Woodhaven Blvd. Q52/53 SBS Discussion

[BrooklynBus]

The same place I get 99% of my info. lol. Directly from the MTA. You are on the right path, but a few details have changed. Both the partial, and full implementation of SBS has been put on hold to re-evaluate traffic patterns, and the prospects of such long stretches where vehicles where not be allowed to make left-hand turns. However, there is a new schedule and updated timetable for the project. It's delayed a bit, and until further notice an official date has not been set. I've spoken to DOT's head guy in charge of SBS personally.

 

What they want to do now, is start off with what will be approved and have a learning period where they see how everything works, then move along to phase 2 or "the long-term project" based off the data they learned form phase 1 or "the short-term project."

 

Most of what you mentioned above has changed a bit, effective December 15th.

 

The project has been divided into 2. Short term, and long term. MTA is rethinking the long term portion of the project and is not exactly sure when it will be complete.

 

The new schedule is as follows...

 

 

• Spring 2016: Present draft 2017 short-term designs to the community at public open houses, community board and stakeholder meetings, and to riders on street & bus

 

 

• Summer 2016: Revise 2017 designs based on community feedback

 

 

•  Spring 2017: Begin implementation of short-term designs and begin process for long-term project

Basically they went back to the drawing board, and the final designs for both the short and long term portions of the project have not been complete. Thus putting off the SBS as they re-work the design of the SBS service for the route. This means we will not have anything definitive until at least after the Summer. 

 

So again, it has been put on hold until further notice, pending the outcome of the summer community feedback sessions. Articulated buses however will show up on the where or not SBS is ready when they arrive. It's expected to begin spring pic 2017, but again, this is subject to final design of the service.

Thanks for the explanation and clarification but I don't think I was stating anything substantially different from what you just stated.

[BrooklynBus]

You know better than to make such a ludicrous false equivalency. I don't even know where to start with all the things wrong in that remark. A few that come to mind, however:

 

1) The first subways were built with appalling safety standards that led to the frequent deaths or workers and would never, ever be accepted by unions today

2) Technology is not even remotely similar in scope or complexity to what it was then

3) Modern single-station subway extensions (see 7 line) tend to require a minimum of a decade of work at a cost of approx. $1bil/mile

4) The 2nd Avenue subway has been under construction for about 50 years, which makes four years seem quite 'short-term'

5) Part of the reason the Woodhaven SBS has been so delayed has been thanks to community opposition from people like you. You can criticize it for your own made-up reasons, but you can't argue it's too slow when you are personally working to make it slower.

I certainly realize that a lot has changed between 1904 and today and the comparison wasn't entirely fair. However, we are not talking about constructing a subway under Woodhaven Blvd which is an unrealistic alternative when you consider the expense and other priorities. We are talking about rebuilding an existing right of way which would cost a fraction of the price and has numerous benefits BRT or SBS does not have with none of the disadvantages of severely impacting traffic in an area that depends on the automobile especially for off-peak travel.

 

And there is community opposition for good reason. The corridor was defined as the roadway when it needed to include the rail right of way. There has been no proper traffic analysis. DOT's proposal was based on nothing more than someone looking at a Google map and seeing a street wider than all the others and inaccurately concluding all those lanes for cars are not necessary. That perhaps could be true if the plan could divert a significant number of cars to the BRT or SBS. However that will not happen and DOT hasn't even predicted it will happen. They have only made a general statement that improved public transportation could eventually lead to some switching modes. That is not good enough of a reason to severely reduce road capacity and travel speeds.

 

Then they tried to lie and deceive the public. Never once in any of their presentatios or written documents did they ever state traffic lanes woud be lost. But the people were smart enough to see through the lies and speak up. That forced DOT to delay and rethink the project. But if they would have done their job properly in the first place, delays would not have been necessary. So put the blame where it belongs with DOT, not with the public who would have had to live with poor plans if they are put in place.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

The same place I get 99% of my info. lol. Directly from the MTA. You are on the right path, but a few details have changed. Both the partial, and full implementation of SBS has been put on hold to re-evaluate traffic patterns, and the prospects of such long stretches where vehicles where not be allowed to make left-hand turns. However, there is a new schedule and updated timetable for the project. It's delayed a bit, and until further notice an official date has not been set. I've spoken to DOT's head guy in charge of SBS personally.

 

What they want to do now, is start off with what will be approved and have a learning period where they see how everything works, then move along to phase 2 or "the long-term project" based off the data they learned form phase 1 or "the short-term project."

 

Most of what you mentioned above has changed a bit, effective December 15th.

 

The project has been divided into 2. Short term, and long term. MTA is rethinking the long term portion of the project and is not exactly sure when it will be complete.

 

The new schedule is as follows...

 

• Spring 2016: Present draft 2017 short-term designs to the community at public open houses, community board and stakeholder meetings, and to riders on street & bus

 

• Summer 2016: Revise 2017 designs based on community feedback

 

•  Spring 2017: Begin implementation of short-term designs and begin process for long-term project

Basically they went back to the drawing board, and the final designs for both the short and long term portions of the project have not been complete. Thus putting off the SBS as they re-work the design of the SBS service for the route. This means we will not have anything definitive until at least after the Summer. 

 

So again, it has been put on hold until further notice, pending the outcome of the summer community feedback sessions. Articulated buses however will show up on the where or not SBS is ready when they arrive. It's expected to begin spring pic 2017, but again, this is subject to final design of the service.

Do you have reliability data on subway lines and which ones are consistent?

[JerBear]

Then they tried to lie and deceive the public. Never once in any of their presentatios or written documents did they ever state traffic lanes woud be lost.

Absolutely they admitted (aloud in a meeting, I don't know about in print) to taking away travel lanes. They said that they would maintain 3 lanes in each direction (so there wouldn't be an exclusive bus lane over the LIRR) but that there would no longer be any areas with 4 lanes in order to eliminate merging and spreading as you went down the corridor. They specifically identified the varying number of lanes as something that is causing congestion.

[JerBear]

Never once in any of their presentatios or written documents did they ever state traffic lanes woud be lost.

From DOT's Woodhaven SBS page, April 23, 2014 community planning workshop, 2nd-to-last page of the presentation: "Most of Woodhaven and Cross Bay have 4-5 lanes/direction... Continue to provide 3 continuous lanes for general traffic... Reconfigure roadway to better use" extra" space without creating merges"

They said right there, right at the beginning of the planning process: "We're taking the "extra" lanes."

[BrooklynBus]

Absolutely they admitted (aloud in a meeting, I don't know about in print) to taking away travel lanes. They said that they would maintain 3 lanes in each direction (so there wouldn't be an exclusive bus lane over the LIRR) but that there would no longer be any areas with 4 lanes in order to eliminate merging and spreading as you went down the corridor. They specifically identified the varying number of lanes as something that is causing congestion.

What you say is true, however that was only stated during the questions and answers. It was not only in hte Woodhaven presentations. It was all the SBS presentations. Their words were we are creating an exclusive bus lane. Then they woud state whether it would be at the curb or offset. Tey made it appear that the bus lanes would be created out of thin air. They never stated that curbside bus anew meant fewer parking spaces and also never stated articuated buses require longer bus stops and less parking. When questioned about parking their answer was always the loss of parking will not be significant. After the B44 was in the planning process for trustee years, they still would not provide a number of parking spaces that would be lost and made no effort to create additional parking on neighboring streets.

 

Stating that three lanes would be maintained without stating that one of them would be a local lane not contiguous with the two through lanes is deceptive. It is not the same as clearly stating we are taking one travel lane and making it an exclusive bus lane that would be in effect 24 hours a day. Their intention is to deliberately confuse and present only positive aspects of SBS and ignore all the negative effects. Nowhere did they state they would be eliminating 21 left turns in writing or verbally. Instead tey went out to each community separately and only showed them the portion of the plan in their community as if they do not travel outside it. Each community was told they woud lose about three left turns. One had to go to every meeting to get the full number and locations of all left turns and bus stops to be eliminated. They were forced to answer over 60 questions, alf of which they still didn't answer lie what is the difference between the $20 million plan and the $231 million dollar plan. There is no way to deny DOT has been dishonest from the very beginning like labeling a picture of Woodhaven 40 feet wider than it actually is.

[JerBear]

You keep saying DOT is lying/deceiving/misleading. I haven't ever felt mislead at the meetings I have attended. It certainly feels like they avoid answering questions and they hedge their bets about what the plans will look like in the future, but is there another way to do it? Can you give an example of a public agency saying "We don't know what the plans will be like, but we know this: we aren't going to reactivate the RBB, we want to prioritize buses over single-occupancy-vehicles, and we recognize that we're not creating world-class BRT." Has any government agency ever come out and said something like that? Don't they all use generic middle-of-the-road, don't-offend-anyone-outright-by-saying-anything language? And are you saying that the agency as a whole is deceiving? The project manager woman? The guy with the glasses? Trottenberg? Who is lying to us and why?

[BrooklynBus]

Let me say this. I have personally met Trottenberg. I don't believe she is the problem. She strikes me as smart and willing to listen. Definitely an improvement over her dictator predecessor. The problem is she has to make her boss happy. She knows there is no way she can implement 12 new SBS routes before deBlasio's term is over, but that was her order.

 

Same thing with Bratton. I also like him very much as Police Commissioner but deBlasio makes him say things he does not want to say, just like Cuomo makes Prendergast say things he doesn't want to say. So in short, it's deBlasio and Cuomo who are the problems.  DOT can't possibly give the required study and attention needed to each SBS proposal when they are under the gun regarding quantity, not quality.

 

I felt mislead at every single meeting because no questions were ever answered directly, not even a simple question like what do you consider a reasonable speed to be? I asked that question after they stated that after the exclusive lanes are implemented, traffic will be able to move at a reasonable speed.

 

The only answers they gave are: "We will look at that", "Yes we can get you those numbers" (and then we don't get them) "Nothing is cast in concrete." "Yes we can do that." No question is really answered. Garcia (Queens Commissioner) is the only one who actually answered a question when asked 'What if we don't want SBS? What will happen then? She answered that it is a fact of life and you will be getting it anyway whether you want it or not. The follow-up question was so why are you having these meetings?.

 

At CAC meeting #5, Eric (guy with glasses) stated that every DOT project has been a success so failure is not an option with SBS and they will tweak it until they get it right. Many DOT projects have failed so that is a lie right there. They installed medians on Fort Hamilton Parkway in Brooklyn several years ago, and then had to rip them out. He stated traffic will move faster as a result of exclusive bus lanes, yet residents are complaining of increased travel times of between 20 and 45 minutes. DOT responds they will have the numbers in one year. They intend to start designing more changes in six months. So they are not even waiting for the data.

 

So you accept their lies when they say the RBB is not in competition with SBS and there is no reason why both can't be done when they really mean, there is no way in hell the RBB will be reactivated?

 

And the answer to your question whether any government agency tells the truth instead of using middle of the road don't offend anyone language is yes. In 1978, when I presented my 25 or so bus route proposals at the Department of City Planning to six community boards, we were perfectly honest. Being young and new in government, I also just wanted to provide the community with just the good points of my proposal like DOT is doing because I believed that's just what a salesman supposed to do. The people I worked for and with insisted I completely spell out the entire proposal and list all the advantages as well as all the disadvantages, so I did that in writing.

 

What do you think happened? The communities all appreciated the honesty and four out of the six approved all 25 of the proposals, with the other two boards taking a neutral position. No one opposed any of the proposals because they all made sense and were good ones. Convincing the MTA was much more difficult and took two years. They only accepted about 25% of the ideas that affected about10 routes and that was only after a lawsuit. They tried to make a few changes to my ideas and both had to be rescinded, one after three months and the other one after about a year or two. Five hundred people demonstrated in the street to get one of the changes rescinded. My changes only received one written complaint and are all operational 37 years later. In the 37 years since, they implemented about five more of my ideas from 1978 and then they hired me because of those changes.

 

The point is communities will accept good ideas. They will fight ideas that are ill thought out and will harm them. That is what is happening in Woodhaven.

 

I can't speak for the agency as a whole. You shouldn't make general statements. I will say though that most everyone at DOT and the MTA who is involved in SBS and Vision Zero is lying and trying to deceive. I have spoken to only one person at DOT involved in this project who I believe wants to do the right thing and is interested in the truth. I bet he will get disgusted with the agency and find himself another job.

 

Here is another example of how they lied. At the last Congested Corridors Study, I criticized the change they made forcing drivers to make a right turn southbound at Union Turnpike from the service road. I told them that they in effect eliminated using 88th Street as a bypass when the overpass is jammed packed. That alternate saved you five minutes in traffic. So instead of reducing congestion, they increased it. They responded that they had no idea 88 Street was used as a bypass and would look at it again to see if they should change it back. They never got back to me or changed anything. They justified the change as eliminating a merge. Google maps still has the old alignment which show there was no merge at that location, so their rationale for making the change also was a lie. Where are their before and after counts that show the changes from the Congested Corridors study reduced congestion? They won't tell you, because they increased congestion.

 

I gave them a simple way to reduce congestion on Woodhaven south just before Rockaway Boulevard by providing a new slip lane. Instead of listening, they dismissed the idea because they would have to destroy one tree. Now they are proposing BRT which would destroy every tree if it is done on the entire boulevard. So tell me they aren't lying. You want to know the reasons? Because if they told the truth, there would be very few SBS supporters. It wouldn't have a chance in hell.  So they lie about how much time bus riders will save and deny anyone will lose time. Buses travel faster from one end of the route to the other with SBS because they make fewer stops and because of paying your fare before you board. The bus lanes have been largely a failure because they are not adequately enforced. DOT is equating bus travel time savings with passenger trip time savings which is comparing apples and oranges. To measure passenger trip time savings they need to include walking and waiting times from the beginning of the trip until the end. DOT and the MTA Why? What are they hiding? Could it be possible that the results from the model are not favorable? Is that why the data is being kept hidden?

 

It is a fact of life that there isn't any project that doesn't hurt someone. According to DOT everyone benefits from SBS and not even one person is hurt by it.

[Trainmaster5]

After reading some of the earlier posts regarding the honesty of the DOT and this SBS proposal I see a reflection with Flint MI. Whether you're pro or con on the issue one MUST make any government agency spell out exactly what the plan entails. If the agency can't do that or is intentionally vague YOU DO NOT go along with the plan, period. Would anyone hire a contractor or buy an automobile from someone who can't or won't give you the specifics? Would you enter into a contract for anything where the other side can change the specifics on you and you have no recourse? I'm hoping that no one in a position of authority is that dumb but then again I'm reminded of Flint. Carry on.

[BrooklynBus]

No. There are no extra lanes or extra space. They say Woodhaven has four or five lanes/direction. (At some intersections there are six lanes in each direction, so they are lying right here.) and that they will provide three continuous lanes for general traffic. They are not saying they are removing a lane. They are asking you to deduce that. Here they say the lanes are for "general traffic" They do not say that one of those lanes is for local traffic and only two for through traffic. Elsewhere they say traffic will flow better by separating through and local traffic but never state that the "the general lanes" will not be contiguous so that you can switch between them. As I stated, everything they state is done in a sneaky convoluted manner in order to confuse so you will not understand what is really happening.

 

Why couldn't they simply have stated that one of the three lanes in the main roadway will be devoted to buses and you will be left with only two lanes? Because that would be understandable and easy to figure out.  As my first boss at the MTA told me, "What we have to do is obfuscate." I wouldn't be surprised is DOT is under the same orders.

[JerBear]

...spell out exactly what the plan entails. If the agency can't do that...

But they can't both present a final plan and get public input into the plan. So many times DOT or even NYCT comes to a meeting with a plan: "Here's what we're doing. Want to comment? Okay. But we're done here. Vote if you want, but this is what we're doing." I've seen that. But what would the opposite look like, and would it work, and would we even recognize it? In smaller communities, like a town I lived in back in Jersey, would every 5 years reexamine the Town's plan. They would invite everybody, and ask what could be done better, and people would say things like "build a sidewalk so my kid doesn't have to walk to school in the street" and so maybe the plan said something about that when it was released 6 months later. But how on earth would you do that for Queens? Or even just a piece, like Howard Beach or Forest Hills? If community board meetings so often get out of hand, how would you ever try to get random input for a "town plan" for Queens?

So the fact that DOT doesn’t have a finished plan that they're shoving down our throats makes me assume that they don't have it finished. So we actually have had input, because it's changed and because it's no longer on the same track. So if it's not finished, how can they tell us the details? They displayed the details of the plan as it was in April at those 4 meetings. BrooklynBus is right that they didn't show all of the corridor at once but I couldn't handle the amount of information on what they did show us. Too much to absorb at once. And now that plan is obsolete, so they really are actually listening to some degree.

But the RBB is always going to be a joke to me. I tried hiking it, but it's too overgrown. I can see how it would be the park they want to make, but rail service is a stretch to imagine. Imagination is one thing, but until it has a champion it will never be more than imagination. So much of the criticism of SBS on Woodhaven includes mentioning the RBB as an alternative. But that kills the willing suspension of disbelief in the reasoning behind the attack on SBS. If Man A says that SBS is a problem because of funding, execution, and public will; and Man B says that SBS is a problem because of public desire for a Star Wars theme park nearby, and oh yeah also because of funding, execution, and public will; I am going to listen to the first guy and laugh off the second.

[BrooklynBus]

But they can't both present a final plan and get public input into the plan. So many times DOT or even NYCT comes to a meeting with a plan: "Here's what we're doing. Want to comment? Okay. But we're done here. Vote if you want, but this is what we're doing." I've seen that. But what would the opposite look like, and would it work, and would we even recognize it? In smaller communities, like a town I lived in back in Jersey, would every 5 years reexamine the Town's plan. They would invite everybody, and ask what could be done better, and people would say things like "build a sidewalk so my kid doesn't have to walk to school in the street" and so maybe the plan said something about that when it was released 6 months later. But how on earth would you do that for Queens? Or even just a piece, like Howard Beach or Forest Hills? If community board meetings so often get out of hand, how would you ever try to get random input for a "town plan" for Queens?

 

So the fact that DOT doesn’t have a finished plan that they're shoving down our throats makes me assume that they don't have it finished. So we actually have had input, because it's changed and because it's no longer on the same track. So if it's not finished, how can they tell us the details? They displayed the details of the plan as it was in April at those 4 meetings. BrooklynBus is right that they didn't show all of the corridor at once but I couldn't handle the amount of information on what they did show us. Too much to absorb at once. And now that plan is obsolete, so they really are actually listening to some degree.

 

But the RBB is always going to be a joke to me. I tried hiking it, but it's too overgrown. I can see how it would be the park they want to make, but rail service is a stretch to imagine. Imagination is one thing, but until it has a champion it will never be more than imagination. So much of the criticism of SBS on Woodhaven includes mentioning the RBB as an alternative. But that kills the willing suspension of disbelief in the reasoning behind the attack on SBS. If Man A says that SBS is a problem because of funding, execution, and public will; and Man B says that SBS is a problem because of public desire for a Star Wars theme park nearby, and oh yeah also because of funding, execution, and public will; I am going to listen to the first guy and laugh off the second.

But they did present a final plan and said they did seek public input. However, they ignored much of that input, like you cant eliminate the left turn southbound to Rockaway Blvd. They presented three concepts and picked the one they were going to pick anyway. They never claimed the one they chose was the one the community preferred. This is the problem. They came to the first SBS meeting with a lie. They stated that SBS is only one of the plans they are considering when the truth was that $20 million was already in place for SBS.

 

When people complained they didn't want SBS, they responded that if most don't want it, they won't do it. But they stacked the initial meetings with outsiders for Riders Alliance and Transportation Alternatives to get up and support their pro-SBS statements. At the first few meetings, most were undecided, then most started believing all the lies without questioning them. So I would say 60 to 70 percent of those in attendance at the early meetings supported SBS enforce they came up with their three concepts. Then I and the Queens Chronicle started exposing the lies and opinion started changing. Now Woodhaven and Howard Beach are like 90 percent against it. I would say the other communities are 50-50.

 

They only agreed now to go back to the drawing board because the opposition from politicians and community boards became to great to continue to ignore.

 

So what happened to DOT's initial promise that if most don't want it we won't do it? Now they say you will get it regardless if you want it or not. They are also trying to change hstory as to what did and dd not occur at the meetings.

 

Now the proper way to plan is to first ask the communities what are the problems they perceive. And if they want to come back with SBS as one alternative for the communities to discuss, that would have been fine. But lying that it is only one alternative you are considering when the truth was you already decided that you would do it, that is wrong.

 

That is exactly how we proceeded with the Southwest Brooklyn bus chances in 1978. We first went to all the communities and asked them what they thought were te mst important bus transportation problems and proceeded from there by doing surveys and collecting data. We didn't ave our conclusions predetermined before the study began lie DOT did.

 

As far as the RBB, I am not going to get into that new because there are many more people who know a lot mer about it than I do, and they believe there are good reasons to believe it is perfectly feasible.

 

If they thought presenting the entire corridor at once would have been too much to absorb, they could have provided all the information on line and refer people who wanted to know more to their website. But they never have and still haven't put the entire plan on line and they promised at the meetings that they woud do that. So they lied again. They still refuse to say how many roadway users there are in cars and trucks. All they say is 30,000 bus riders will be helped but haven't shown how one person would be helped by exclusive bus lanes during off-peak hours.

 

If you subtract the casino and charter and long distance buses, the number is reduced to about 25,000. Any of the bus riders ride for less than a mile just to access the subway, so the amout of time SBS would save them is insignificant like 3 minutes. So realistically te numbers of bus riders who might be helped significantly by saving 10 or 15 minutes is maybe 20,000 or less.

 

Now most of those in cars in Woodhaven most likely are on the road for a greater distance than bus riders. Indication show that number is probably between 100,000 and 150,000 daily users. When I mentioned ths to Eric, his response was just that he didn't believe motor vehicle usage is that high, but the only numbers he is willing to provide are number of cars passing selected specific intersections. Why won't he tell us what the daily usage is? Because he doesn't want us to know how high it woudl then be obvious the plan makes little sense.

 

So bus riders account for 20% or less of the roadways users who are in motor vehicles. And DOT is proposing to reduce road capacity by as much as 50 percent for those not in buses. That is why we are certain road congestion will increase without a massive switch from car to bus. And we gave already seen the effects of the exclusive on the northern portion of Woodhaven.

[DetSMART45]

The city does know how many cars use roads where they are going to make such changes.  They essentially have to when applying everything from speed limits to overhead lighting (have to illuminate according to highway code to a certain footcandle figure) to applying for state (or federal, if applicable) funding toward maintenance or construction.  Those figures shape everything down to the actual "foundation" of the roadway itself -- bus lanes are actually built for the weight of the buses at stops but also the entire lane based on frequency of that weight being applied along the entire length.  Since the feds are dumping money into the DOT and MTA hands for SBS projects, traffic figures outside of bus users has to be incorporated somehow.  High-volume routes will necessarily need more funds, so part of that "proof" for funding is based upon traffic numbers.  Now, access to that data, that depends on how any road commission/agency handles public reporting of them.  Business owners (leased or owned) can request those figures if roadworks are planned that would impact them over the duration of the project (at least in my neck of the woods).

 

If nobody's done it yet, someone should canvass the business owners impacted by these plans, and get them along with the residents to force DOT to give more information.

[BrooklynBus]

The city does know how many cars use roads where they are going to make such changes.  They essentially have to when applying everything from speed limits to overhead lighting (have to illuminate according to highway code to a certain footcandle figure) to applying for state (or federal, if applicable) funding toward maintenance or construction.  Those figures shape everything down to the actual "foundation" of the roadway itself -- bus lanes are actually built for the weight of the buses at stops but also the entire lane based on frequency of that weight being applied along the entire length.  Since the feds are dumping money into the DOT and MTA hands for SBS projects, traffic figures outside of bus users has to be incorporated somehow.  High-volume routes will necessarily need more funds, so part of that "proof" for funding is based upon traffic numbers.  Now, access to that data, that depends on how any road commission/agency handles public reporting of them.  Business owners (leased or owned) can request those figures if roadworks are planned that would impact them over the duration of the project (at least in my neck of the woods).

 

If nobody's done it yet, someone should canvass the business owners impacted by these plans, and get them along with the residents to force DOT to give more information.

We have been asking about the number of roadway users for over a year. We finally got the numbers of vehicles passing five selected intersections. DOT expects us to believe that the same 60,000 vehicles that drive through Howard Beach are the same ones on the road 8 miles away. Maybe 10 percent are. So that becomes 100,000 vehicles. When you figure 1.6 passengers per vehicle, you get much more. And when you tell this to DOT, all they will say is "we don't think your numbers are correct", but they won't give you their number. They won't answer any questions directly.

[JerBear]

Do we know that they actually study this stuff? Back to the question of bureaucracy: is it possible that Eric has never seen those numbers himself? If he's just the SBS guy, what is the likelihood that he has been told by another department: "Don't worry, it's all okay." BrooklynBus, since you used to work for the City and for NYCT: is the bureaucracy there any less than we see elsewhere, or more so? I find it more likely that someone in the city other than Eric knows, and that Eric is too busy doing his assigned duties to worry about someone else's work. Same with the model. Aren't modelers usually technicians that don't talk to the public?

So then the next question is: what happened to all that transparency that we're supposed to be getting since Bloomberg promised it? Has DeBlas backed off of that?

So then the next question is: is there anything communities can do other than asking questions and demanding car counts? Would sending a FOIL request help? (I assume not). So what else?

[BrooklynBus]

Yes, they have to know the traffic volumes on all the major roadways. If they do not have origin destination data from surveys, the traffic forecasting model should be able to derive estimates using land use and census data. They claim to be using this data in their SBS analiysis, so why can't they present the data when asked?

 

Eric is not a low level person in DOT. He is in charge of the SBS program for DOT. He is the person Trottenberg depends on for data. She brings him to City Council hearings to answer SBS questions. He has to have close contact with the modelers and access to that data.

 

Bloomberg was not the only one to promise transparency. He and deBlasio do not mean it when they promise it. The MTA did the same. Just try to find some technical data on the MTA website. It isn't easy even with a Google search. Must of the information is buried in staff summaries or old public hearings which are only accessible for a limited time. You must know the exact date a subject was discussed at a meeting or know which report to look for also by knowing its date. This type of info is not well organized on the MTA website which also has very limited SBS info. They refer you to the DOT site which is a little better organized.

 

The only thing communities can do is to find a sympathetic elected official to work with and try to educate themselves. You won't get what you want with FOIL and it will take 6 months for a response if you get one. You have to know the info you want exists and be very specific how you request it.

[BreeddekalbL]

BKBus what are your thoughts on TISH James because she wants to try and RAM in SBS on woodhaven blvd when the people say no

[BrooklynBus]

BKBus what are your thoughts on TISH James because she wants to try and RAM in SBS on woodhaven blvd when the people say no

I had no idea she was involved in this. I do not like her although I did vote for her when I did not know any better. I was friends with someone who volunteered for her to help,her getting elected. She didn't even offer him a job after she was elected. He felt she threw him under the bus and was very upset with her. About three monts later, he passed away and I notified her office. Guess what? She shows up at his funeral and gets up to speak. She tells everyone that if not for my friend she never would have won the election because she listened to all his advice and he was te est campaign worker she had. So I went over to speak to her enforce she left. I told ever how disappointed my friend was beaus she didn't offer him a job and he told everyone she "threw him under the bus.".

 

She just looked at me and stared without saying a single word. She didn't even say she was sorry or try to make any excuses like she would have liked to offer him a job if she could. I think some words were in order other than a blank stare. You can draw your own conclusions.

[BreeddekalbL]

I had no idea she was involved in this. I do not like her although I did vote for her when I did not know any better. I was friends with someone who volunteered for her to help,her getting elected. She didn't even offer him a job after she was elected. He felt she threw him under the bus and was very upset with her. About three monts later, he passed away and I notified her office. Guess what? She shows up at his funeral and gets up to speak. She tells everyone that if not for my friend she never would have won the election because she listened to all his advice and he was te est campaign worker she had. So I went over to speak to her enforce she left. I told ever how disappointed my friend was beaus she didn't offer him a job and he told everyone she "threw him under the bus.".

 

She just looked at me and stared without saying a single word. She didn't even say she was sorry or try to make any excuses like she would have liked to offer him a job if she could. I think some words were in order other than a blank stare. You can draw your own conclusions.

 

It was the article i posted a month ago where she pretty ordered SBS be rammed in there and that the people need to be educated on sbs etc back on page 5 post #44

[Cait Sith]

BKBus what are your thoughts on TISH James because she wants to try and RAM in SBS on woodhaven blvd when the people say no

 

I mean, the article itself didn't really imply any of that......she's just supporting the plan with the others. When she speaks of the education process, she's referring to listening to residents and such who have concerns. So she's not really ramming it down anyone's throat.

 

And in that same article, there are folks that use the buses along woodhaven who have said they want SBS/BRT, such as this.

 

 

“It’s unfair that we’re still fighting for BRT in our areas when we need it so much,” Woodhaven resident Stephanie Veras told the crowd.

 

Meanwhile, their big challenge is speaking with car riders and motorists, who are against it and are showing resistance towards it. Bus riders are showing a lot of support for it, motorists and car riders are not, that basically summed up the article.

 

(sidenote, the comments in that article are rather amusing...kinda says something.)

[BreeddekalbL]

It seems like that's what the politicians are trying to do i also am seeing opposition to this ala to the proposed sbs project on merrick blvd which was shut due to community opposition

[Cait Sith]

It seems like that's what the politicians are trying to do i also am seeing opposition to this ala to the proposed sbs project on merrick blvd which was shut due to community opposition

That was a different beast altogether, it was taken down by pretty much everyone, from regular riders, to motorists to business owners.

 

Woodhaven SBS is not seeing that level of opposition.

[BrooklynBus]

I mean, the article itself didn't really imply any of that......she's just supporting the plan with the others. When she speaks of the education process, she's referring to listening to residents and such who have concerns. So she's not really ramming it down anyone's throat.

 

And in that same article, there are folks that use the buses along woodhaven who have said they want SBS/BRT, such as this.

 

 

Meanwhile, their big challenge is speaking with car riders and motorists, who are against it and are showing resistance towards it. Bus riders are showing a lot of support for it, motorists and car riders are not, that basically summed up the article.

 

(sidenote, the comments in that article are rather amusing...kinda says something.)

 

And they have made no attempt at all to reach out specifically to car riders and motorists, most of whom know nothing of the plans unless they read local papers or attend community meetings which is like 5 percent of the motorists or less.

[JerBear]

And they have made no attempt at all to reach out specifically to car riders and motorists, most of whom know nothing of the plans unless they read local papers or attend community meetings which is like 5 percent of the motorists or less.

I am really interested to know what that would look like. An advertisement in Car & Driver Magazine? Including a pamphlet in AAA mailings? Or, I guess they could, you know, go to Community Board meetings since they're populated almost solely by drivers and fighters for the superior rights of automobiles everywhere, right?

[Cait Sith]

And they have made no attempt at all to reach out specifically to car riders and motorists, most of whom know nothing of the plans unless they read local papers or attend community meetings which is like 5 percent of the motorists or less.

At the same token, you can't blame them for that either because if car riders or motorists really wanted to be informed of such plans, they could've gone to the meetings, no?

 

I mean, that's what those meetings are for, for them to address their concerns, right?

 

Both parties are to blame. Not one or the other.