Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BrooklynBus last won the day on May 6 2018

BrooklynBus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,006 Excellent


About BrooklynBus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Supposedly the passenger loads are not heavy enough to warrant them.
  2. I was the one who suggested the B83 to the MTA. They initially rejected it, but after studying it for a full three years accepted it. They also thought they couldn’t operate buses on the Belt Pkway until I told them they only needed a permit from DOT. Shortly after I informed them of that requirement, buses started to regularly operate on the Belt Parkway not in service from Ulmer Park to both ends of the B1 route.
  3. As stated in the report I wrote, https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AECZ9f76b9ClYys&cid=27B4793AC6019868&id=27B4793AC6019868!185&parId=27B4793AC6019868!105&o=OneUp asking someone to choose either frequency or coverage is like asking a prisoner who has not been given anything to eat or drink in a week if he would prefer food or water.
  4. Those machines were all replaced after three years because being the first SBS route, the MTA forgot to weather protect them. How many taxpayer dollars were wasted? The machines have a ten year lifespan.
  5. https://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/machines-killing-metrocards/article_93907577-a46a-5b1d-a03d-58efc364c4f1.html
  6. Everything costs money and all transit is in competition for the same funds. I think it is far more efficient to spend those scarce funds on increasing bus service rather than on more bike lanes. There is a direct relationship between the amount of bus service and the amount of passengers using that service. Many cyclists are on,y cycling because of the poor state out bus system is in in terms of reliability and scarce service on certain lines. As far as low car usage in Manhattan, I don't think the question is the the percentage of trips made by auto which is admittedly low, but the amount of congestion which is the greatest in Manhattan. Every additional bike lane that reduces lane capacity only increases traffic congestion for buses as well as cars, and that can't be ignored. And that's for a very small percentage of trips. The percent of people cycling in Manhattan is evenness smaller than the numbers of those in autos. I agree that bikes should be allowed on sidewalks in certain instances, certainly if no pedestrians are present on the block. It would be much safer than them traveling on the street and the city would safe the cost of constructing and maintaining a bike lane. Agree that dangerous driving contributes to most pedestrian fatalities. But I disagree with the assumption regarding the percentage of drivers who drive unsafely on city streets. I would guess it may be something like two percent. I think the percentage who drive unsafely on highways is ten times that amount from my fifty years of driving experience. I still remember a film I saw about 40 years ago in my defensive driving course that discussed what causes automobile accidents and the answer was that there are always at least three factors involved and if only one of the three were not present, the accident would have been avoided. That is why a believe that the lack of lighting contributed to my friend's accident with the cyclist. Even with the cyclist being inattentive, a functional street lamp would have allowed my friend and myself to see him when he was 150 from the intersection. And I know you said you never had an issue, but from my experience, I found it can be very difficult to see cyclists and pedestrians even if you are very attentive, if the cyclist is somewhere you don't expect to see him like cycling at night between the double yellow line without reflectors or lights and wearing dark clothing even with adequate lighting. Also, sun glare can be so blinding that it is impossible to see a cyclist or a pedestrian if it suddenly occurs without warning which is why I always where sunglasses at dusk if driving facing west.
  7. Okay. I see your point and agree with you. So we get back to the original question I brought up in the article. Given the fact that the more we encourage cycling as a form of transportation, the more cyclists will die, should we continue to encourage cycling? Even if protected lanes are safer and the fatality rates decline, the absolute number of fatalities will continue to increase. It is also inefficient because in good weather when cycling increases, you can't reduce mass transit service to reflect that. You must provide the service in all types of weather. And protected lanes are not foolproof either. My sister died after being in a coma for seven years when she made a short stop on an off road protected bike lane to avoid hitting a nine year old girl also on a bicycle.
  8. And I like your automatic assumption that the driver was at fault in every collision between a car and a bike? How many of those cyclists who were killed were to blame for the crash because they took an unnecessary risk? Like speeding up to make a green light, or driving through a red light, or driving on the wrong side of the road, or driving between the two yellow lines, or doing stunts on their bikes, or not having headlights or reflectors at night, and not wearing contrasting clothing so they can be seen at night? I am not saying that cyclists are responsible for most of the accidents. I understand that the biggest hazard is someone opening a car door without properly looking and those motorists would be wrong. But is the driver still wrong if he is checking his mirror and there are no cyclists coming, but he hits a cyclist anyway when opening his door because the cyclist is going the wrong way? Just don't assume that the driver is automatically at fault.
  9. Thanks for not answering my questions. Yes, headlights on cars are required and most of the time they are on at night. But many cyclists do not have required headlights or reflectors and are dumb enough to wear dark clothing at night. Funny you mention street lamps. A friend of mine was cautiously crossing an intersection in his car at about ten mph about ten years ago after stopping at a stop sign. Two cyclists were traveling across the intersection without headlights and wearing dark clothing. The second cyclist was not looking ahead or for traffic. He had his head down concentrating on pedaling faster to catch up to his friend. My friend failed to see him coming partially due to a street lamp that was out of order. He pedaled right into my friends car. As a passenger I saw the bike at the last second but thought saying something to my friend might cause him to panic and make a decision that would make things worse. Luckily at the last second the cyclist noticed the car and served to grab onto the side of the car. He fell off the bike but wasn't hurt. But that didn't stop him from suing my friend. The case was dropped after three years when the cyclist couldn't produce any medical bills. Yes, drivers violate traffic rules, but by far cyclists violate more rules than drivers. You say drivers have greater responsibility implying little responsibility for cyclists. I say everyone needs to be responsible. Cyclists killed two pedestrians this year. Were those the fault of the pedestrian? Until you drive a car at night you won't understand how under certain conditions, how difficult it can be to see cyclists and even pedestrians. Just the other day there was a cyclist in the middle of the street operating his bicycle as if it were a unicycle. Stunt driving has no place on the city streets just like driving a car at sixty or ninety mph on a city street that resulted in two recent tragedies. And everyone needs to be attentive.
  10. Gowanus has HOV lane which needs to be in effect for more hours.
  11. You obviously hate all drivers because I notice how you carefully edited out my comments about cyclists going the wrong way, cycling between the double yellow lines and going through red lights. And the time I noticed a cyclist in the regular lanes, there were other cyclists in the bicycle lane. So yes, if there is debris or the lane is in poor condition, the cyclist doesn’t have to use it, but not because he wants to travel faster than other cyclists, because it is too slow for them. I see that you can never admit that cyclists can do anything wrong. As far as drivers going faster than they should, yes of course some do that, but by far most drivers drive safely and conscientiously.
  12. I thought so. A very small portion of the roadway.
  13. Yes. This is not a new idea. Cities have been doing this successfully for over ten years, perhaps close to 20. And the shoulders could even carry a diamond logo as is done in those cities with bus lanes on shoulders. When I proposed this, I wasn’t even aware of cities doing this. Incidentally, on Flatbush Avenue south of they Belt Pkway, where the right lane is striped off, I saw Q35s unofficially using it to pass traffic which was gridlocked due to beach traffic several weeks ago. It made perfect sense for them to do that although they were not following procedure.
  14. Improving on time performance is good, but can also be accomplished in other ways as I outlined in my report. I just don’t like splitting routes usually especially without an overlap because you greatly increase the need for transferring and turn two bus trips into three bus trips which is a great deference to ridership.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.