|
|
| Re: W to Astoria/N and Q to 96th Street? Massive Changes Needed if Switching is to be reduced (1384765) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: W to Astoria/N and Q to 96th Street? Massive Changes Needed if Switching is to be reduced |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 7 18:40:05 2016, in response to Re: W to Astoria/N and Q to 96th Street? Massive Changes Needed if Switching is to be reduced, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 7 17:08:48 2016. Here's your argument: (Numbers)Here's my rebuttal: (Letters) 1) The percentage of Brighton riders who want Montage access can't increase. A) Actually it can increase - simply by the shifts in the composition of workers headed to downtown and their residences, or changes in the locations of work places, etc. There is no iron clad "natural law" or "physical law" or iron-clad constraint operating in this instance. 2) If more office buildings get built in lower Manhattan, it will mean even more office buildings also being built in Midtown. Midtown just has far more capacity for new office buildings because it has so much more area. B) As the Freedom Tower and related office buildings open - workers will be traveling to those new work places - even from Brighton subway stations. Many office buildings downtown employ workers from many places. The percentage of Brighton riders who want Montague Tunnel access will change. There are several residential developments that are in the planning stages for Brooklyn that could easily tip your percentages. 3) "If midtown office construction continues at a greater rate than downtown, ..." C) You said, "If midtown office construction continues at a greater rate than downtown" - that is an "if statement" which means it is entirely possible for, "midtown office construction to NOT continue at a greater rate than downtown". If one is to concede the possibilty of the positive "if statment", one also has to consider the negative of the "if statement". You're only looking at the positive statement. 4) You said in part, "..which is pretty much guaranteed because midtown has far more available underbuilt land, then the only way Brighton riders could start wanting Montague to a greater percentage.." D) Nothing is guaranteed, even if mid-town has far more available "under-built" land - other factors can easily influence the usage of much of that "under-built" land - city policy, zoning, real estate market issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, etc. 5) You're saying, "Nope, it is a slam dunk, and I'm right! I can determine the future for all time". "I can determine what people will want." E) I'm saying, "Not so fast!" Are some of your contentions plausible - maybe and maybe not. Definitely not a certainty. My bottom line statement is, "Can the percentage of Brighton riders who want Montage access increase?" Sure it can, simply because things change, neighborhoods change - work locations change, even in ways that can not be predicted. You are talking about things, forces, circumtances that are beyond the control of any kind of "determined force". In the 1970's there were many predictions of the down-fall of NYC and its neighborhoods due to the loss of population and transit ridership. Many of these doomsday predictions were said with certainty and conviction by many critics. Many, many changes over time have taken place in many neighborhoods all over the city. I'm skeptical of the critics who said with absolute certainty that this or that "can't possibly happen." 6) The percentage of Brighton riders who want Montage access can't increase. F) Basically you're arguing that ridership patterns can not change - can not ever change. In this argument you're saying that ridership on a certain segment can not change positively. That is a strange argument on a forum like this - where arguments are repeatedly made on the basis that ridership patterns have changed, and that something different needs to be done. Now if we were living in a country where there are work permits and residential permits that restrict the movement of people and their work places and other activities - then I'd say that you have a better case for certainty. "Can the percentage of Brighton riders who want Montage access increase?" Sure it can! Mike |
|
|
|