B44 +SelectBusService+

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, because our current transit and city planning is done by people who will not use mass transit for anything.

 

And possibly because democracy is not living up to its full potential; FDR once said that "democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

 

What is going on with the M60 SBS and 125 Street reminds me of that FDR quote. Actually, complaints about eliminating street parking spaces to give surface mass transit more of an edge in general remind me of that quote. (Forget about my "extreme" proposal for the B44 SBS, for purposes of this discussion. Just think about less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes.)

To imply that people who disagree with your worldview are uneducated is, quite frankly, insulting. It isn't irrational for people to hold views against something that takes away something that benefits them. At the end of the day, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the government must respect the wishes of those it represents.

 

The main reason that MTA should not be building these new routes is that, quite frankly, MTA is a very big organization that already has a lot on its plate. Planning and construction should be done by a separate organization that has the time and energy to expend on these things. MTA, however, should be involved in operating said routes, simply because that is what it does best. We see this where DOT has taken the lead in creating the SBS network, and where Queens politicians have taken the lead in reactivating the Rockaway Beach Branch.

 

Exactly. That's why we need the Triboro RX, some sort of Rockaway Line reactivation, and a new class of express bus or van operating between major borough centers where there are no subways.  Even if they operate once an hour or only several times a day. The same is true for airport service. With an increasing number of non-Manhattan bound trips, something has to be done in the short and long term.  Not in the MTA paradigm though.

 

I believe that in this case, DOT would be best to license private operators to create their own services. Services like these have already spontaneously arisen in the Asian communities of the metro area; operators provide services between Flushing, Elmhurst, Chinatown, and Sunset Park, and Bensonhurst, and there's even a shuttle running between Fort Lee and Bayside/Flushing.

[qjtransitmaster]

To imply that people who disagree with your worldview are uneducated is, quite frankly, insulting. It isn't irrational for people to hold views against something that takes away something that benefits them. At the end of the day, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the government must respect the wishes of those it represents.

 

The main reason that MTA should not be building these new routes is that, quite frankly, MTA is a very big organization that already has a lot on its plate. Planning and construction should be done by a separate organization that has the time and energy to expend on these things. MTA, however, should be involved in operating said routes, simply because that is what it does best. We see this where DOT has taken the lead in creating the SBS network, and where Queens politicians have taken the lead in reactivating the Rockaway Beach Branch.

 

I believe that in this case, DOT would be best to license private operators to create their own services. Services like these have already spontaneously arisen in the Asian communities of the metro area; operators provide services between Flushing, Elmhurst, Chinatown, and Sunset Park, and Bensonhurst, and there's even a shuttle running between Fort Lee and Bayside/Flushing.

Fort lee and flushing sounds slower than transit at peak times mind you the Harlem river and I87 Shitshows

[BrooklynBus]

@BobtehPanda

 

The planning and construction is done by DOT, not the MTA. The only hardware which is the responsibility of the MTA are the buses and fare machines. The MTA of course is in charge of the operation which includes operations planning and scheduling.

[BrooklynIRT]

To imply that people who disagree with your worldview are uneducated is, quite frankly, insulting. It isn't irrational for people to hold views against something that takes away something that benefits them. At the end of the day, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and the government must respect the wishes of those it represents.

 

I was not implying that such people were necessarily uneducated. (Also, just describing them as "uneducated" is pretty general.)

 

What is your opinion about the education system in NYC, NYS, and the United States? One of the interesting features of the education system is that it implicitly tells the people how society should operate and implicitly tells them what they should believe to benefit them and/r what they should not believe to benefit them.

 

People outside of educational institutions also educate people and implicitly tell them what they should believe to benefit them and/r what they should not believe to benefit them.

 

The government also runs the education system, which many people criticize for its shortcomings. One has to look no further than the NYC public school system to see these shortcomings.

 

This may include the elimination of "common sense" courses, such as Home Economics!

 

It is a sort of circle with the government and the governed: The government implicitly tells the governed, through the education system, how society should operate and implicitly tells them what they should believe to benefit them and/r what they should not believe to benefit them. Then, the governed develop an idea of what benefits them and what does not benefit them, and they tell the government what they want and do not want, based on this (how society should operate and what they should believe to benefit them and/r what they should not believe to benefit them, which is what the government has implicitly told them).

 

The government might do well to recognize that what goes around comes around and start changing several aspects of the education system quickly.

[BrooklynBus]

Education should be a presentation of the facts, and that means all the facts, not only history from the perspective of the winner, and then let everyone make up their own minds. But today we are less interested in creating a generation of thinkers but creating a generation of robots.

 

Education is more than just memorization of a bunch of facts and teaching to the test. I agree with you that there needs to be more common sense courses. There has to be the recognition that not everyone is destined for college. We will always need technicians and mechanics, and with most going to college, if what they taught us about supply and demand is correct, one day the plumbers will be the richest people in America.

[bobtehpanda]

Well, good thing I have a bicycle, especially if I do not want to deal with the [effects of the] restrictiveness of society [the effects of] community consultation and democracy when it comes to making improvements to [surface] mass transit.

 

I remember what Culver once said about democracy:

 

 

What happened to democracy is a small minority of loud idiots hijacked it.

 

 

This is not implying that the majority of people who were consulted with were "a small minority of loud idiots?"

 

And possibly because democracy is not living up to its full potential; FDR once said that "democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

 

And, because of your earlier statements about "the restrictiveness of democracy" not "living up to its full potential", it's because people are uneducated, when "living up to its full potential" means "not doing something I want?"

 

All your posts so far, especially the ones mentioning the wishes of the communities, smack of a "holier-than-thou" attitude, because you're more "educated" than everyone else. What difference does it make if someone without a GED, someone who graduated from college and runs a small business, and someone who has a doctorate and commutes into the city each agree that removing all parking is a bad idea? Is the high school dropout's opinion somehow less valid? Saying that they're "uneducated" for not wanting all parking to be removed is the same as Robert Moses calling people stupid for opposing highway expansion through neighborhoods. If you want to give the community the power to reject things, it applies in all situations. A double-edged sword swings both ways.

 

I also don't know where you get off on how the government indoctrinates people and its relevance to this discussion, because as you've noted, most high schools have dropped courses on civics and home economics; many still teach New York City history, but there aren't high school classes in traffic engineering. In fact, the New York City history classes still being taught within city limits all reflect poorly on Moses and his highway building, so the implication that the government is telling people that removing parking is bad is just silly.

[BrooklynIRT]

This is not implying that the majority of people who were consulted with were "a small minority of loud idiots?"

 

Not necessarily.

[BrooklynBus]

This discussion you are both having reminds me of a community activist I know who is a great believer in democracy, that is if what you say agrees with his viewpoint. Otherwise, you have no business saying it.

 

That is the exact opposite of what democracy means. It means being able to state the unpopular point of view without ramifications of someone insulting you or doing worse.

[qjtransitmaster]

Exactly. That's why we need the Triboro RX, some sort of Rockaway Line reactivation, and a new class of express bus or van operating between major borough centers where there are no subways.  Even if they operate once an hour or only several times a day. The same is true for airport service. With an increasing number of non-Manhattan bound trips, something has to be done in the short and long term.  Not in the MTA paradigm though.

 

Interesting I may have a few ideas on that but parts aren't finished. And now I am curious between what points? I want to compare to my own observations and reducing DH on costly to operate services it may save some express buses from elimination.

[BrooklynIRT]

And, because of your earlier statements about "the restrictiveness of democracy" not "living up to its full potential", it's because people are uneducated, when "living up to its full potential" means "not doing something I want?"

 

All your posts so far, especially the ones mentioning the wishes of the communities, smack of a "holier-than-thou" attitude, because you're more "educated" than everyone else. What difference does it make if someone without a GED, someone who graduated from college and runs a small business, and someone who has a doctorate and commutes into the city each agree that removing all parking is a bad idea? Is the high school dropout's opinion somehow less valid? Saying that they're "uneducated" for not wanting all parking to be removed is the same as Robert Moses calling people stupid for opposing highway expansion through neighborhoods. If you want to give the community the power to reject things, it applies in all situations. A double-edged sword swings both ways.

 

I also don't know where you get off on how the government indoctrinates people and its relevance to this discussion, because as you've noted, most high schools have dropped courses on civics and home economics; many still teach New York City history, but there aren't high school classes in traffic engineering. In fact, the New York City history classes still being taught within city limits all reflect poorly on Moses and his highway building, so the implication that the government is telling people that removing parking is bad is just silly.

You said "to imply that people who disagree with your worldview are uneducated is, quite frankly, insulting." I never said people who have disagreed with my worldview are uneducated, nor do I believe that people who have disagreed with my worldview are necessarily uneducated.

 

I also said "forget about my "extreme" proposal for the B44 SBS, for purposes of this discussion. Just think about less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes."

 

I will probably address your other statements later. I know the government is not directly telling people that removing parking is bad.

[B35 via Church]

I spoke with a former LI resident she told me she moved to Brooklyn to avoid having to own a car. No I am not making this up. I would say yes there are folks who want nothing to do with mass transit however there are also folks who don't want to own a car either. And some who only drive cause they have no other choice. We will never truly know until we give people options BOTH a great Transit system and road network for cars. To know the truth we need DATA only with data will we know the true demand or lack thereof for transit. Making assumptions is not the way to go only the data will know the truth just cause you talk to a few LIers or read some articles doesn't mean that is the whole picture. If NICE & SCT took a RGRTA approach service may increase drastically but only data can reveal that.

So your point is... What?

We shouldn't speculate since we don't have the data.... Don't bother me with that crap, save it for someone else.

If we have people on a forum not posting opinions & only posting facts, that would make for one boring ass forum......

 

What's funny about this, is that this type of a stance/post nullifies all the reasonings you have behind your asinine bus route suggestions... Now go runteldat.....

 

Stop I think Brooklynbus already made it clear what the reality is I would say you and B35 are both way off here. If transit was excellent (with marketing) then the ones who refuse transit will be revealed as well as those who don't want to drive. Rockland county's worst weakness is the marketing.

Coming in here saying we need the data, then saying that those presenting differing sides of the argument are both way off, isn't you really saying shit..... 

 

...and Lol @ you thinking this is about people being "revealed".... It is all about preferences, not trying to get a mass amount out of their cars & onto mass transit (BrooklynIRT) & remaining ignorant on just how many folks want nothing to do with mass transit (BrooklynBus & BrooklynIRT)..... 

 

Despising or disliking them is not going to get them to stop performing actions that, while annoying and disruptive, are not grave enough for me to consider them bad people. Therefore it makes no sense for me to despise or dislike them.

 

Ok.

 

-You do not despise motorists or their actions.

 

-I dislike the annoying, disruptive, and dangerous motor vehicle actions I have mentioned, which are performed by motorists.

 

-You said "[lack of parking spaces] & [having the choice to utilize the personal vehicle over mass transit] have zero to do with each other."

 

-I believe I can use the fact that "[lack of parking spaces] & [having the choice to utilize the personal vehicle over mass transit] have zero to do with each other" to plausibly argue that entirely removing street parking from Nostrand Ave between Lenox Rd and Linden Blvd (for example) will not eliminate any Lefferts Gardens/Flatbush resident's choice to use a private automobile instead of mass transit to go wherever they may wish to go.

 

-I do not believe that the fact that you do not despise motorists or their actions, while I dislike the annoying, disruptive, and dangerous motor vehicle actions I have mentioned, means that I cannot use the fact that "[lack of parking spaces] & [having the choice to utilize the personal vehicle over mass transit] have zero to do with each other" to plausibly argue that entirely removing street parking from Nostrand Ave between Lenox Rd and Linden Blvd (for example) will not eliminate any Lefferts Gardens/Flatbush resident's choice to use a private automobile instead of mass transit to go wherever they may wish to go.

 

-Do you believe that the fact that you do not despise motorists or their actions, while I dislike the annoying, disruptive, and dangerous motor vehicle actions I have mentioned, means that I cannot use the fact that "[lack of parking spaces] & [having the choice to utilize the personal vehicle over mass transit] have zero to do with each other" to plausibly argue that entirely removing street parking from Nostrand Ave between Lenox Rd and Linden Blvd (for example) will not eliminate any Lefferts Gardens/Flatbush resident's choice to use a private automobile instead of mass transit to go wherever they may wish to go?

1) Nah man....

 

Not getting motorists to stop performing said actions has nothin to do with this particular side discussion.... This particular side discussion is regarding you coming on here for what, 1.5 years or whatever with this anti car rhetoric, and then whatever amount of pages back (in this thread) having agreed w/ TeeLow's post saying you have nothing against people who drive cars...... Nothing!

 

The latter shits on your ENTIRE anti-car position..... Not sure how it is you're not understanding that....

 

2) ....Except a certain portion of that statement you made, is not a fact.....

 

Although I don't despise motorists, I don't favor said unfavorable actions....

(in other words, I don't condone double parking, running red lights, cutting off buses, etc.)

 

So where you're getting the belief that I do not despise their actions, I have no clue.... That would be like me excusing EVERYTHING motorists do on the road, which is a gross misrepresentation of my pro-car (or pro-choice, really) stance... Due to that misinterpretation of yours, it's not a question I have to answer, because the whole stance of "Do you believe that the fact that you do not despise motorists or their actions" is not a position I hold.....

 

I did not explicitly mention intentionally running red signals in any posts I made within at least the last three days. Intentionally running red signals qualifies as "driving dangerously" in my book, though.

 

I mention this because I said "despising or disliking them is not going to get them to stop performing actions that, while annoying and disruptive, are not grave enough for me to consider them bad people. Therefore it makes no sense for me to despise or dislike them," and I did not have intentionally running red signals in mind when I said that (and have not mentioned it within at least the last three days), even though I quoted the part of your (B35's) post that mentioned running red signals.

 

If I had noticed that you mentioned "run red lights" in post #1191 at the time I typed post #1194, post #1194 would have begun like this:

 

Despising or disliking them is not going to get them to stop performing actions** that, while annoying and disruptive, are not grave enough for me to consider them bad people. Therefore it makes no sense for me to despise or dislike them.

 

**These actions include illegally using bus lanes, driving aggressively, double parking on streets where buses run, cutting other vehicles (especially mass transit vehicles) off, darting out of parking spaces and in front of mass transit vehicles, driving slowly in front of surface mass transit vehicles, or backing into parking spaces in front of buses using offset bus lanes or streetcars on streetcar tracks, but not necessarily running red signals.

I inserted running red lights on purpose, as something motorists do that isn't a favorable act.....

Yes, it wasn't anything you said.....

 

@B35 via Church

 

I don't know if I fully agree with you that, you will never get someone out of a car to use mass transit. Or that most people prefer to be alone without others around them so they drive. I agree with QJ Transitmaster that there are some reluctant drivers out there who would prefer to use mass transit if it were better and would rather not drive. And as I said, there are some who would never choose mass transit, no matter what the circumstances. But that should not be an excuse for not improving mass transit.

 

As far as the system being horrible, that all depends on what your expectations are. If you are used to a system where all the bus routes run part time and on 30 minute headways, coming to NY you would conclude we have a great system here. If you live somewhere near a train and most of your destinations are also near a train, you would conclude the same. Duringt he snow storm, the media asked a guy how his commute was. He replied no problem - got from Newark to Penn Station in 20 minutes. But for most bus passengers making shorter trips, 20 minutes is your minimum trip with some intraborough trips taking two hours, but subway trips to Manhattan taking 30 minutes. It all depends on your perspective and where you need to go to say If the system is great or is horrible.

I did say in general, but that's fine that you don't fully agree..... I'm not even doubting that you can't get some folks out their cars & onto mass transit with better transit (I do believe that's a rather small minority, though), I'm defiantly doubting this pie-in-the-sky notion that you're gonna get motorists out of their cars & onto mass transit with better mass transit in droves (which is the position i gather that both you & BrooklynIRT have).... Furthermore, my problem with your posts regarding this subject (not just the ones in this thread either) is that you have a tendency to minimize the folks that would never use mass transit... I get that this is a transit based forum, but still...

 

I have a question for you though....

Where did you get the inkling that I'm advocating not improving mass transit due to those (motorists) that want nothing to do with mass transit (referring to the part in bold in your post)? That is an extreme anti-transit position, one I don't think anyone on this board holds....

 

As far as people's differing experiences & expectations regarding transit, yes, I get all that.....

 

you and B35 still at it damn. Get a room 2 extremes don't make a right.

You still bitching over what other people are doing.... Damn....

 

Weren't you warned about these spamming ass posts....

[BrooklynBus]

@B35 Via Church

 

About that part in bold. That was not a personal comment directed at you. It was more of a comment directed at our elected officials who might hold that same view.  

 

As for overestimating the numbers of people who would convert to transit if it were better, I am not aware of ever making an estimate. I've always stated that everything comes down to choices and what is best for that individual for the specific trip he is contemplating.  It stands to reason that more people would take more transit trips if it were improved or the cost lowered and that is especially true for discretional trips. 

[BrooklynIRT]

2) ....Except a certain portion of that statement you made, is not a fact.....

 

Although I don't despise motorists, I don't favor said unfavorable actions....

(in other words, I don't condone double parking, running red lights, cutting off buses, etc.)

 

You did put "actions of motorists" in parentheses in the statement below, but I understand that you do not condone the unfavorable actions I mentioned, now that you have clearly stated that (in post #1211).

 

Lol @ help your cause.... I don't despise motorists (my fault, the "actions" of motorists  ) like you do, in hopes of trying to f*** them over to make mass transit that much better, so I don't see how that's even possible....

[BrooklynIRT]

Not getting motorists to stop performing said actions has nothin to do with this particular side discussion....

 

For me it does. I honestly see no point in despising or disliking people who perform actions that, while annoying and disruptive, are not grave enough for me to consider them bad people.

 

The latter shits on your ENTIRE anti-car position.....

Umm...

 

Not sure how it is you're not understanding that....

Neither am I, to be honest.

[B35 via Church]

@B35 Via Church

 

About that part in bold. That was not a personal comment directed at you. It was more of a comment directed at our elected officials who might hold that same view.  

 

As for overestimating the numbers of people who would convert to transit if it were better, I am not aware of ever making an estimate. I've always stated that everything comes down to choices and what is best for that individual for the specific trip he is contemplating.  It stands to reason that more people would take more transit trips if it were improved or the cost lowered and that is especially true for discretional trips. 

About the part in bold in that prior post of yours, alright, gotcha....

 

As for this latest reply... You never made an estimate per se, but your replies to others who have, tends to be in agreement (with such an overestimation).... What you're saying now doesn't coincide with posts/replies you make..... So I don't know if I can exactly buy you also being pro-choice when it comes down to commuting.... Although you aren't anti-car, You tend to favor mass transit over the automobile, and that's apparent with your forum & blog posts.....

 

You did put "actions of motorists" in parentheses in the statement below, but I understand that you do not condone the unfavorable actions I mentioned.

You have a comprehension problem; Where did I say that I didn't say "actions of motorists"..... 

 

But LMAO at this for a different reason....

 

That was me being sarcastic to your whole bit regarding, tryna separate motorists themselves from the acts they perform on the road..... Hence the reason I put it in parentheses & the smilie afterwards......

 

 For me it does. I honestly see no point in despising or disliking people who perform actions that, while annoying and disruptive, are not grave enough for me to consider them bad people.

Of course, since you are trying to save face......

[qjtransitmaster]

About the part in bold in that prior post of yours, alright, gotcha....

 

As for this latest reply... You never made an estimate per se, but your replies to others who have, tends to be in agreement (with such an overestimation).... What you're saying now doesn't coincide with posts/replies you make..... So I don't know if I can exactly buy you also being pro-choice when it comes down to commuting.... Although you aren't anti-car, You tend to favor mass transit over the automobile, and that's apparent with your forum & blog posts.....

 

You have a comprehension problem; Where did I say that I didn't say "actions of motorists"..... 

 

But LMAO at this for a different reason....

 

That was me being sarcastic to your whole bit regarding, tryna separate motorists themselves from the acts they perform on the road..... Hence the reason I put it in parentheses & the smilie afterwards......

 

Of course, since you are trying to save face......

Lol at this so called debate while eating popcorn. These threads in the bus forums have degraded into pure warfare now I just play spectator as people make proposals then the extreme tug o war begins. This 3 way between you and  BrooklynIRT and Brooklynbus with extremes on both sides and lack of creativity then the smart ones like Brooklynbus and bobtehpanda with reasonable stances what data do you have to actually disprove the need for transit expansion. And @BrooklynIRT if you make driving conditions worse you indirectly make transit worse cause buses rely on roads!!! Especially express buses ever hear of the concept park& ride. Problem with you 2 is B35 underestimates demand while BrooklynIRT overestimates demand transit must strike a balance. Since before I decided that proposals are useless without data even my previous bus ideas. Which is what makes planning so damn difficult data is needed. However Since I had more data on Westchester I tended to sound a bit better but sadly this is mostly a NYC forum. I did restructure my rapid NYC ideas based on DHs and how they work but I am not even close to finished. 

[BrooklynIRT]

All your posts so far, especially the ones mentioning the wishes of the communities, smack of a "holier-than-thou" attitude, because you're more "educated" than everyone else. What difference does it make if someone without a GED, someone who graduated from college and runs a small business, and someone who has a doctorate and commutes into the city each agree that removing all parking is a bad idea? Is the high school dropout's opinion somehow less valid? Saying that they're "uneducated" for not wanting all parking to be removed is the same as Robert Moses calling people stupid for opposing highway expansion through neighborhoods. If you want to give the community the power to reject things, it applies in all situations. A double-edged sword swings both ways.

 

I also don't know where you get off on how the government indoctrinates people and its relevance to this discussion, because as you've noted, most high schools have dropped courses on civics and home economics; many still teach New York City history, but there aren't high school classes in traffic engineering. In fact, the New York City history classes still being taught within city limits all reflect poorly on Moses and his highway building, so the implication that the government is telling people that removing parking is bad is just silly.

I said "restrictiveness of society," not "restrictiveness of democracy."

 

Also, are we even considering my "extreme" Nostrand Ave proposal in this discussion at this point, or are we just considering less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes?

 

Just as a reminder, in my post #1200, I said "forget about my "extreme" proposal for the B44 SBS, for purposes of this discussion. Just think about less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes" and I talked about the recent nonsense going on with 125 Street, where removing all parking was not proposed.

 

The level of formal education somebody has attained is not what I had in mind when I posted the FDR quote.

 

I would like you to define "educated" and "uneducated," in general and as they apply to this discussion, since you were the first to mention both of those words.

 

I partially addressed your last sentence about the government and removing parking in post #1210.

 

Creating K-12 classes in traffic engineering is not something I had in mind either.

 

For a discussion about home economics and civics courses (and how the lack of them is, quite frankly, hurting society), please PM me. It warrants a separate discussion in and of itself.

 

Moving right along...

[BrooklynIRT]

Of course, since you are trying to save face......

Not necessarily.

[BrooklynIRT]

remaining ignorant on just how many folks want nothing to do with mass transit (BrooklynBus & BrooklynIRT)..... 

I would disagree that I am ignorant of how many persons want nothing to do with mass transit. On the contrary, I am well aware of such persons.

[BrooklynIRT]

Sorry about the posts being all over the place, bobtehpanda. Among the posts I have made within that last 12 hours, the ones I hope you did not miss include 1207, 1210, 1217, and the present one (1220).

 

All your posts so far, especially the ones mentioning the wishes of the communities, smack of a "holier-than-thou" attitude, because you're more "educated" than everyone else.

In what ways do I imply that I am more "educated" than others? Again, the level of formal education somebody has attained is not what I had in mind when I posted the FDR quote.

 

As for smacking of a holier-than-thou attitude, I would like you to expand on that statement. I do not really follow it. I did ask about the "educated" thing, to which the "holier-than-thou" thing is connected though, so your answer to the first question might just be the answer to this request ("I would like you to expand on that statement.") or be very similar to the answer to this request.

[bobtehpanda]

Sorry about the posts being all over the place, bobtehpanda. Among the posts I have made within that last 12 hours, the ones I hope you did not miss include 1207, 1210, 1217, and the present one (1220).

 

In what ways do I imply that I am more "educated" than others? Again, the level of formal education somebody has attained is not what I had in mind when I posted the FDR quote.

 

As for smacking of a holier-than-thou attitude, I would like you to expand on that statement. I do not really follow it. I did ask about the "educated" thing, to which the "holier-than-thou" thing is connected though, so your answer to the first question might just be the answer to this request ("I would like you to expand on that statement.") or be very similar to the answer to this request.

 

To make a post regarding how democracy or community consultation (which you implicitly acknowledged as "the restrictiveness of society" by putting it into your quote) doesn't work, and then to follow up with quotes about how democracy is ruined by idiots and the saving grace of democracy is education, implies that you believe that the democracy or community consultation was ruined by idiots, and the saving grace of that process would be "education". That's where the educated/uneducated dichotomy came in; you implied that the people who came up with the final product that you disagreed with (a B44 SBS that included parking) was because they were "uneducated" by pulling out that FDR quote. Even if you were not talking about formal education, implying that someone is "uneducated" because they want to keep parking smacks of a holier-than-thou attitude, because of the negative connotations of implying a lack of "education".

 

In addition, by pulling that FDR quote about education, it implies that you presume to know better than the people who made their concerns clear about the limited removal of parking that occurred because you have "education" that they do not (because democracy doesn't work), and that you know what's good/better for them.

This discussion you are both having reminds me of a community activist I know who is a great believer in democracy, that is if what you say agrees with his viewpoint. Otherwise, you have no business saying it.

 

That is the exact opposite of what democracy means. It means being able to state the unpopular point of view without ramifications of someone insulting you or doing worse.

 

In this country at least, I take democracy to mean that you have the right to free speech, but you also have to be responsible for whatever consequences arise as a result.

 

When it comes to transportation planning, democracy is about accommodating concerns at the local level, which DOT has done a fairly good job of doing (the B44 SBS took five years of community consultation and is still being worked on). At the same time, I also take it to mean that you cannot steamroll unpopular things through communities that do not want them, such as the removal of free parking or demolition of houses for a highway.

[BrooklynBus]

@B35 via Church

 

I am pro-transit of course. I am pretty much pro-choice except when it comes to taking your car into Midtown which should be avoided as much as possible. But I do understand the need to do that occasionally. If people want to pay the high price for that privilege, I have no problem with it. But most of all I am about being fair. That is one of the reasons why I am against tolling the free bridges. If you want to equalize the tolls, then place modest tolls on all the bridges and keep it that way. But to give no one a choice when entering Manhattan by charging high tolls everywhere and continuing to raise them every two years is just ridiculous especially when some are just passing through Manhattan to get elsewhere. Whenever I make a statement about being fair to cars on Sheepsheadbites, there is a group of people who jump all over me accusing me of being pro-auto and anti-transit.

 

It's all about having a balanced transportation system. You try to improve travel for everyone, not intentionally hurting one mode just to promote another. Like reducing street capacity making auto travel more difficult just to appease bike riders, or saying any wide street is suitable for Select Bus Service without doing any further analysis like saying since Woodhaven Blvd has six lanes we can automatically take away two. Or X street has four lanes so we can convert two to bike lanes. Case closed. Well it's not that simple.

[BrooklynIRT]

To make a post regarding how democracy or community consultation (which you implicitly acknowledged as "the restrictiveness of society" by putting it into your quote) doesn't work, and then to follow up with quotes about how democracy is ruined by idiots and the saving grace of democracy is education, implies that you believe that the democracy or community consultation was ruined by idiots, and the saving grace of that process would be "education". That's where the educated/uneducated dichotomy came in; you implied that the people who came up with the final product that you disagreed with (a B44 SBS that included parking) was because they were "uneducated" by pulling out that FDR quote. Even if you were not talking about formal education, implying that someone is "uneducated" because they want to keep parking smacks of a holier-than-thou attitude, because of the negative connotations of implying a lack of "education".

 

In addition, by pulling that FDR quote about education, it implies that you presume to know better than the people who made their concerns clear about the limited removal of parking that occurred because you have "education" that they do not (because democracy doesn't work), and that you know what's good/better for them.

 

Ok.

 

I introduced the FDR quote when I made post #1200, and I stated that the M60 thing reminded me of that FDR quote. Then I said that complaints about eliminating street parking spaces to give surface mass transit more of an edge in general remind me of that quote. Immediately after that, I said we can "forget about my "extreme" proposal for the B44 SBS, for purposes of this discussion. Just think about less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes."

 

My main motivation for posting the FDR quote was my belief that the lack of certain [home economics and civics] courses is a shortcoming of the public education system. If there were home economics and civics courses, people might make decisions differently, thinking about their communities more and being more willing to make "compromises" that wind up benefiting everyone as well as themselves. I ask that you forget about my "extreme" proposal for the B44 SBS for purposes of this discussion, and just think about less "extreme" measures, such as lengthening of bus stops, installation of bus bulbs, or installation of curbside bus lanes.

 

Think about what is going on with 125 Street. Is it too much to ask that people make "compromises" that wind up benefiting a majority of the people? Is it wrong to criticize the government for not teaching what should be taught or teaching what should not be taught, which probably has a hand in causing people to believe that they should feel no need to compromise on certain issues regardless of the implications of being uncompromising?

[BrooklynIRT]

Whenever I make a statement about being fair to cars on Sheepsheadbites, there is a group of people who jump all over me accusing me of being pro-auto and anti-transit.

 

This is because, depending on what it means to be "fair to cars," being "fair to cars" without significantly hurting other modes or while significantly helping other modes can be a very, very difficult thing to accomplish.

 

When it comes to being fair to cars, remember: [Lack of parking spaces] and [having the choice to utilize the personal automobile over mass transit] have zero to do with each other.

 

(I now firmly believe that statement; you can quote me on it.)

[BrooklynIRT]

I should have said "the majority" instead of "a majority" in the penultimate question in post #1223.