|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1577812) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (1578265) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:59:13 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 10:32:20 2021. I’ve been to Western Europe, and they have suburban highwaysDuh lol, suburbs were universally purposely designed to be spread out and unworkable, making car ownership a necessity if you live in one. and a lot of underground parking garages. Which is what should've and still should be done here. Often empty parking lots have decimated downtown areas all around America, and it's time to reclaim that space for the homes and businesses that belong there. The streets are no less congested. All of those fancy boulevards in Paris are laned for traffic and heavily congested. Like I said cars = traffic, and I'm pretty sure that most of that traffic is either comprised of delivery trucks or people coming to/from suburbs in those areas that don't have good public transportation. 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. Which is what I'm advocating, I am advocating making it harder to drive and easier to get around on public transportation. Ironically enough it's far often the car owners who are impeding the growth of our public transportation system when improving our public transportation system would benefit them the most. |
|
|
| (1578268) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:17:42 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 12:03:44 2021. Here we expect people to give up comfortable cars and use overcrowded mass transit.No, we expect people to give up their inefficient, polluting, dangerous, and space-wasting automobiles for a revamped and well invested into public transportation system that will comfortably take them from Point A to Point B in a fast and efficient manner. 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. Public transportation operates on a budget, a budget that oftentimes isn't enough to pay for the amount of service that the agency truly wants to provide. Taxpayers can fix this, but choose not to because a lot of them drive (many of them driving by force) and are selfish and apathetic to the needs to public transit users. You also have to consider the fact that bus ridership and thus revenue has been trending downwards for years now because of ride sharing companies and increased gridlock. In a "hostile" environment like this it makes sense to reduce duplication and straighten routes so that they get from Point A to Point B in a decent amount of time despite the increased gridlock. 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. If driving is such a "free" mode of transportation, then how come so many people are forced to do it? Why are our government issued IDs Driver's Licenses? Come on man, you were talking about automobile and oil company conspiracies earlier, but it looks like you sipped some of their Kool Aid yourself! And I am not talking about phony improvements like bus lanes and TSM. Those are the only improvements that the public will tolerate more often than not, and even then the public will moan and groan about losing parking. |
|
|
| (1578269) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:22:30 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jun 15 14:49:52 2021. Oh yeah? You think that the MTA would be welcome with open arms and not pitchforks if they went to Fresh Meadows (a super liberal neighborhood by the way, not that that's too relevant, just wanted to mention that) and told them that they wanted to send the (R) down the LIE to their neighborhood? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1578270) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 15:23:03 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:17:42 2021. My car doesn’t pollute! |
|
|
| (1578271) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 15:23:33 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:22:30 2021. A vocal minority would oppose it. |
|
|
| (1578273) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:25:33 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 14:53:51 2021. A quarter mile is about 3-5 blocks depending on who you ask, if you can't walk 3 blocks for whatever reason then public transportation isn't the right mode of transportation for you, but if we're talking about the 5 blocks on the other end of the spectrum, then I see what you mean. |
|
|
| (1578274) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 15:41:39 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 14:38:09 2021. second. |
|
|
| (1578276) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 15:45:08 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 14:46:30 2021. 2 digits lower 48 and DC? 3 digits? auto deaths and muders both in the 38-40k range. If less than several hundred, it is nearly a rounding error. Mind you for the victim's kin/clan, it is tragic, but in the big picturte.... |
|
|
| (1578277) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 15:49:29 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:25:33 2021. many transit users who do not have auto options are also not athletic distance walkers. Add the realities of hilly areas... |
|
|
| (1578285) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 15 16:48:18 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:22:30 2021. Is Fresh Meadows "Super liberal "? |
|
|
| (1578291) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:26:04 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 15:23:03 2021. Neither does mine. |
|
|
| (1578293) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:35:50 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 15:17:42 2021. “No, we expect people to give up their inefficient, polluting, dangerous, and space-wasting automobiles for a revamped and well invested into public transportation system that will comfortably take them from Point A to Point B in a fast and efficient manner.”A well invested public transportation system is a myth. As I said, the reality is that the system is often overcrowded even when additional service can be provided, but the operators do not want to spend the money to provide comfortable service. “If driving is such a “free” mode of transportation...” I never said anything about driving being. “free” mode of transportation. I have no idea what you are talking about. I was talking about freedom of choice. (Bus lanes and TSM) “ These are the only improvements the public will tolerate” BS. The public wants more frequent service and a seated ride and comfort. The MTA wants to eliminate bus routes near subways to force people into already overcrowded trains and doesn’t care about anyone’s comfort. That’s why people want to drive. |
|
|
| (1578294) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:43:52 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 14:38:09 2021. I don’t see how waiting at a don’t walk sign is an inconvenience for a pedestrian. You make it seem like everyone can walk infinitely non stop. Many need to rest and the don’t walk sign is the perfect opportunity.Pedestrians aren’t allowed on freeways, but cars are not allowed in many parks like Central Park and Prospect Park. So we are even. I used to enjoy driving through those parks when the leaves were changing color. But the city decreed you can only enjoy them on foot or on a bicycle. When do pedestrians ever have to wait two cycles to cross a street? Cars have to often. |
|
|
| (1578295) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:44:53 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 11:43:10 2021. The title says nothing about Republicans being angels. You just made that up. |
|
|
| (1578296) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:46:18 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 14:45:27 2021. Republicans are different. They are not all anti-car. But the article does not say they have a good transportation policy. It says they have none. |
|
|
| (1578297) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:49:24 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 15:45:08 2021. When people talk about lowering the speed limit so fewer are killed, they say every death is important. But when we talk about ebikes, all of a sudden the deaths are not important because more are killed by cars.A double standard would you say? |
|
|
| (1578298) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:49:59 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 09:59:44 2021. Exactly. No matter how many bike lanes you build. |
|
|
| (1578302) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 20:56:00 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:49:24 2021. Good point. It’s called “Vision Zero,” not “Vision Fewer.” |
|
|
| (1578304) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:05:33 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 15:23:03 2021. Nope, the pollution from your car just comes from a power plant instead of the gas tank. |
|
|
| (1578305) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 21:09:45 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:49:24 2021. I never said ANY single traffic death was unimportant. I DID challenge any of you to come up with actual stats on peds killed by byclists. I dis say that I believe the number is so low as "be in the noise" I am guessing 12-20 total per year. Compared top 38k, 20is miniscule. |
|
|
| (1578306) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:13:04 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 15:49:29 2021. You don't have to be an "athletic distance walker" to be able to comfortably walk 3 blocks. For elderly/disabled passengers who might have trouble with that though, an on-demand door-to-door service would be the best option, they are also developing tiny self-driving vehicles that might be able to fit in that gap in the future, but obviously that's not yet a proven or reliable method. I do agree however that in hilly areas stops should be spaced closer together, especially since intersections in hilly areas are usually all-stop intersections that the bus is stopping at anyway. |
|
|
| (1578307) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 21:28:36 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:13:04 2021. Have you ever sed an on demand door to door service? The experiences of my close kin/clan is that they are terrible here in librul CA. Decades ago, I was a fast walker, and enjoyed long strolls around town. Now that my nearly 77 year old knees are no longer cooperative, I use more transit than before. The stats indicate that we are having a bulge in the sehior citizen segment--the war babies like me and allof our younger sibling boomers. After lives of driving 2 blocks to buy cigarettes, they will be surrenderimng their licenses. Trtansit needs to serve them, too. |
|
|
| (1578308) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:39:03 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:35:50 2021. The public wants more frequent service and a seated ride and comfort.They want more investment into public transit infrastructure, but don't want to be inconvenienced by it or make the sacrifices that come with that. It's why you have our government coming up with these ridiculously convoluted ideas like a circuitous LGA-Willets Point Airtrain when the (N) is ~2 miles away, and the (7) line at Junction Boulevard is ~1 3/4 miles away. The MTA wants to eliminate bus routes near subways to force people into already overcrowded trains and doesn’t care about anyone’s comfort. Not true at all. I took a look at the Queens Bus Redesign Study from a couple of years ago after seeing this post, and the only cut they proposed that fits into that narrative was their proposal to cut the Q32 back to Columbus Circle on the Manhattan end, but extend it up 74th Street to East Elmhurst, resulting in a loss of bus service along Roosevelt Avenue between 74th Street and 82nd Street, a whopping 8 blocks of service cut. I see more of the opposite in fact, they wanted to extend the Q104 to Rego Park, duplicating the Queens Boulevard IND the whole way, they wanted to extend the Q7 to Crescent Street (J), duplicating the Liberty Avenue El west of Cross Bay Boulevard, and they wanted to extend the Q102 to Rikers Island, duplicating the entirety of Astoria Line El instead of turning off 30th Avenue like it does now. That’s why people want to drive. Not all of them are driving. Some of them are taking the very same Ubers that they complain slows down our bus system, and others are ordering more stuff from online because of the emergence of Amazon, Doordash, Instacart, etc which of course results in more delivery vehicles clogging up the streets. |
|
|
| (1578309) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:41:53 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 15:23:33 2021. That's all you need, look at Floral Park and have they've had the LIRR's balls in their pockets these past couple of decades with the third track. |
|
|
| (1578310) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:45:20 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 15 16:48:18 2021. Yes very, a lot of liberal young professionals live there, that whole LIE corridor out to Little Neck is very liberal, including Forest Hills, which has private streets that buses are banned on lol. |
|
|
| (1578311) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:52:12 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 21:28:36 2021. Yeah our paratransit system admittedly has a lot of room for improvement, and is certainly not a reliable way to get around unfortunately.As much as I detest what Uber/Lyft have done to bus systems all across the country, I think that those services, or services similar to them are the solution to fixing our paratransit system. In areas with high job and residential density a personal self propelled vehicle could take you from your local subway/bus station to your door, but in areas with lower density, then working with Uber/Lyft, or at the very least using technology similar to theirs seems to be the way to go. |
|
|
| (1578312) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 22:46:43 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:25:44 2021. “As I explained before, automobiles caused buses and streetcars to run slow. As the population of New York City grew, traffic grew, but public transportation didn't grow with it including the bus system where you have routes like the B43 which awkwardly and abruptly turns down Empire Boulevard in Lefferts Gardens because of a baseball stadium that has been gone for over 6 decades.”True about streetcars, but not buses. Buses and streetcars both gained popularity at the same time, in the 1920s, so cars did not slow down buses. You could just as easily say buses slowed down cars. As far as the B43, formerly the B47, that’s why I proposed as early as 1973 in my masters thesis that it be extended south to Kings County Hospital and its Empire Blvd service replaced with a service covering the whole street. That was nearly 50 years ago and no closer to happening now than it was then, because the MTAs interest is not in improving the bus system, but in saving operating expenses. They figure out the additional operating expenses and assume no one will use the new service. That’s what they actually told me. They said if anyone uses it, they consider it gravy. No wonder the system is what it is. And you think things will ever change? |
|
|
| (1578313) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 22:47:41 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 20:56:00 2021. Vision Zero will be achieved when everything stops moving. |
|
|
| (1578314) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 22:48:40 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 21:09:45 2021. I think I heard 40 the other day. |
|
|
| (1578315) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 22:54:42 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 22:48:40 2021. So after posting I tried to find ## to no avail. If 40 is correct for a year in which 38k are killed by/in cars, it truly is miniscule albeit still sad. |
|
|
| (1578316) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 15 23:00:39 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:45:20 2021. I would think Fresh Meadows between 188 and Francis Lewis is a mix of politics.In Glendale Queens I used to look at results and noticed the six family homes area votes blue. When you go east into Glendale near 80th then Woodhaven Blvd it gets Republican. I'd imagine DeBlasio did not do well in Fresh Meadows. |
|
|
| (1578323) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Alm on Wed Jun 16 07:00:17 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 21:09:45 2021. But consider it proportionately. Relative to the number of bikes vs cars and speeds thereof, and considering injuries too, bikes striking pedestrians are not noise. They are an issue. Too many bikers aren’t safe. |
|
|
| (1578326) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jun 16 08:10:27 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 19:43:52 2021. I don’t see how waiting at a don’t walk sign is an inconvenience for a pedestrian. You make it seem like everyone can walk infinitely non stop. Many need to rest and the don’t walk sign is the perfect opportunity.Waiting when you are ready to move is an inconvenience. It's practically the definition of an inconvenience. Most people at most crosswalks clearly are not happy to be waiting there, which is why a parent teaching their child to wait for the walk sign will have to explain pretty much every time why nobody else is waiting. Pedestrians aren’t allowed on freeways, but cars are not allowed in many parks like Central Park and Prospect Park. So we are even. I used to enjoy driving through those parks when the leaves were changing color. But the city decreed you can only enjoy them on foot or on a bicycle. I agree that parks are the opposite of freeways in that regard, for those fortunate enough to be near one or be able to use one along their route. I don't call it even though. Errand destinations are rarely found within the park, although yes, walking through the park can sometimes be helpful. For every parking lot that a pedestrian needs to cross to get to a building that's offset from the street, and everything else a pedestrian goes through for the sake of cars moving along more quickly, the handful of parks that sometimes shorten walking distances doesn't compare. When do pedestrians ever have to wait two cycles to cross a street? Cars have to often. I was reacting to the implication earlier in this thread that somehow helping pedestrians get across streets like Grand Concourse and Queens Blvd in one cycle was a bad thing. |
|
|
| (1578327) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 08:14:36 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:39:03 2021. The MTA wants to eliminate bus routes near subways to force people into already overcrowded trains and doesn’t care about anyone’s comfort. “Not true at all”. Take a look at the Brooklyn Existing Conditions Report. They say Downtown Brooklyn is the fastest growing part of the Borough and they are thinking of eliminating bus routes in Downtown Brooklyn because there are too many of them duplicating numerous subway lines. They mention no improvements to subway service. That means more transfers, slower and more crowded trips. How is that an improvement? It is a way to save money. |
|
|
| (1578328) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 08:16:11 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 22:54:42 2021. Your 38K is not local, is it? The 40 was just for NYC. |
|
|
| (1578329) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Jun 16 08:36:10 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jun 12 14:43:49 2021. If you never heard that he was responsible for the disinvestment, then you never read The Power Broker. |
|
|
| (1578330) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Jun 16 08:56:11 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 22:46:43 2021. Buses and streetcars both gained popularity at the same time, in the 1920s, so cars did not slow down buses.That's not true. In the U.S., streetcar companies had difficulty with inflation in the 1920s [1] and began converting many lines to buses. Before that period, buses were a marginal part of the transit picture in the U.S., and the 1920s marked the beginning of the decline of streetcar service. Streetcars in various forms had been a prominent part of transit systems in the U.S. since the late 19th century. [1] Difficulties that were exacerbated by franchise requirements that they maintain the streets they ran on, keeping them nice and smooth for the automobiles that were taking business away from them. |
|
|
| (1578331) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Jun 16 09:05:49 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jun 16 08:10:27 2021. Waiting when you are ready to move is an inconvenience. It's practically the definition of an inconvenience.Yes, and moreover, it is exactly the kind of inconvenience that BrooklynBus was claiming pedestrians subject motorists to. |
|
|
| (1578336) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 10:46:38 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:05:33 2021. More power is generated from inorganic sources than is currently used by EVs. I would have no problem whatsoever signing up for a program where all of my electricity came from nuclear reactors, solar panels, hydroëlectric dams, and wind turbines. |
|
|
| (1578337) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 10:47:50 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 21:41:53 2021. But the state eventually won. |
|
|
| (1578338) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 10:49:12 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 15 23:00:39 2021. You’d be wrong.This is the kind of thing one can look up, you know. |
|
|
| (1578339) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 10:50:23 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 10:49:12 2021. I mean wrong about Fresh Meadows, not about Glendale. |
|
|
| (1578341) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 10:55:27 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 13:39:44 2021. Not more flexible as far as routes are concerned. Bus routes have changed at a snails pace, while trolleys constantly changed their routes along their fixed rails. For example, there were trolley routes to the beaches that ran only during the summers whereas be have bus routes still running that have been obsolete for over 70 years. |
|
|
| (1578342) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 11:08:06 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:33:19 2021. You make it appear that mas transit is the most efficient form of travel for all trips at all times of the day which is untrue. Electric cars are becoming more popular and autos are safer than ever before, so to make blanket statements that they are unsafe and a detriment to our environment is untrue. They also do not gridlock streets everywhere. But they will as long as we keep removing parking, travel lanes and impose more turning restrictions adding more miles to trips.Bikes are less safe than cars and encouraging their use will only increase fatalities. As I said, if you want to get rid of cars and want to encourage more bikes, you would have to eliminate transit deserts, by building the IND Second system, the Triborough RX, reactivation of the Rockaway line, double the number of buses, fix all the bus routes to better connect neighborhoods which would include dozens of of express routes between all major centers, Increase coverage, not reduce it, etc. Buses are just not efficient for long distance travel at odd hours, and that's why cars will always be a necessity. Until you do all of the above, which will never happen, encouraging bikes and taking measures to make auto travel more difficult will just not work. The ultra rich and poor will always be here, but the middle class will leave having no detrimental effects on the economy if we continue the road we are on. And there is nothing wrong with bikes gong down side streets. It is much safer for them and doesn't hurt autos. But that us what you want, to hurt auto travel. |
|
|
| (1578343) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 11:10:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by fdtutf on Wed Jun 16 08:36:10 2021. I did read the Power Broker and Caro specifically stated that there is no proof that the monies Moses used to build highways, parks, and housing would have been spent on transit if he were never around.Of course he hurt transit, but Caro stated he hurt schools and hospitals just as much by using funding that would has gone to those uses as well. |
|
|
| (1578344) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 11:14:09 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by fdtutf on Wed Jun 16 08:56:11 2021. Sorry. I mistyped. What I meant to say was buses and cars (not streetcars) gained popularity in the same time so cars did not slow down buses. |
|
|
| (1578345) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 11:20:23 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jun 16 08:10:27 2021. "I was reacting to the implication earlier in this thread that somehow helping pedestrians get across streets like Grand Concourse and Queens Blvd in one cycle was a bad thing."As I always stated you need to help the maximum number of people. When you extend a green cycle by 15 seconds on those streets, you are helping maybe 20 pedestrians, but hurting many more in cars and buses, like up to 100. |
|
|
| (1578347) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by George Foelschow on Wed Jun 16 11:55:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 16:04:21 2021. I believe any highway "development" in the continental United States should be postponed until all fossil-fueled free-wheeled vehicles are finally laid to rest and replaced with electric ones from environmentally safe sources.And, by the way, "Democrat" is a proper noun and should always be capitalized, regardless of one's political leanings. |
|
|
| (1578348) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jun 16 12:10:24 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jun 16 11:20:23 2021. When you extend a green cycle by 15 seconds on those streets, you are helping maybe 20 pedestriansAnd my response is that the only reason why those 20 pedestrians needed help to begin with is that the road is designed to speed motor traffic. Restricting the cars to the street doesn't speed up the pedestrian's commute. But restricting the pedestrians to the sidewalk helps the cars immensely. The sidewalk is not a courtesy to pedestrians; it is a courtesy to cars to keep pedestrians out of their way. (Moving walkways would be a courtesy to pedestrians.) Then we go and say that the pedestrians are outnumbered so they have to wait longer to cross, and then wonder why there's no interest in doing anything but driving (i.e. no interest in public transit projects). For the record, I live in NYC and own and drive a car. When I drive, I never feel entitled to get somewhere within a certain timeframe because I know that I am using the most burdensome (to others) means of transit possible. |
|
|
| (1578349) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Jun 16 12:10:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 13 16:29:30 2021. Wasn't the IND extension to the East Bronx cancelled because the acquisition of the Dyre Ave. (ex-NYWB) line was seen as serving the same market? |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
