WAS OBVIOUS. Thanks for trying to divert the discussion once again.

Amazing how stubborn you are. You just cannot admit when you are wrong.





(322577)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 3 13:15:30 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Feb 3 11:19:26 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
"If the signals are in fact timed for 30 mph, yes. If not, no,the average speed will not be 30 mph."
Yes what? Your comment says nothing and does not refute what I stated.

Yes, if the signals were timed for 30 MPH, reducing the speed limit would likely reduce the average speed. If they are already timed for 25 MPH or lower, lowering the speed limit would do nothing.

"You cannot assume volume will remain the same, nor can you assume that capacity will go down."

I used the incorrect word. I meant throughput, not volume. Ask any engineer. They will confirm when you lower the average speed, you lower the throughput, meaning the number of vehicles that can cross the intersection in a traffic cycle.

Speed is simply one variable. If you lengthen the cycle or the proportion of the cycle for which the road in question has a green signal, that can easily not be the case.


"(You would probably miss an additional light.)
Baseless assumption."

That is exactly what lowering throughput means. Since fewer cars get through, they have to stop more often.

If you assume that they were previously timed for the higher speed, and you assume that the cycles otherwise remain the same, then yes. But now we are requiring many assumptions for what you claimed was a universal truth.


"Your average speed is now reduced from about 28 mph to about 21 mph.
Fabricated numbers with no basis in reality."

No. They are realistic numbers. If you disagree, what would you say they are?

I am an honest person, so I do not fabricate data and claim it as fact.

"THEREFORE EVEN UNDER THOSE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, YOUR AVERAGE SPEED IS STILL LOWER WHEN YOU LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT.
This is not a universal truth, as I have repeatedly been saying."

Yes, you have repeatedly been saying that, but you haven't shown that is the case. Even the singular example exception you gave after finally admitting that in general lowering the speed limit does lower the average speed is incorrect. Now what are you going to do. Deny you said that? And ask me for the reference? I will not go around in circles with you.

My statement has not changed. Lowering the speed limit does not universally result in a lower average speed. Nothing you have said disproves that statement. In fact, your long list of assumptions that you have to make outright proves it.

Me: The only situations where lowering the speed limit does not effect the average speed is (1) if there is so much traffic that you cannot travel at the speed limit anyway and (2) no one is abiding by the new lower speed limit anyway.

You: Or if, as I have been saying all along, road conditions make the higher speed limit unattainable for some reason.

That was never the issue.

That was ALWAYS the issue.

Me: It is obvious that those two situations were taken out of the equation from the beginning and please don't tell me they weren't even if I didn't specifically mention it.

Maybe not the beginning, but early enough that they are certainly not what I am referring to. But yes, before you mentioned them, both are certainly perfect valid counterexamples for why lowering speed limits does not necessarily lower average speed.

IT WAS ASSUMED, just like No stopping on highways does not mean you should hit the car in front of you when it comes to a stop on the highway because of traffic.

You: Which brings up another good example of why the universal statement is wrong. If higher speeds result in a far greater number of accidents resulting in gridlock, average speed could certainly go up with a lower speed limit.

For that to be the case, reducing the speed limit by five miles per hour would have had to reduce the number of accidents by a HUGE amount like 80 percent.

80%? Proof? But who said anything about 5 MPH? I am certain there are places where lowered speed limits does reduce the number of accidents by 80%.

The numbers are probably not more than a couple of percentage points.
In general, that is almost certainly true.

And we are not only talking about accidents involving pedestrians. Would you say there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of fender benders since Vision Zero? I have not seen any statistics that indicate that. Have you?
What does this have to do with this discussion?

Me: So discounting those two possibilities, there are no circumstances where lowering the speed limit doesn't lower the average speed. EVEN THE EXAMPLE YOU CITED IS INCORRECT.

You: One of those two possibilities is an example of why, but isn't the general reason why the statement is false. Lowering the speed limit will not reduce the average speed, if the old limit was unattainable for any reason. That could be traffic, signals, road condition, road layout, etc. Anything whatsoever.

As I already stated, that is not the issue. The entire discussion was based on conditions when driving at the speed limit was achievable. We were not talking about times when speed is limited by congestion and not the speed limit. as I said, THAT WAS OBVIOUS. Thanks for trying to divert the discussion once again.

Amazing how stubborn you are. You just cannot admit when you are wrong.

It is amazing how many times you try to change what we are talking about to make it into a discussion in which your statement is right. And you call me stubborn???

(322619)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:02:55 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Fri Feb 3 13:15:30 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You are getting totally ridiculous. You still insist you are correct. You do that by making hypothetical statements which have no basis in reality. For example, you state:

You: “Yes, if the signals were timed for 30 MPH, reducing the speed limit would likely reduce the average speed. If they are already timed for 25 MPH or lower, lowering the speed limit would do nothing."

The entire point of progressive timing is to program the changing of signals according to the speed limit. SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY INSTANCES OF TIMING THE SIGNALS LOWER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT. Therefore your other statement “Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed” is not true since when the speed limit is lowered, the signal timing also is changed to reflect the lower speed.

You: "Speed is simply one variable. If you lengthen the cycle or the proportion of the cycle for which the road in question has a green signal, that can easily not be the case."

Another ridiculous hypothetical example. You wouldn't lengthen the cycle because of the further negative effects on the cross streets.

You: "If you assume that they were previously timed for the higher speed, and you assume that the cycles otherwise remain the same, then yes. But now we are requiring many assumptions for what you claimed was a universal truth."

The signal timing was previously timed for the higher speed. That was not an assumption. It would have been ridiculous to have a 30 mph speed limit with signals timed to 25 mph. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WAS MAKING RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS. The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. So quit trying to play dumb by claiming to not understand what I meant. IT IS OBVIOUS IF YOU CAN TRAVEL NO FASTER THAN 15 MPH DUE TO TRAFFIC, THAT LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT TO ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 15 MPH WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT."

You: "But who said anything about 5 MPH? I am certain there are places where lowered speed limits does reduce the number of accidents by 80%."

Playing dumb again? This entire discussion is about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. That is a 5 mph difference. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PARAMETERS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

Me: The numbers are probably not more than a couple of percentage points.

You: "In general, that is almost certainly true."

Then your point about fewer accidents resulting in less gridlock is irrelevant since the affect on not lowering the average speed due to less gridlock would not be significant.

You: It is amazing how many times you try to change what we are talking about to make it into a discussion in which your statement is right. And you call me stubborn???

You are accusing me of exactly what you have been doing. I repeat:

The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. And we were only talking about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph (or from 35 to 30 on some streets or 40 to 35 on a few as was done under Vision Zero.)

You were the one who brought traffic and road conditions and changing other speed limits into the discussion and lengthening traffic cycles, etc just to confuse what was being discussed.



(322621)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:10:04 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by JerBear on Wed Feb 1 09:52:37 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing with me or not?

(322622)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:10:06 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by JerBear on Wed Feb 1 09:52:37 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you agreeing with me or not?

(322623)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 00:01:17 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Jan 11 12:46:59 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
No. He orginally said that although the default speed limit would be lowered to 25 mph, higher speeds would remain where warranted. Then he reduced ALL speed limits on city streets by 5 mph or more so that except for a handful of streets, the speed limit is 25 mph. It was never stated that limits on arterial roadways would also be reduced to 25 mph. That is why even the council people in favor of Vision Zero objected to the lowering of the speed lit on Ocean Parkway to 25 mph. There isn't a single north south street in Brooklyn with a higher speed limit and there are no north south highways in the center of Brooklyn either.

(322624)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 00:19:07 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 20:00:24 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You: “When there is no answer, questions should not be answered.”

There certainly was an answer. I asked him if pedestrians and cyclists were all that mattered. That requires a yes or no answer and he did not answer.

Me: Why don't you just let him speak for himself?

You: “He did. You just repeatedly misunderstand him and others.”

No, he did not speak for himself. You answered for him saying there is no answer.

Me: 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.

You: I am making no such claim.

Me: So what are you claiming then?

You: “I am claiming you have no applicable data. I do not claim to have data that I do not have.”

Stephen Bauman’s data certainly was applicable that showed major crossings with 35,000 to 50,000 daily vehicular crossings. DOT claims there are 33,000 daily bus riders and that also is applicable data. So you are lying by stating the data I used is not applicable.

Fdtutf claimed that the number of bus passengers was equal to the number in autos. I proved he was incorrect since 50,000 is higher than 33,000 and that assumes each car carries only one passenger and there is much turnover on Woodhaven so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the number of those in cars is somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 people daily. You finally admitted that 80 percent of users in motor vehicles are in cars or trucks.


You: Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas.
Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car.

You: The Wrong was from you, so I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You stated that the auto numbers are inflated because many cars make multiple trips up and down the street while bus riders make only one trip each way. So I asked you for your rationale. If it was that car costs are stagnant while bus passengers pay a new fare each time they get on. I then asked you if you arrived at your conclusion thinking car costs are constant. If you would be wrong because each mile you drive cost you more gas. So if that wasn't your rationale, why do you conclude that the auto numbers are inflated?


Me: Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders?

You: Nobody is saying that it is.

Me: That is exactly what fdtutf was saying.

You: No it isn't.

If he said something else, what was it?

Me: That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data.

You: Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location.

I was using data from many locations, not one.

You: 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!!

Me: Your arithmetic is simplistic and off. 20% of the users (bus users) getting 25% of the space is not equitable.

Me: It also assumes that the proportion of car and bus users remains the same through out the day which certainly is not the case.

During midday, evenings and most weekends, the proportion of those in autos compared to those in buses reaches 95%, yet they still are allowed to use only 80% of the roadway. During off-hours the average bus has like 15 passengers or less, yet you would like us to believe that every bus carries 60 people.

You: More fabrications from Mr. Rosen!

You obviously never travel on Woodhaven. The only time buses on weekends are crowded is on a hot summer beach day.

But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.


You: I have never admitted such. I see no reason to assume such is true.

/b> A direct quote from you: “ And since Woodhaven SBS is projected to HELP THE 80% IN CARS. That is a REALLY hard argument to make.” (Last sentence here: http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=322166) 80% in cars + 20 percent in buses equal 100%. (And yes there are a few percent in trucks and on motorcycles.)

You: "I have not backtracked. I have not changed my claims."


Also you also previously said it is possible that the number of bus riders equals the numbers of those in cars agreeing with fdtutf.


Me: My trips used to average 45 minutes to an hour. Today those same trips take 55 to 70 minutes.

You: Source?

I time all my trips.

Me: So yes, if we keep slowing traffic to the point where using mass transit is just as slow, some will start switching to mass transit. Is that the plan you endorse?

You: There is no reason to assume it will reduce car speed.

I am not assuming anything. DOT’s preliminary numbers from the exclusive bus lane in Rego Park already showed it. During the AM peak, the average speed in the peak direction between Furmanville and Metropolitan went down from 19 mph to 11.5 mph.

After SBS, it will even be worse, because on the southern portion of Woodhaven some through traffic will be required to use the service road because of the loss of two lanes.


(322625)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 02:22:11 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:02:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good.

And:

You were the one who brought traffic and road conditions and changing other speed limits into the discussion

Do you really, honestly not realize that your assumptions become part of the discussion when you make them, not when someone else points them out or questions them?


(322626)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 02:25:49 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 00:19:07 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Fdtutf claimed that the number of bus passengers was equal to the number in autos.

I made no such claim.


(322627)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 10:14:42 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 00:19:07 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
There certainly was an answer. I asked him if pedestrians and cyclists were all that mattered. That requires a yes or no answer and he did not answer.
That is an inflammatory question. No professional would ever answer such an question.

No, he did not speak for himself. You answered for him saying there is no answer.
He certainly did speak for himself. He made a clear statement that you misunderstood. He has since further clarified it on multiple occasions for your benefit.

Stephen Bauman’s data certainly was applicable that showed major crossings with 35,000 to 50,000 daily vehicular crossings. DOT claims there are 33,000 daily bus riders and that also is applicable data. So you are lying by stating the data I used is not applicable.
The applicable data would be comparing the totals. As you have no total for the cars, nor do you have any total for the bus at any one location, you cannot compare them.

Fdtutf claimed that the number of bus passengers was equal to the number in autos.
He does not make any such claim.

I proved he was incorrect since 50,000 is higher than 33,000 and that assumes each car carries only one passenger and there is much turnover on Woodhaven so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the number of those in cars is somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 people daily.
He is not incorrect, because he never claimed anything to the contrary. There is nothing that is perfectly reasonable to assume with regards to those in cars.

You finally admitted that 80 percent of users in motor vehicles are in cars or trucks.
I have never made any such admission. You really are completely incapable of understanding conditional statements, aren't you?

If he said something else, what was it?
He was saying exactly what I have said numerous times: That you can make absolutely any statement you want appear true if you fabricate data to support it.


You obviously never travel on Woodhaven. The only time buses on weekends are crowded is on a hot summer beach day.
You obviously never take Woodhaven buses. They are crowded year round. But regardless, who said anything about weekends only? Remember, MANY of the Woodhaven buses don't actually go to the beach!

But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.
I have never made any such admission.

Also you also previously said it is possible that the number of bus riders equals the numbers of those in cars agreeing with fdtutf.
I have?

I time all my trips.
Great! then post your data tables!

I am not assuming anything. DOT’s preliminary numbers from the exclusive bus lane in Rego Park already showed it. During the AM peak, the average speed in the peak direction between Furmanville and Metropolitan went down from 19 mph to 11.5 mph.
And as I have mentioned time and time again, that is NOT the intended final plan for that area, so it has no bearing on such. Furthermore, other times of the day show substantially different results.

(322628)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 10:32:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Feb 6 23:02:55 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You are getting totally ridiculous. You still insist you are correct. You do that by making hypothetical statements which have no basis in reality. For example, you state:
You: “Yes, if the signals were timed for 30 MPH, reducing the speed limit would likely reduce the average speed. If they are already timed for 25 MPH or lower, lowering the speed limit would do nothing."
The entire point of progressive timing is to program the changing of signals according to the speed limit.

Who says that is the point?

SO THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY INSTANCES OF TIMING THE SIGNALS LOWER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT.
Proof? Where is your source that all are timed for the speed limit?

Therefore your other statement “Lowering the speed limit does not necessarily lower the average speed” is not true since when the speed limit is lowered, the signal timing also is changed to reflect the lower speed.
Where is your proof that this is universally true? I have certainly heard complaints from people about how the timing of certain signals is keeping them below the speed limit.

Another ridiculous hypothetical example. You wouldn't lengthen the cycle because of the further negative effects on the cross streets.
Proof? There is no reason to assume that they would not change them.

The signal timing was previously timed for the higher speed. That was not an assumption.
It certainly is an assumption.

It would have been ridiculous to have a 30 mph speed limit with signals timed to 25 mph. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WAS MAKING RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS.
Actually, timing signals to 25 MPH is a great way to restrict speeds should an appropriate speed limit be politically untenable. Furthermore, I am making no assumptions here.

The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. So quit trying to play dumb by claiming to not understand what I meant. IT IS OBVIOUS IF YOU CAN TRAVEL NO FASTER THAN 15 MPH DUE TO TRAFFIC, THAT LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT TO ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 15 MPH WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT."
I am not playing dumb. I perfectly understand what you meant. It just happens to be wrong. Traffic is far from the only thing which restricts speed.

Playing dumb again? This entire discussion is about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. That is a 5 mph difference. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PARAMETERS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

30 to 25 is just one of an infinite number of potential speed changes. The specific number cited has nothing to do with the discussion.

Then your point about fewer accidents resulting in less gridlock is irrelevant since the affect on not lowering the average speed due to less gridlock would not be significant.
Who said anything about significance? Where did I make any universal claim?

You are accusing me of exactly what you have been doing. I repeat:

The only assumptions I made was that traffic was free flowing and road conditions were good. That was the only time I claimed the statement was true that lowering the speed limit lowers the average speed. And we were only talking about lowering the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph (or from 35 to 30 on some streets or 40 to 35 on a few as was done under Vision Zero.)

You were the one who brought traffic and road conditions and changing other speed limits into the discussion and lengthening traffic cycles, etc just to confuse what was being discussed.

You might not have been talking about other things, but that does not mean other things aren't relevant. Your statement was false because of those other things. Furthermore, we were NEVER only talking about only 5 MPH reductions.

(322629)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 10:33:51 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 00:01:17 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
You make the false assumption that higher speeds are warranted on those streets.

(322630)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:34:54 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 02:22:11 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
As I stated, I did not have to point out the my assumptions, because they were OBVIOUS. Just as obvious as no stopping is allowed on a highway does not apply to the car stopping in front of you because of traffic.

No one would argue that you can travel at the speed limit when traffic does not allow you to, and yet you and R30A are claiming that I was assuming you can. THAT IS PLAINLY RIDICULOUS!!!

(322631)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 12:36:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:34:54 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
They aren't obvious at all. They are in many cases obviously wrong.

(322632)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:36:54 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 10:33:51 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
It was not a false assumptions as that they were the speed limits in effect for at least 30 years before Vision Zero took effect.

(322633)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 12:39:03 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:36:54 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
The policy failures of the last 30 years are what is causing the reduction in speed.

(322634)

view threaded

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:44:23 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Jan 17 10:42:53 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
Only your opinion. Not backed up by anything.

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10>> : Last

< Previous Page  

Page 10 of 11

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]