As I said, and as commuteroutrage said, you won't find backup or a rigorous model for most of the TransAlt/Streetsblog/DOT stats or figures, because they don't exist!

For example, remember how DOT said there was so much traffic on Houston Street that there was the need to destroy trees and tear up the median in order to install two dedicated left-hand turn bays, one on Mercer and one on W. Bdwy - to funnel more cars into SoHo?

For two years, I demanded the stats that DOT claimed they possessed to justify their autocratic decision. None came.

Only when the SoHo Alliance hired an attorney who FOILed DOT did we immediately see a bunch of surveyers on those two corners counting the left-hand turns. Within three weeks after our legal action, after years of polite discourse, DOT came out with the stats. Ha!

The stats, of course, confirmed what the Alliance was saying all along: a minuscule number - less than 3% - of the cars traveling west made the left-hand turn, not a not to justify spending a million dollars on that destructive and environmentally unfriendly project. Nevertheless, DOT went ahead and destroyed trees and installed two dedicated bays to make it easier for cars.

TransAlt/Streetsblog/DOT just have to say it, the papers print it, and the people believe it. Welcome to Newspeak, 2009!

My question had not been a rhetorical one, and am sorry it seems to have been used as a springboard for angry dialogue. I truly expected someone to be able to provide backup to the numbers given. I'm patient...and am still waiting.

Cheers,

An ad hominem argument is one where you attack the other person (e.g. with spurious accusations of "censorship") rather than refuting their argument.

If you aren't pro-car, why on earth would you insist that the only right thing to do on Grand Street is to go back to the disastrous 2000-era configuration with a single, double-width lane that encouraged speeding and double-parking and made pedestrians and cyclists feel unsafe and unwelcome? Just about any possible configuration would be better than that, but that's the one you want, right?

(Lora Tenenbaum is apparently still waiting for streetsblog to reveal where it got the 1,000 cyclists a day on Grand Street. Don't hold your breath, Lora.)

'Emperor Transit' is ad hominem? Even though you admit to it? ("I suppose I am the Emperor") You do have an ironic sense of humor, I must say.

" that fits your driver-good, cyclists-bad worldview. Who's got no clothes on today?"
Congratulations, old boy. You managed to fabricate lies and do ad hominem in one breath.

Suffice to say that I have done more to regulate traffic excess and prevent cars in lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn more than you ever will with your little censored blog.

Have a nice life.

I'm annoyed because you linked to an annoying blog. That's not controversial; they're very up front about being annoying. You think there was some kind of scoop that I "censor"? I've said all along that my blog is not a public forum, and I reserve the right to remove unproductive or disruptive posts. I suppose I am the Emperor of my free google blog, although I honestly don't get a big rush out of it. What's the big reveal?

Nice ad hominem though, there, Sean, and mixed with gratuitous name-calling! I guess you've got to play dirty when you've got no real case.

Or are you just annoyed that Wiley's blog revealed that your blog censors unwelcomed opinion.

Censoring?? Tsk, tsk Emperor Transit.

Let's see, Judd Wiley saw a figure given by T.A. based on DOT screening counts. Rather than ask how they derived one figure from another, he wrote 734 words worth of guesswork, sarcasm and hyperbole.

Then Lewis Derkins looks at a neighborhood walkability checklist that is offered to activists to suggest possible ways that their neighborhoods could be made safer and more accommodating to pedestrians. He somehow gets the idea that this is a survey, and that the answers are being collected and tabulated, and then spends 1,201 word explaining why that is a bad idea - with some gratuitous nastiness thrown in. Well, yes it would be if it were actually anyone's intention, but Derkins doesn't give any basis for his assertion that it is.

So there's no serious critique of T.A.'s methodology, because Wiley doesn't even ask for an explanation of the methodology. And there's no reasonable critique of the survey, because there doesn't actually seem to be any survey. Just a couple of guys jumping to conclusions and making shit up. But apparently you'll believe anything that fits your driver-good, cyclists-bad worldview. Who's got no clothes on today?

Ah, dear Lora, you can always be relied upon to ask the question no one cares to ask; e.g., is the Emperor wearing any clothes today?

Of course, the number 1,000 cyclists per day is pure conjecture!

For example, read further about the 'science' behind the assertions that 185,000 now cycle daily:
http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2009/06/12/memo-to-transportation-alternatives-why-stop-at-185000-why-not-make-it-1000000-you-know-theyll-print-it/

Or read the 'science' behind the most recent DOT survey:
http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2009/09/23/slanted-surveys-produce-slanted-results/#more-874

Indeed, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

On another note, I am curious as to the science behind the 1,000 bikes a day number. How was it derived? Anyone count the #of cars?

Cheers,

As far as I know, da, currently none, and none in at least the past twenty years.

Now let me ask you, da: "What was your point?"

Hmmm .. We have a city and a neighborhood with a super-majority of pedestrians, bicyclists and mass transit riders. Yet this city and neighborhood is aggrieved by motor vehicles and outdated policies that promote them. So I don't find it odd at all that the CB2 Transportation Committee has several TA members on it.

In fact, I'd ask why they ALL aren't TA members. Are you? Why not?

Sean, how many members of AAA are on the Community Board?

The Grand Street Bike lane is just about a year old and was the first crosstown protected bike lane. It replaced a painted bike lane that ran along the north side of the street, on the west side, and then abruptly switched to the south side of the street around Chrystie Street. According to the DOT brochure the presentation to CB2 and CB3 was in July 2008
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/Grand_Street_Parking_Protected_Bicycle_Path.pdf

Oddly enough, Bloomberg seems to have helped Thompson save face today by switching the focus to education- a more prominent concern. Thompson would really look like a fool if he lost the election due to flip-flopping over bike lanes.

Politicians, in general, drive through the city, so tend to see the world through a car's window. There's nothing more frustrating then sitting in traffic with no room for spillover. So eventually, someone with power, who is sitting in traffic while trying to get to a meet & greet in Brooklyn, will get on his cell phone to the DOT commish and say "get rid of this damn thing."

The only hope is to elect politicians who don't drive. I don't think we have too many of these, although the new City Council rep (should she win the general election) from the district with the bike lane says that she doesn't own a car.

I agree that the sidewalks could use widening, though.

My solution? Keep the bike lane, remove the parking lane abutting the bike lane and expand the sidewalk a bit.

Cheers,