|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1577812) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (1577982) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 16:50:13 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jun 12 16:32:44 2021. Some of what you say makes sense and some of it is just convoluted and you provided no specific examples which was what I was asking.Where did you get the idea that bike lanes slow down buses? And who said anything about getting rid of bike lanes? I am just opposed to massively increasing their number and where they are being placed. They belong mainly on side streets, not on main thoroughfares. And I never said anything about making streets more vehicle friendly, I just don’t want them to become less vehicle friendly. You say the logical solution is a busway because getting rid of bike lanes impedes the objective of reducing traffic congestion when the opposite is true. A busway moves traffic congestion to neighboring streets. It doesn’t help get rid of it. It is also very inconvenient for someone who cannot use public transportation, by making them walk further. I was just in Ocean City Md where they have a combined bus and bike lane. I am still trying to figure out how that works. If bikes supposed to pull over for buses to pass. Would something like that work here do you think? |
|
|
| (1577987) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 12 19:09:24 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Allen45 on Sat Jun 12 09:46:27 2021. Doesn't private street also mean no buses, like in Forest Hills, putting them on ridiculous routes, encouraging more cars ? |
|
|
| (1577989) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 20:03:49 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 12 19:09:24 2021. Private streets sometimes allow no outsiders to use them and on others you are allowed to drive, but sometimes can’t park. It’s up to the development if they want to allow buses or not. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1578008) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 13 03:58:37 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 16:50:13 2021. I was referring to the comment of:”My main objection to too many bicycle lanes is that they increase total travel time because they disadvantage bus passengers more than they advantage bicyclists.” I never stated that I agreed with that statement nor did I state that I thought a busway should be implemented anywhere in the city per se, just throwing that idea out there as a solution to the scenario described in that statement. Two streets I’d seriously look into into building busways on however since you asked are Grand Concourse and Queens Boulevard. Median busways with physical separation would be perfect for those streets. |
|
|
| (1578011) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 07:59:45 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 13 03:58:37 2021. Busways as you envision them on those thoroughfares are basically tramways, with a benefit and a drawback relative to tramways. The benefit is that the buses can enter and leave the busway and go elsewhere in the area without any need for trackage. The drawback is that buses can only be so long while remaining maneuverable, while trams can be longer (and also coupled with each other with still only one driver).Anyway, like most things in transport planning (and economics in general), the concept of induced demand makes it difficult to assess the "need" for something by just looking around at the moment and even with good data. For example, car-dependent places only exist as such because cars were built. If there was amazingly excellent public transport put in place (even if nobody's clamoring for it at the moment), then would the demand for cars (or even bike lanes) still be the same afterward? Furthermore, if the space dedicated to moving cars was instantly taken away and replaced with some of the very types of things that people are trying to drive their cars to, wouldn't that be more efficient for everyone? And most people seem to have become aware that adding traffic lanes is far from a guaranteed way to alleviate congestion over time. |
|
|
| (1578012) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 08:05:30 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 13 03:58:37 2021. So you would ban all cars from the Grand Concourse and Queens Boulevard except for emergency vehicles? |
|
|
| (1578019) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 09:33:59 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 08:05:30 2021. "Median busways" suggests to me that it's basically bus lanes in the middle of the street. If a buffer is installed, then it's basically like having a bus lane in each direction plus a little extra space for the buffer for separation (so cars can't get in). Thus, cars would still have the majority of the roadway to work with.I would just call them bus lanes rather than busways though. A busway in my mind means that there isn't a single car to compete with (like the ones in Pittsburgh). |
|
|
| (1578021) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Jun 13 09:48:48 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 09:33:59 2021. I like your photo. I visited Pittsburgh many moons ago, and saw some of the busways. We rode the LRVs that shared some busways. Pittsburgh is a fun traction city. |
|
|
| (1578022) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 13 10:06:52 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by TransitChuckG on Sun Jun 13 09:48:48 2021. "Pittsburgh is a fun traction city."I know. I've been living in the area for a few years now & have been falling behind in my picture taking. Its also a great railfanning area for NS heavy freights in and out of nearby Conway Yd. At the Pittsburgh Amtrak sta. they fixed it up real nice for the four trains that pass thru there. At platform level, its not all that unusual for a long heavy freight to be passing by right across the platform from a loading or unloading "Pennsylvanian" |
|
|
| (1578024) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Sun Jun 13 10:10:45 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 13 10:06:52 2021. "Pittsburgh is a fun traction city."Was and always is! Visited the city there during the 1998's four times on my own. In addition to riding and photographing all the "T" system, including the #47D Drake and #52 Allentown lines, there is the great Pennsylvania Trolley Museum, 25 miles southwest of the city in a town called Washington. -William A. Padron ["PATransit"] |
|
|
| (1578026) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 10:32:57 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 09:33:59 2021. Since Grand Concourse has a three track subway below and the Jerome Line is also nearby, why would we need bus lanes anyway there? What would be the impact on other traffic or doesn't anything be care about that anymore? Or is the goal now to increase congestion to discourage cars? |
|
|
| (1578043) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 12:49:39 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 14:43:49 2021. When you shelve transit projects for highways, you are reponsible for disinvestment. |
|
|
| (1578045) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 13:49:03 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 10:32:57 2021. I don't have a specific opinion about bus lanes on Grand Conourse, but what's nearby is irrelevant. If you go by that, you can argue that the Major Deegan Expwy, Webster Ave, and the Bronx River Pkwy are all nearby and parallel so why give so many lanes for traffic on Grand Concourse?I also don't think there's anything wrong with discouraging the use of cars in at least some cases (in a fair and transparent manner. . .not by trapping drivers with speed cameras that are nowhere near any pedestrians, etc.). |
|
|
| (1578046) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 14:01:43 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 12:49:39 2021. IAWTP - at least in high-density settings. |
|
|
| (1578047) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jun 13 14:26:06 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jun 11 08:35:12 2021. So in Chicago thehighway folks built the Dan Ryan (and got LBJ to donate Intersate funds for a commuter highway within a single county) supposedly to relieve gridlock on Lake Shore Drive. The morning the Ryan opened, it was jammed,LSD was jammed and the Rock Island, and Illinois Central between them collection 5000fewer fares.There is a series of pictures/"rtenderings" common in transit advocacy circles, showing roadspace necessary for 60 persons-frame 1 all single occupancy car, 2 on bikes, 3 in a single bus. The geometry is inexorable. Single driver cars WASTEland. EVs are cleaner even if the electricity is carbon based because it is easier to police pollution from a single generating station than thousands of cars--not to mention lower maintenance cost per mile driven. The lithium issue willneed to be solved much as the coltan etc in our cell phones. AV cars will NOT fix tyhings; they will exacerbate traffic as they deadhead to the next user much as ubet/lyft have increased traffic in cities. It remains to be seen what pattern of offioce v WFH emerges. |
|
|
| (1578054) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:14:07 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 12:49:39 2021. Moses didn't shelve any transit projects because he was neve in charge of Transit. To say there was no money to build a transit line because he used the same money for highways required proof. What proposed transit line did Moses stop, not counting not allowing them in center medians or on his bridges?The facts are that the voters approved several transportation bond issues to build the Second Avenue Subway. Mayor Wagner diverted the money from the first one to hold the 15 cent fare because he didn't want to be responsible for raising the fare and jeopardizing his reelection. So why aren't you blaming hm? |
|
|
| (1578055) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:20:47 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 13:49:03 2021. None of those examples are as close to the Grand Concourse as Jerome Avenue is to it, so they are irrelevant.I have nothing against discouraging auto use if you are providing better alternatives that anyone can use. No one is talking about significantly improving bus travel like by doubling the frequencies and starting new routes. What they are doing is removing bus stops decreasing accessibility, and at the same time telling you not to drive. Not everyone can bike. |
|
|
| (1578056) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 16:29:30 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:14:07 2021. Moses was UNofficially in charge of eveything and bossed around every mayor. That's why the MTA was created - there was no other way to get rid of him and Rockefeller at the state level had to do it.I already told you East Bronx IND was stopped even though it was funded and needed for the Shore Pkwy. |
|
|
| (1578057) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jun 13 16:29:33 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:20:47 2021. Indeed, nationwide, we need huge investment in both capital, and, critically, operational funding. At the same time, other than necessary maintenance, NO further highway routes should be built, and NONE should be widened. |
|
|
| (1578060) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 16:51:22 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:14:07 2021. He influenced Board appointments at various city agencies who sought highway expansion, especially in the Bronx, as he considered rapid transit old technology.Why not count allowing them in center medians ? The E or F train would have run to JFK had Van Wyck had a median. The only thing good he did was IND sign off the takeover of the RBB, but not from Rego Park. He opposed TBTA takeover of the MTA, and he lost that one. TBTA subsidizes the MTA. |
|
|
| (1578078) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:27:47 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jun 11 12:41:44 2021. > A bike is not a suitable alternative for many for most trips.I don't know what this means. Most people can't ride a bike? Most people don't have safe bike routes near them? Most people are carrying luggage or work tools most trips? I doubt anything will come close to replacing walking as the mode with the highest share of city trips and transit as the mode with the highest share of commuting trips. The tools for making our streets more walkable and bikeable and better for bus transit mostly go hand-in-hand. The capacity of 12 feet of road space is higher when used as a bus lane or a two-way bike lane than carrying vehicles with mostly one occupant. The average travel speed of vehicles Manhattan avenues declined from 2012-2019 because of the proliferation of for-hire vehicles and truck deliveries, even as the number of vehicles entering Manhattan has steadily decreased over the past 20 years. > your ridiculous example of a 55 mph speed limit on city streets That wasn't my example. The previous poster claimed that anything that lowered fuel economy was bad for the environment, and by that logic, city streets that don't permit such high speeds are bad for the environment. Not that it matters much anyway as fuel economy is a poor metric to judge the environmental sense of a given policy. |
|
|
| (1578080) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:34:21 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jun 13 14:26:06 2021. The original.The electric car update. |
|
|
| (1578087) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 13 19:13:38 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:27:47 2021. I don't know what this means.I can give you a few possibilities. - I sustained a lower back injury riding a bike 45 years ago thanks to a driver who clipped my bike when he made a right turn. The injury didn't completely stop hurting for 25 years, though it was never debilitating. - Maybe 30 years ago I started developing bad sciatica every time I rode. - A guy I know got hit by a truck and died. It's possible he was crossing against the red - no one knows. - Riding on a sidewalk where there is no suitable bike lane is reckless and dangerous in its own way. |
|
|
| (1578094) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 13 21:27:31 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 14:41:54 2021. Yes. The pandemic traffic lull is long over. It was fun while it lasted. |
|
|
| (1578099) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 13 22:28:01 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 13 19:13:38 2021. You’re forgetting that many commutes are simply too long for bicycles and require some form of motorized transport. Cycling benefits the rich who live near the city center. |
|
|
| (1578104) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jun 13 23:06:12 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:34:21 2021. thanks for the visuals. Indeed the SOV sucks no matter what fuel/energy category. The AV is the wet dream of the anti-transit folks, the electric caris better but onlyu if used judiciously.As to the pro sprawl folks,thanks but no thanks. Civilization in my view requires cities. YMMV |
|
|
| (1578108) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 00:37:09 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 16:50:13 2021. And I never said anything about making streets more vehicle friendly, I just don’t want them to become less vehicle friendly.You say the logical solution is a busway because getting rid of bike lanes impedes the objective of reducing traffic congestion when the opposite is true. A busway moves traffic congestion to neighboring streets. It doesn’t help get rid of it. It is also very inconvenient for someone who cannot use public transportation, by making them walk further. Why? Making them less vehicle-friendly would encourage more people to ride bikes, walk, and use public transportation, which would not only help the environment, but it would also increase public safety, make cities more habitable, and last but not least, reduce traffic, which is what you want, right? Trying to "build away" and/or accommodate traffic is a futile endeavor that has been disproven over and over again. Cars = traffic. Period. If you want to reduce traffic, you have to discourage people from driving by making it harder to drive. The automobile congested streets so badly that streetcars couldn't compete anymore and had to be taken out of commission, ruining our public transportation system, and decimating neighborhoods all across the country that had to tear down buildings and parks to build space-wasting parking lots. Looks like things are finally starting to come full circle to me. People love to marvel at how "advanced" Western Europe and Japan are, and don't realize that a huge part of that is because they built walkable cities based around public transportation. I was just in Ocean City Md where they have a combined bus and bike lane. I am still trying to figure out how that works. If bikes supposed to pull over for buses to pass. Would something like that work here do you think? No, that sounds like a bad collision waiting to happen. Buses and bikes should not travel in the same lane, although they should be able to share the same streets. The ideal busway would have buses running down a physically separated median, while bikes travel closer to the curb of the street. |
|
|
| (1578110) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:03:38 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 07:59:45 2021. As much as the railfan in me hates to admit this, busways >>> streetcars. If the busway is successful and you ever want to expand it, all you have to do is paint a street and place some delineator posts into the ground, much cheaper than having to build tracks, wires, substations, etc.A good rule of thumb is that if an area has high residential density and high job density, then it's very likely that there is a high demand for public transportation in that area. I do agree though that in situations where that may not be the case, then assessing the need for public transportation in an area can be difficult, but that doesn't really apply to New York City generally speaking. |
|
|
| (1578111) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:08:15 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 08:05:30 2021. No. I would either have buses run physically separated down the medians of those streets on the "main roads", or turn one of the "service roads" on those streets into a bidirectional busway. |
|
|
| (1578112) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:10:00 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jun 13 09:33:59 2021. Lol you're right, I guess bus lane would be more appropriate in this case. I've been tainted by living somewhere where a painted bus lane is called "BRT" lol. |
|
|
| (1578113) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:26:08 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 10:32:57 2021. Because the buses that run on Grand Concourse are two of the Top 10 busiest bus routes in NYCT that transport over 100,000 people every day, and have been for years in spite of all of those factors? The market that those buses serve isn't the same as the market that the (D) and (4) trains serve, and it's been proven that there is room for all three different forms of transportation to successfully coexist within the area.Only 40% of households in The Bronx own a car. Grand Concourse is a very busy street that is also very dangerous, around half of the cyclists that are killed in The Bronx were riding on Grand Concourse. Buses and bikes along Grand Concourse are also frequently impeded by delivery trucks and double parked cars, building physically separated bus and bike lanes would help to alleviate both issues. |
|
|
| (1578114) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:44:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:20:47 2021. No one is talking about significantly improving bus travel like by doubling the frequencies and starting new routes.Favoring frequency and speed over coverage is all the new rage, especially now that public transit agencies are realizing that most people using their services are using them in the middle of the day, not the rush hour. Before COVID-19, the MTA was looking to implement bus redesigns that spurned indirect routes serving low-demand areas for straighter routes that were going to run at a higher frequency all day. What they are doing is removing bus stops decreasing accessibility, and at the same time telling you not to drive. Not everyone can bike. Unfortunately coverage and speed are often counterintuitive in the world of public transportation. It isn't ideal, but if the public demands faster service then coverage usually has to be sacrificed for that, and vice versa. I mean, you do have bike and scooter sharing companies like Lime and Bird that are popping up to fill in that void, but that's just how it is. The recent trend amongst public transit riders is favoring frequent service that is cheap, runs when they need it (i.e. 24/7), and runs on time. Reducing transfers and walking distances just isn't a priority for public transit users at moment. |
|
|
| (1578122) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 03:03:10 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:44:51 2021. Actually stop elimination is way too abstract in some agencies. In a period when both an "all stop local"" and a "rapid" were on the same street, once beyond the 5PM office escape rush, both were nearly the same speed, the local made few stops--just different from the rapidThe truth in all of these analyses is that very few routes "obey" thedefinitions. |
|
|
| (1578124) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 07:37:10 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:03:38 2021. Besides what you mention, buses may be preferable to streetcars in the more "automobilist" settings, like in North America, where there are roads (often wides ones) everywhere and you want the buses to be able to use them. And you're less likely to fill streetcars/trams to capacity, while people are still in their cars.Streetcars/trams are more for those places that have already turned away from automobilism, because now it becomes more urgent to have lots of capacity ready to go at once (since the people are not using cars). And with a good modern tram, perhaps coupled to a second car or more, you can move hundreds of people at once in a relatively comfortable way, unlike buses. Yeah, there's the need for the infrastructure, but presumably that's a priority for such an area. |
|
|
| (1578126) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 07:44:14 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 03:03:10 2021. The truth in all of these analyses is that very few routes "obey" thedefinitions.That's one of the things I love about transportation in general. Common sense often does not apply. |
|
|
| (1578128) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:29:36 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jun 13 16:29:33 2021. You are saying that nationwide, no new highways should be built? |
|
|
| (1578132) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:43:03 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:44:51 2021. Reducing transfers and walking distances is what makes transit more convenient and encourages bus riding. You won't see ridership increasing with reduced coverage faster buses.People do not want to walk for 10 or 15 minutes to get to a bus route, wait 5 or 10 minutes for the bus, ride ten minutes on the bus, and walk another 10 or 15 minutes to get to their destination. That's a 35 to 50 minute trip with only 10 minutes on the bus. They will take a cab or Uber instead. They would prefer to walk 5 minutes to the bus, take two buses for 10 minutes each and wait 5 minutes for each bus for a 40 minute trip where half the trip is spent on the bus. |
|
|
| (1578133) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:45:42 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:26:08 2021. Why can't there be bike lanes on the streets parallel to the Grand Concourse? Why should they ride on major thoroughfares? When I used to ride a bike, I always tried to avoid main streets. |
|
|
| (1578134) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:56:06 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 01:08:15 2021. To run down the medians, you would need buses with doors on both sides. Would one of the service roads even be wide enough for a bidirectional roadway? The Queens Boulevard service roads became hopelessly clogged when it was decided to take one of the lanes and concert it into parking. The city caused the buses to run slow in the first place, and to correct the problem they caused, they want to gridlock the street for all other traffic. |
|
|
| (1578135) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:11:09 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 00:37:09 2021. "Why? Making them less vehicle-friendly would encourage more people to ride bikes, walk, and use public transportation, which would not only help the environment, but it would also increase public safety, make cities more habitable, and last but not least, reduce traffic, which is what you want, right?"No it wouldn't. Making them less vehicle friendly would ony work with significant improvements to mass transit. That means new rapid transit lines and doubling the frequency of buses and network redesign to better serve the people and eliminating double fares. NONE OF THAT IS ON THE TABLE. Making the streets less vehicle friendly without these improvements will only accelerate middle class flight. Streetcars weren't taken out of service because they couldn't compete with autos. They were removed because of the huge conspiracy by oil companies and auto companies. Walkable cities built around public transit is a great idea. But unfortunately we don't have that here. If you want some to be built where there is vacant land, I have no problem with that. But we have what we have and we have to deal with it effectively. Thinking that everyone should, could and would ride a bike by destroying your option to use your personal vehicle is not the right path and will have detrimental results including higher fatalities and devastating effects on the economy as the middle class seeks greener pastures. Once immigrants have made it in the city, why do they soon leave? Because the city keeps becoming more unattractive. And what I saw in Ocean City Md, seemed to be working fine down there. Also once saw it in Florida. Here is another story. |
|
|
| (1578137) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:15:13 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 13 19:13:38 2021. There are many sidewalks with few or no pedestrians and riding on them should be allowed when no pedestrians are present. |
|
|
| (1578138) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:15:23 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 13 19:13:38 2021. There are many sidewalks with few or no pedestrians and riding on them should be allowed when no pedestrians are present. |
|
|
| (1578141) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:36:56 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sun Jun 13 18:27:47 2021. A bike is not suitable for most trips for all the reasons you listed.Most people are not able to ride a bike. Some think it is too dangerous because of cars and other cyclists. Even if there is a safe bike route for part of the trip, you still have to get to and from it. Many people need to carry stuff, groceries, stuff from Home Depot, luggage, tools, baby carriages, etc. Many trips are too long for a bike to be convenient unless you are riding for fitness. Bikes are largely weather dependent. People do not want to ride when it's too cold, too hot, too rainy or too windy. Alternates need to be available and transit service doesn't magically increase during inclement weather which is why the ability to use a car must be a viable alternative. The ability for higher capacity as justification for bike and bus lanes is a theoretical argument. We have many bike lanes that are very lightly used and many buses operating with three people or infrequently where a bus or bike lane is not warranted where the demand for car usage is high. On Queens Blvd, a bike lane was built taking away a traffic lane adding maybe ten minutes to hundreds of thousands of cars every day, while helping about 1200 or at the most 2,000 cyclists a day. How does that make sense when far more people are hurt than helped? It only makes sense when you give preferencial treatment to a class of people you believe to be entitled and that everyone else has no rights. It probably was possible to design a bike lane without disturbing traffic but would have involved major reconstruction which the city doesn't want to do. Similarly, the bike/ pedestrian congestion on the Brooklyn Bridge could be solved by building a new bike lane above the pedestrian walkway. But that would cost more and wouldn't be detrimental to cars by removing a lane of traffic that will have far reaching effects on increasing traffic congestion. Which brings me to your next point. Traffic speeds in Manhattan declined because of increases in truck deliveries which will only get worse, and more for hire vehicles because of mass transit inadequacies. But that isn't the only reason, reduced green times, more channelization, the elimination of traffic lanes from bike and bus lanes, the removal of over 10,000 parking spaces, etc, have also contributed. |
|
|
| (1578142) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 10:30:55 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:15:23 2021. There are many sidewalks with few or no pedestrians and riding on them should be allowed when no pedestrians are present.I don't disagree on principle. But what happens when suddenly a pedestrian is present because they come out of a building? Would the rider be required to dismnount. So in practice I don't think your suggestion is workable. |
|
|
| (1578143) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 10:32:20 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Jun 14 00:37:09 2021. People love to marvel at how "advanced" Western Europe and Japan are, and don't realize that a huge part of that is because they built walkable cities based around public transportation.I’ve been to Western Europe, and they have suburban highways and a lot of underground parking garages. The streets are no less congested. All of those fancy boulevards in Paris are laned for traffic and heavily congested. Western Europe (and presumably Japan) are advanced because they build new transit lines to handle congestion instead of stopping in 1940 and then crowding more people into their already overcrowded transit system by fucking with drivers. |
|
|
| (1578144) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 10:36:32 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 13 22:28:01 2021. Not forgetting anything. Omitting lots of things and failing to mention things I never thought of in the first place. I wasn't trying for a complete list by any means.In general, I think bike lanes should be assessed in terms of how many people they transport in the busy hours of the day. I'm impressed by the bike lanes on First and Second avenues in Manhattan; they are very busy. I'm much less impressed by some others. |
|
|
| (1578147) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 12:03:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 10:32:20 2021. Here we expect people to give up comfortable cars and use overcrowded mass transit. Even when there is plenty of demand, they won’t increase service so that people are comfortable. And now they want to make buses less convenient by reducing coverage, straightening routes requiring longer walks, and eliminate buses where there are nearby subways. There is a reason those people are on buses in the first place rather than taking the train. They are willing to sacrifice speed for comfort. Yet government wants to reduce our freedom of choice and force us to use the modes they want us to use, subways or biking. Until there are serious improvements in mass transit, I will continue advocating not making life more difficult for those who would rather drive. And I am not talking about phony improvements like bus lanes and TSM. |
|
|
| (1578152) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 13:28:35 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:29:36 2021. bnasically, yes. While the Interstate system was of benefit in many respects for actual intercity travel, the urban freeways were massively destructive. Presumably you did not want either Lo-Mex or the 34th St crosstown which Moses was pushing. |
|
|
| (1578154) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 13:35:04 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 13:28:35 2021. I did and still think the Lomex and Midmex should be built. |
|
|
| (1578155) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 13:42:20 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 13:35:04 2021. we politely disagree |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
