Ocean Parkway speed limit

[BrooklynBus]

Read the first two letters and decide which one is based on hysteria and which one is based on sound reasoning and logic.

 

http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2017/15/bd-letters-2017-04-14-bk.html

[N6 Limited]

Clearly the 2nd one has more sound reasoning and logic and the writer of first one has never driven in their life.

[Joel Up Front]

I never trusted The Department of Pedestrians and Bicycles Transportation Alternatives from the start.  There has to be an ulterior motive behind slowing everything down.

[BrooklynBus]

Clearly the 2nd one has more sound reasoning and logic and the writer of first one has never driven in their life.

Of course, the second letter was mine.

 

You hit it right in the nose. Most everyone who favors the 25 mph speed limit for arterial roads never drives or is is even a passenger in a car. If they were, they would know how slow 25 mph feels and how innaproppriate it is for most streets. It only makes sense on narrow streets with parking on both sides. On very narrow streets, it is even too fast with 15 or 20 mph more appropriate. I drove on Summit Street a few years ago and felt 10 mph was appropriate for that street, yet the limit is 25 mph. Another example why lowest common denominator and one size fits all just do not work well.

[peacemak3r]

That first letter gave me so much cancer. I completely avoid Ocean Parkway now in terms of driving, still bike there occasionally though. I'm fine with the red light cameras at Ocean Parkway, but those speed cameras make Ocean Parkway feel like a roller coaster now; speed up, brake, speed up, brake.

[B35 via Church]

Too many pedestrians believe that yellow lights aren't much more than elongated red lights....  I'm not slowing down to an eventual stop EVERY time a light is turning yellow - Sorry, not sorry lady...... There is no logic in that first letter; the entire thing reads as one long ass appeal to emotion...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Read the first two letters and decide which one is based on hysteria and which one is based on sound reasoning and logic.

 

http://www.brooklyndaily.com/stories/2017/15/bd-letters-2017-04-14-bk.html

Your comments are clearly from the perspective of a driver and not a pedestrian.  Do you ever walk along Ocean Parkway or cross it? I have plenty of time having grown up in the area, and I think the person has a point, though the bit about there being constant ribbons all about seems a bit dramatic.  While I don't necessarily agree that the speed limit should've been dropped to 25 mph, there are a lot of bone heads that drive down Ocean Parkway as if it were an expressway, and they have no consideration for pedestrians trying to cross the street.  I keep saying this to you... This is a pedestrian city.  That doesn't mean that people can just cross anywhere that they want, but on the same token, since the majority of the population here doesn't drive, that can't simply be overlooked. The issue really is too many people lack common sense, both drivers and pedestrians alike.  While you can argue that pedestrians are too distracted and don't pay attention to where they are going because they are too busy walking and texting, or walking and not looking where they are going and so on, the same is true of many drivers on the road.  A few weeks ago, as I was waiting for the express bus along Henry Hudson Parkway, this guy made a U-turn onto a side street.  He remained in the middle of the street while the light was green.  I wondered why.  Then I looked closer to see him completely oblivious to his surroundings because he was too busy texting.  This is something that is occurring more frequently and is leading to serious issues as people are injured or even killed.  There was a report out just yesterday on the news highlighting this very thing.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/business/tech-distractions-blamed-for-rise-in-traffic-fatalities.html?_r=0

 

The aforementioned article is from 2016, but it highlights how grave the problem is.  My point is before you rant and rave ad nauseum about how the rights of drivers are being impeded, take some responsibility in acknowledging that we have too many boneheads driving behind the wheel these days.  Lowering the speed limit seems like a no-brainer, but in reality, I don't necessarily agree with it because people who don't care will just ignore it, and furthermore, we'll have more road rage, as people become increasingly frustrated with how slow getting around becomes when driving due to things like Vision Zero.

[BrooklynBus]

Your comments are clearly from the perspective of a driver and not a pedestrian. Do you ever walk along Ocean Parkway or cross it? I have plenty of time having grown up in the area, and I think the person has a point, though the bit about there being constant ribbons all about seems a bit dramatic. While I don't necessarily agree that the speed limit should've been dropped to 25 mph, there are a lot of bone heads that drive down Ocean Parkway as if it were an expressway, and they have no consideration for pedestrians trying to cross the street. I keep saying this to you... This is a pedestrian city. That doesn't mean that people can just cross anywhere that they want, but on the same token, since the majority of the population here doesn't drive, that can't simply be overlooked. The issue really is too many people lack common sense, both drivers and pedestrians alike. While you can argue that pedestrians are too distracted and don't pay attention to where they are going because they are too busy walking and texting, or walking and not looking where they are going and so on, the same is true of many drivers on the road. A few weeks ago, as I was waiting for the express bus along Henry Hudson Parkway, this guy made a U-turn onto a side street. He remained in the middle of the street while the light was green. I wondered why. Then I looked closer to see him completely oblivious to his surroundings because he was too busy texting. This is something that is occurring more frequently and is leading to serious issues as people are injured or even killed. There was a report out just yesterday on the news highlighting this very thing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/business/tech-distractions-blamed-for-rise-in-traffic-fatalities.html?_r=0

 

The aforementioned article is from 2016, but it highlights how grave the problem is. My point is before you rant and rave ad nauseum about how the rights of drivers are being impeded, take some responsibility in acknowledging that we have too many boneheads driving behind the wheel these days. Lowering the speed limit seems like a no-brainer, but in reality, I don't necessarily agree with it because people who don't care will just ignore it, and furthermore, we'll have more road rage, as people become increasingly frustrated with how slow getting around becomes when driving due to things like Vision Zero.

My comments are from the perspective of a driver, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring the needs of pedestrians as you state. I am speaking common sense. I am all in favor of clearly marked pedestrian crossings and initiatives making it easier to cross the street like increasing walk times where necessary. . Every driver is also a pedestrian, but most pedestrians are not drivers and see only one side of the picture.

 

Aside from the boneheads on both sides, I still believe the far majority of drivers are safe drivers. It is the ten or so percent who are reckless, distracted, etc who we have to worry about. They are the ones who get into accidents not those going a few miles over an unrealistically low speed limit. Funny how you take my well reasoned arguments and call it "raving ad nauseum" and call the other letter writer only a bit dramatic.

 

You also contradict yourself. You say lowering the speed limit is a no brainer, but also say you don't necessarily agree with it. Therefore it can't be a "no brainer" unless you mean it was done by someone without any brains. That I would agree with.

 

A friend of mine wrote me a very good response although he didn't agree with everything I said. I asked him to publish it but he refused. So I will excerpt some of what he told me without divulging his name. You should find it interesting.

 

 

"What I see as to the greatest fault with Ms. Kirsch's reasoning (and which I believe you allude to in your response), is that highway speed limits are not a binary choice, but rather exist on a continuum. "Safety," by itself, might well be maximized by reducing speed limits to 0 mph, but "safety" has always been balanced by other factors, including convenience and commerce. True, people will die as a result of the existence and use of motor vehicles, but society has made a choice to balance those factors, to accept a certain level of motor vehicle fatalities, in order to achieve other societal benefits. The debate should be as to where that balance ought to lie. While Ms. Kirsch may, in good faith, believe that zero fatalities are acceptable--and therefore society should scrap its entire motor vehicle dependency and permit communications only on foot--that is not a societal consensus. The engineers can draw charts that express a relationship between speed limits and fatalities (which, even if your conjecture that there is no causal relationship between the two is correct, a flat line graph could still be drawn), and society, through its elected representatives, should be able to balance the two. The entire theory of "vision zero" is fundamentally flawed to the extent that we, as a society, want motor vehicle mobility, and are willing to accept fatalities in order to maintain that mobility.

 

Where I see error with your letter is the disregard of individual civil rights in order to maximize the efficiency of the system for the masses. All people have a need and right to access the city streets, and I suggest that the city has a duty to manage the traffic flow appropriately--channelizing if need be--to achieve that end. Bicyclists, like motorists, have a similar interest in being able to use direct arterial highways, and not being relegated to "side streets." Pedestrians have a interest in being able to cross from one side of the street to the other, using conveniently-spaced marked and unmarked crosswalks, without being fenced in and relegated to the use of widely-spaced major intersections. It is not an engineering game to maximize system throughput, but rather a system of civil rights (and yes, challenges to manage those civil rights are difficult when demand exceeds capacity, but a motorist right cannot be greater than a pedestrian right)."

 

I wasn't advocating for a motorist's right to be greater than a pedestrian's right. However, what the city is doing is placing pedestrian rights way above a motorist's right and that I do not agree with. Our rights should be equal.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

My comments are from the perspective of a driver, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring the needs of pedestrians as you state. I am speaking common sense. I am all in favor of clearly marked pedestrian crossings and initiatives making it easier to cross the street like increasing walk times where necessary. . Every driver is also a pedestrian, but most pedestrians are not drivers and see only one side of the picture.

 

Aside from the boneheads on both sides, I still believe the far majority of drivers are safe drivers. It is the ten or so percent who are reckless, distracted, etc who we have to worry about. They are the ones who get into accidents not those going a few miles over an unrealistically low speed limit. Funny how you take my well reasoned arguments and call it "raving ad nauseum" and call the other letter writer only a bit dramatic.

 

You also contradict yourself. You say lowering the speed limit is a no brainer, but also say you don't necessarily agree with it. Therefore it can't be a "no brainer" unless you mean it was done by someone without any brains. That I would agree with.

 

A friend of mine wrote me a very good response although he didn't agree with everything I said. I asked him to publish it but he refused. So I will excerpt some of what he told me without divulging his name. You should find it interesting.

 

 

"What I see as to the greatest fault with Ms. Kirsch's reasoning (and which I believe you allude to in your response), is that highway speed limits are not a binary choice, but rather exist on a continuum. "Safety," by itself, might well be maximized by reducing speed limits to 0 mph, but "safety" has always been balanced by other factors, including convenience and commerce. True, people will die as a result of the existence and use of motor vehicles, but society has made a choice to balance those factors, to accept a certain level of motor vehicle fatalities, in order to achieve other societal benefits. The debate should be as to where that balance ought to lie. While Ms. Kirsch may, in good faith, believe that zero fatalities are acceptable--and therefore society should scrap its entire motor vehicle dependency and permit communications only on foot--that is not a societal consensus. The engineers can draw charts that express a relationship between speed limits and fatalities (which, even if your conjecture that there is no causal relationship between the two is correct, a flat line graph could still be drawn), and society, through its elected representatives, should be able to balance the two. The entire theory of "vision zero" is fundamentally flawed to the extent that we, as a society, want motor vehicle mobility, and are willing to accept fatalities in order to maintain that mobility.

 

Where I see error with your letter is the disregard of individual civil rights in order to maximize the efficiency of the system for the masses. All people have a need and right to access the city streets, and I suggest that the city has a duty to manage the traffic flow appropriately--channelizing if need be--to achieve that end. Bicyclists, like motorists, have a similar interest in being able to use direct arterial highways, and not being relegated to "side streets." Pedestrians have a interest in being able to cross from one side of the street to the other, using conveniently-spaced marked and unmarked crosswalks, without being fenced in and relegated to the use of widely-spaced major intersections. It is not an engineering game to maximize system throughput, but rather a system of civil rights (and yes, challenges to manage those civil rights are difficult when demand exceeds capacity, but a motorist right cannot be greater than a pedestrian right)."

 

I wasn't advocating for a motorist's right to be greater than a pedestrian's right. However, what the city is doing is placing pedestrian rights way above a motorist's right and that I do not agree with. Our rights should be equal.

As far as I know, that pedestrian's letter is the first one they've written.  You on the other hand have written numerous letters discussing how drivers are under attack in this city, hence my ad nauseum comment. The reason I said that reducing the speed was a no-brainer wasn't because I agree with it, but because it seems like the "simple" solution.  People are speeding and people are being killed or seriously injured, so let's "do" something about that by reducing the speed limit.  That was my point.  Doesn't mean I agree with what the city has done per se because as I said before, if someone is going to speed, reducing the speed limit really doesn't matter.

[BrooklynBus]

As far as I know, that pedestrian's letter is the first one they've written. You on the other hand have written numerous letters discussing how drivers are under attack in this city, hence my ad nauseum comment. The reason I said that reducing the speed was a no-brainer wasn't because I agree with it, but because it seems like the "simple" solution. People are speeding and people are being killed or seriously injured, so let's "do" something about that by reducing the speed limit. That was my point. Doesn't mean I agree with what the city has done per se because as I said before, if someone is going to speed, reducing the speed limit really doesn't matter.

You are wrong on both counts. The writer of the first letter wrote at least four other letters on the same topic to that newspaper. I responded to her four times and all the letters were published. The editor must have believed there were valid points on both sides. By the last letter we actually came to agreement on several issues. It was a healthy discussion of ideas which you seem to have problems with.

 

In this case, however, we sent in letters at the same time with neither of us having seen the other's letter.

 

As far as the second issue, you apparently do not understand the definition of a "no brainer." It does not just mean a simple solution. It means the solution is so obvious that one doesn't have to do much thinking to think of it. Lowering the speed limit is indeed a simple solution. Whether it solves the problem or helps to solve the problem without causing other problems is debatable. So, in this case lowering the speed limit is definitely not a "no brainer". The solutions are far more complex.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You are wrong on both counts. The writer of the first letter wrote at least four other letters on the same topic to that newspaper. I responded to her four times and all the letters were published. The editor must have believed there were valid points on both sides. By the last letter we actually came to agreement on several issues. It was a healthy discussion of ideas which you seem to have problems with.

 

In this case, however, we sent in letters at the same time with neither of us having seen the other's letter.

 

As far as the second issue, you apparently do not understand the definition of a "no brainer." It does not just mean a simple solution. It means the solution is so obvious that one doesn't have to do much thinking to think of it. Lowering the speed limit is indeed a simple solution. Whether it solves the problem or helps to solve the problem without causing other problems is debatable. So, in this case lowering the speed limit is definitely not a "no brainer". The solutions are far more complex.

Ay yay yay.  Well maybe you should tell the city that because they've done just that... Lowered the speed limit.  I don't need to explain what the term means. I understand it pretty well.  I used "simple" so as not to go into a long discussion about it, and I thought I made my point clear on it.  Let me ask you this.  What else has the city done to limit traffic fatalities aside from lowering the speed limit and other things that slow down drivers?  Eliminating lanes, changing the syncing of traffic lights... These things all accomplish the same thing as far as I'm concerned and don't require that much thought.  

 

As for this lady, that's the first article I've saw from her, and if her other letters are like the one she wrote, then she's just as bad as you are, just from the pedestrian perspective.

[Interested Rider]

I have read both letters and for the record, both Ms. Kirsch and Mr. Rosen's letters have appeared quite often in the local papers (Please note, I started my response before I saw Mr. Rosen's comments) That said, I hate to say it but there will always be people who do not care about rules or laws and no matter what the punishment is, they will not obey it. That is the reason that we have jails for fools who think that they own the road and it should apply to brain dead pedestrians as well . As I have said many times on this forum, I do not drive but I respect drivers and in many cases, many of them feel the same way about pedestrians like myself. The problem is the brain dead drivers (for example) who make their right or left turns in front of a bus as it is my shield against those geniuses and the pedestrians in outer space  of all ages who dare the drivers to do something to them even though they do not have the right of way crossing against the light as either they are too busy looking at their devices or figure their time is up anyway. I know about yellow lights, that is why i stay on the sidewalk as there will always be a driver that will run through it (and how many times are red lights not observed). I  am also aware of the time clocks and when I start to see a number and I am about to cross a street like Nostrand Avenue (for example), I will wait for the next light but how many people do it? I like to walk but some of the pedestrians who think that they do not have to respect other walkers as they are looking at their devices are worse than many of the motorists. Please do not get me started on the bicyclists on the sidewalks as I fear less from the motorists than these kamikazes on two wheels. As far as Transportation Alternatives is concerned, they seem to be the darlings of the phony media and of the politicians who look upon them as votes. Think of it this how many times do pedestrians and motorists that obey the law in their driving and walking receive the publicity that the bicyclists get from the media? None. Quite honestly, good drivers and good pedestrians do not make news, it is the idiots that give the politicians and their pressure groups an opportunity to get their names in print or on the internet and to propose something that we really don't need and penalizes those who follow the rules, day in and day out. They can tweak the system by extending the time for crossing a street like Ocean Parkway but in the long run, it is my opinion no one will ever be satisfied.

[BrooklynBus]

Ay yay yay.  Well maybe you should tell the city that because they've done just that... Lowered the speed limit.  I don't need to explain what the term means. I understand it pretty well.  I used "simple" so as not to go into a long discussion about it, and I thought I made my point clear on it.  Let me ask you this.  What else has the city done to limit traffic fatalities aside from lowering the speed limit and other things that slow down drivers?  Eliminating lanes, changing the syncing of traffic lights... These things all accomplish the same thing as far as I'm concerned and don't require that much thought.  

Eliminating lanes, and changing the syncing of traffic lights require much thought because they have widespread implications. So you are wrong about that too just like you don't understand what a "no brainer" means.

 

We should be improving all types of transportation, not trying to sabotage driving as an alternative by making it as slow and inconvenient as possible by purposely increasing bottlenecks and intentionally putting traffic lights out of sync so you should have to go slow by hitting every red light possible. They have also put in curb extensions which I do not oppose if they make it easier to cross and don't increase traffic jams. They have also made crosswalks more visible which I am also in favor of, to answer your questions.

I have read both letters and for the record, both Ms. Kirsch and Mr. Rosen's letters have appeared quite often in the local papers (Please note, I started my response before I saw Mr. Rosen's comments) That said, I hate to say it but there will always be people who do not care about rules or laws and no matter what the punishment is, they will not obey it. That is the reason that we have jails for fools who think that they own the road and it should apply to brain dead pedestrians as well . As I have said many times on this forum, I do not drive but I respect drivers and in many cases, many of them feel the same way about pedestrians like myself. The problem is the brain dead drivers (for example) who make their right or left turns in front of a bus as it is my shield against those geniuses and the pedestrians in outer space  of all ages who dare the drivers to do something to them even though they do not have the right of way crossing against the light as either they are too busy looking at their devices or figure their time is up anyway. I know about yellow lights, that is why i stay on the sidewalk as there will always be a driver that will run through it (and how many times are red lights not observed). I  am also aware of the time clocks and when I start to see a number and I am about to cross a street like Nostrand Avenue (for example), I will wait for the next light but how many people do it? I like to walk but some of the pedestrians who think that they do not have to respect other walkers as they are looking at their devices are worse than many of the motorists. Please do not get me started on the bicyclists on the sidewalks as I fear less from the motorists than these kamikazes on two wheels. As far as Transportation Alternatives is concerned, they seem to be the darlings of the phony media and of the politicians who look upon them as votes. Think of it this how many times do pedestrians and motorists that obey the law in their driving and walking receive the publicity that the bicyclists get from the media? None. Quite honestly, good drivers and good pedestrians do not make news, it is the idiots that give the politicians and their pressure groups an opportunity to get their names in print or on the internet and to propose something that we really don't need and penalizes those who follow the rules, day in and day out. They can tweak the system by extending the time for crossing a street like Ocean Parkway but in the long run, it is my opinion no one will ever be satisfied.

I don't think anyone can disagree with anything you said but where do you stand on the speed limit issue?

[N6 Limited]

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Eliminating lanes, and changing the syncing of traffic lights require much thought because they have widespread implications. So you are wrong about that too just like you don't understand what a "no brainer" means.

Given how they've haphazardly done the aforementioned things, I'd argue that they didn't give them much thought at all, so my point stands.

 

 

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins. 

lol... (In my best Long Island accent) You're from Lawng Eyeland...   Big dreams...

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins. 

lol... (In my best Long Island accent) You're from Lawng Eyeland...   Big dreams...

Given how they've haphazardly done the aforementioned things, I'd argue that they didn't give them much thought at all, so my point stands.

 

 

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins. 

lol... (In my best Long Island accent) You're from Lawng Eyeland...   Big dreams...

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins. 

lol... (In my best Long Island accent) You're from Lawng Eyeland...   Big dreams...

[BrooklynBus]

Given how they've haphazardly done the aforementioned things, I'd argue that they didn't give them much thought at all, so my point stands.

Which was?

 

They should just turn Ocean Parkway into a NJ Artery. Throw a Jersey barrier down the middle, no left turns, put in a few slips to the service roads for left turns and U turns and add a few overpasses and increase the speed limit to 50MPH. One should be able to drive from the Belt Parkway to the Prospect Expressway in 10 mins.

I don't think the lanes would be wide enough for 50 mph even with eliminating left turns. And Ocean Parkway is landmarked anyway so you wouldn't be allowed to add slip lanes. Also, there is not enough space between the main roadway and the service roads for cars waiting to make a left turn to queue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Which was?

You yourself have argued against some of the DOT's moves, so your comments don't make any sense.

[N6 Limited]

All these people getting "Hit" on Ocean Parkway sounds like they're crossing against the light. 

 

If the Issue is pedestrians getting hit because of "speeding", then that means the pedestrians are crossing when the cars have a right of way. Pedestrian's fault, take responsibility for your life.

 

If pedestrians are getting hit in the crosswalk when they have the right of way, then 3 things:

1) Drivers need to watch where they're turning

2) Pedestrians should take precaution when crossing the street. The Crosswalk is not an invisible shield.
3) NYC DOT needs to realize that cars want to make turns, so the pedestrian crossing and green signal for traffic should be offset. Let pedestrians get the head start, that way most of them will be clear once turns are allowed.  MANY times, pedestrians take up the whole light cycle they as get the "right of way", cars can't turn and they're stuck for another light cycle since there is no turn on red. FIX IT NYCDOT!

 

 

 

I don't think the lanes would be wide enough for 50 mph even with eliminating left turns. And Ocean Parkway is landmarked anyway so you wouldn't be allowed to add slip lanes. Also, there is not enough space between the main roadway and the service roads for cars waiting to make a left turn to queue.

The lanes are no narrower than the Belt Parkway.

 

As for the slips. They can just be turn offs to the service road, they can even just use existing intersections, Want to make a left at the next road? Make a right, and turn left on to the service road, then make your left at the next intersection.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

All these people getting "Hit" on Ocean Parkway sounds like they're crossing against the light. 

 

If the Issue is pedestrians getting hit because of "speeding", then that means the pedestrians are crossing when the cars have a right of way. Pedestrian's fault, take responsibility for your life.

 

If pedestrians are getting hit in the crosswalk when they have the right of way, then 3 things:

1) Drivers need to watch where they're turning

2) Pedestrians should take precaution when crossing the street. The Crosswalk is not an invisible shield.

3) NYC DOT needs to realize that cars want to make turns, so the pedestrian crossing and green signal for traffic should be offset. Let pedestrians get the head start, that way most of them will be clear once turns are allowed.  MANY times, pedestrians take up the whole light cycle they as get the "right of way", cars can't turn and they're stuck for another light cycle since there is no turn on red. FIX IT NYCDOT!

No they aren't.  Ocean Parkway is wide and a lot of people crossing are elderly so it would take them a while to get across.

[BrooklynBus]

You yourself have argued against some of the DOT's moves, so your comments don't make any sense.

Not following your logic at all.

No they aren't.  Ocean Parkway is wide and a lot of people crossing are elderly so it would take them a while to get across.

And walking times have already been lengthened to reflect that fact.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not following your logic at all.

You claim that the DOT's decisions to calm traffic have involved a lot of thought, yet criticize them every chance you get.  

[BrooklynBus]

You claim that the DOT's decisions to calm traffic have involved a lot of thought, yet criticize them every chance you get.

 

When did I state that their decisions involved a lot of thought?

 

To the contrary, I believe they are grossly incompetent. I will give you one example. They spent nine years studying how to make one single intersection safer (Guider Avenue and Coney Island Avenue). First of all why should a "simple" study take nine years under any circumstances? You would think they are building a Second Avenue Subway. Excuse me that takes 100 years for three stations.

 

After nine years, you would think that at least they would have gotten it right. But they didnt. They got many things wrong, too numerous to discuss here. But although they made a few improvements that were 20 years overdue, they made one glaring error. They screwed up the pedestrian walk phase, thereby creating new hazards, instead of improving safety.

 

I noticed the problem while riding the B68 bus. They gave pedestrians a walk Phase at the same time they gave left turning cars onto the Belt Parkway a green arrow. Cars and pedestrians both assumed they each had the right of way. Pedestrians were surprised they were cut off by cars making a left turn while cars assumed since they had a green arrow, pedestrians had a red signal.

 

I immediately fired off a letter to the DOT Brooklyn Commissioner telling them how they screwed up and I wasn't polite about it either. He personally responded, "Dear Allan, we will look at it."

 

Never heard from them again, but when I checked several months later, they had corrected the problem without as much as a Thank you for doing their job for them.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

When did I state that their decisions involved a lot of thought?

 

To the contrary, I believe they are grossly incompetent. I will give you one example. They spent nine years studying how to make one single intersection safer (Guider Avenue and Coney Island Avenue). First of all why should a "simple" study take nine years under any circumstances? You would think they are building a Second Avenue Subway. Excuse me that takes 100 years for three stations.

 

After nine years, you would think that at least they would have gotten it right. But they didnt. They got many things wrong, too numerous to discuss here. But although they made a few improvements that were 20 years overdue, they made one glaring error. They screwed up the pedestrian walk phase, thereby creating new hazards, instead of improving safety.

 

I noticed the problem while riding the B68 bus. They gave pedestrians a walk Phase at the same time they gave left turning cars onto the Belt Parkway a green arrow. Cars and pedestrians both assumed they each had the right of way. Pedestrians were surprised they were cut off by cars making a left turn while cars assumed since they had a green arrow, pedestrians had a red signal.

 

I immediately fired off a letter to the DOT Brooklyn Commissioner telling them how they screwed up and I wasn't polite about it either. He personally responded, "Dear Allan, we will look at it."

 

Never heard from them again, but when I checked several months later, they had corrected the problem without as much as a Thank you for doing their job for them.

How about here:

 

 

 

Eliminating lanes, and changing the syncing of traffic lights require much thought because they have widespread implications. 

So which is it?? 

[BrooklynBus]

How about here:

 

 

So which is it??

I am saying that to make proper decisions those strategies require much thought. I wasn't implying that DOT actually is giving it much thought. They do a lot of things off the cuff or by using bad data.

 

I will give you a few examples. I was having a discussion about Woodhaven Boulevard on BusChat. Someone who knew how to get DOT statistics off the internet pulled up traffic volumes at various intersections. I immediately found the data suspicious because there was a great variation on between the volumes one block north of the Jackie Robinson and one block south of the Jackie Robinson. To the uninformed, that wouldn't have rung any bells. But I knew there is no interchange between Woodhaven and the Jackie Robinson. The entrances and exits are many blocks away. So I told the person who got the data that it was suspect. He went back to the site and informed me the counts were taken five years apart.

 

Now why would an agency use data spread out over five years to paint a picture at one specific point in time? (They don't care because they don't believe anyone will check.) So how could their conclusions be valid?

 

Then there was the left turn restriction they proposed at Metropolitan before doung a proper analysis.. When I asked where vehicles would be turning they told me they would make a right onto Cooper and a left onto Metropolitan which was a 270 degree turn for trucks, a very difficult turn which could only be made unsafely from the right lane.

 

So they changed their plan rerouting trucks to a very narrow residential Trotting Course Lane. When I pointed that out, they changed their mind again and abandoned their proposal to turn that narrow street into a two way street. In the end, they did not remove the left turn at Metropolitan.

 

Same with Jamaica. First they proposed to eliminate the left turn and after massive community protest, redesigned a safer left turn at Jamaica. So why didn't they just do that in the first place? Because they make stupid decisions first and only study what really should be done after people point out their errors.

[Interested Rider]

I have no problem with a 25 mph speed limit on Ocean Parkway and I definitely think that the time for pedestrians to cross should be lengthened  especially around Coney Island Hospital. That location has been bad and I am going back almost 40 years when I was changing buses there and even though I was in far better shape at that time, I found it an adventure crossing there. 

The problem here is that there is really no enforcement of traffic rules and this is city-wide. If traffic rules are enforced on a regular basis, many of the  problems will disappear but enforcing the law does not get votes and sell newspapers. What is happening can be considered just plain window dressing that will be changed when the issue comes up a year from now. Enforcement does not get votes for politicians even though it is good for everyone else. When  has anyone heard from Vision Zero advocates and their  favorite pressure groups about a regular enforcement program on Ocean Parkway that will reduce the number of accidents? You will never hear about enforcement as it does not fir their political agenda and they are afraid that they will lose their funding stream.