Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    Andrew

    A very high % of pedestrians in NYC are NYC residents who will not take their business elsewhere.

    So you retract your earlier claims that reducing vehicle speeds would cause terrible economic distress in New York City?

  2.  

    Andrew

    Welcome to New York City, where many drivers deliberately run red lights because they know quite well that, except where a camera is in place, enforcement is virtually nonexistent. These are the drivers who speed up rather than prepare to stop when they see a yellow light – even swerving around drivers ahead of them who are slowing down – simply because they don’t feel like stopping.

    Lengthening the yellow phase would have no lasting effect, except to create ambiguity among drivers who are trying to drive safely. Those who don’t care about running red lights will gladly use up all of the yellow time and then some.

    The timing of the yellow phase on New York City streets is proper.

    Truly, the lengths to which you are willing to go to stick up for those who choose to break the law and threaten my life and the lives of my fellow New Yorkers is incredible. If you don’t want a ticket for running a red light, then don’t run a red light.

  3.  

    jcwconsult

    The number of cars on the streets shows the needs.
    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  4.  

    Andrew

    Nonsensical and not at all relevant to the comment upthread.

  5.  

    jcwconsult

    The number of cars on the streets shows the need for the streets to operate efficiently.
    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  6.  

    jcwconsult

    The most common difference in correct and under-posted limits in the country is 10 mph. That is why speed cameras for revenue work so well with a 9 or 10 mph grace – the limits were under posted by about 10 mph to start with.
    A very high % of pedestrians in NYC are NYC residents who will not take their business elsewhere.
    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  7.  

    jcwconsult

    Red light cameras reduce violation rates by about 50% over a period of one year, then the violation rates remain fairly stable in most cases – often with violations going 80% to 90% visitors. The for-profit red light camera companies and the savvy politicians who employ them are fully aware of how the finances work with roughly half the initial violation rate. It is in their business plans – though rarely disclosed to the public.

    Do note that if NYC increased the yellows by 1 second, it would be virtually certain for violation rates to drop by 60% to 90% and stay down permanently. Unfortunately this safety changes kills the profitability, so most cities won’t do it.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  8.  

    jcwconsult

    Only engineering (or unaffordable 24/7 enforcement) produces lower actual travel speeds. Politicians who say lower speed limits and speed cameras will work are looking at the revenue streams that will result, not at reality. Speed cameras COULD reduce actual speeds, but only if placed every block or two. At that point, drivers would slow down to 25 or 30 limits – even on major thoroughfares with 4 lanes each way, 1 mile long sight distances, and traffic lights only every half mile. Those typically $3,000 per month per cameras would lose so much money by issuing very few tickets that no city would ever use them.

    James C. Walker, Life Member -National Motorists Association

  9.  

    Andrew

    Wrong subthread. Try again.

  10.  

    jcwconsult

    Look at what I said. If an arterial carries about 24,000 daily trips and you reduce it to about 10,000 daily trips, there will be SEVERE economic issues.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  11.  

    Andrew

    It is a fact that most roads were paid for – at least in large part – by fuel taxes.

    No it is not.

    If you now say I cannot use some of those lanes – that is theft, pure and simple.

    No it is not. And, incidentally, you most certainly can use a bus lane – if you ride a bus.

  12.  

    jcwconsult

    Sorry, I disagree. When a school is located on a major collector or arterial, it is OK to control speeds vigorously during the roughly 2 hours when many kids are present. It is not OK to decrease the economic value of the collector or arterial during hours that few or no kids are present.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  13.  

    jcwconsult

    It is a fact that most roads were paid for – at least in large part – by fuel taxes. If you now say I cannot use some of those lanes – that is theft, pure and simple.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  14.  

    jcwconsult

    Many people prefer to travel by car, whether their reasons are practical or rational or not. When some of them do not come because it gets too hassled, their economic contributions to that area stop.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  15.  

    Andrew

    As are adults, who comprise most pedestrians in New York City, and whose safety Mr. Walker doesn’t even claim to care about.

  16.  

    Andrew

    City streets in New York City (and in most other cities with which I am familiar) are not funded by fuel taxes. They are funded by general city revenues, collected from drivers and nondrivers alike.

    If a bus route carries more than 1/n of the traffic on an n-lane street during peak periods, and heavy traffic volumes tend to delay bus service, it is only fair for one lane to be set aside exclusively for bus passengers, so that they aren’t delayed by those who choose not to take the bus.

    This is a built-up city. There is no space on most streets for additional lanes without cutting into sidewalks or tearing down occupied buildings. We’re not suburban Michigan.

  17.  

    Andrew

    Your conjectures of how tourists might possibly get around New York City are not empirically correct.

  18.  

    Andrew

    But don’t forget the millions of people who come to spend money in NYC but who live 25+ miles away and have no familiarity with the public transit.

    There’s this nifty thing called the “World Wide Web” that contains lots and lots of information about transit systems.

    Unlike you, I actually ride the subway. Tourists use it in large numbers. Occasionally I help them by giving directions or travel advice – because, unlike when you’re driving a car, it’s quite easy on the subway to ask a fellow rider for advice.

  19.  

    Bluewndrpwrmlk96

    Textbook driver negligence. But let’s not use this as a means to chastise progressive cycling infrastructure. Simply put, a motorist ran a Stop-controlled intersection. Vision Zero dictates that motorist err is removed via engineering a safer intersection. So Van Bramer should keep up the fight and have the DOT make further improvements. There’s always room for improvement.

  20.  

    Andrew

    Perhaps you are unaware, but there are numerous intercity trains, buses, and airplanes that transport many millions of visitors every year to and from NYC. The overwhelming majority from Michigan and Idaho arrive by airplane, not by personal automobile.

  21.  

    Andrew

    Once again, this is a discussion about New York City. Most households in New York City don’t own cars and go about their daily lives without using cars. And plenty of the households that do own cars still use other modes for many or most of their travel needs, such as shopping and commuting to work.

  22.  

    Andrew

    As an aside, our speed cameras give a generous 10 mph cushion. If the speed limit is 25 mph and you drive at exactly 35 mph, you still won’t get a ticket.

    The economic utility of many of the streets here in New York City is driven by pedestrians who walk at roughly 3-4 mph. From the perspective of economic utility, the best speed limit for cars on such streets is whatever speed best attracts pedestrian traffic. If pedestrians find the car traffic unpleasantly fast or unsafe, they’ll take their business elsewhere.

    New York City is not (thank goodness) Ann Arbor.

  23.  

    rogue

    We should get the same privileges and perks that vehicle owners do. While it’s nice that it delivers positive externalities, there’s an inequitable, unfulfilled demand. It’s the job of the city to fill it.

    I like this argument. It’s empowering and (in this case at least) feels more authentic.

  24.  

    Andrew

    New York City has had red light cameras since the 1990’s, and the general trend (all else being equal) is that violations gradually drop over time, as motorists learn that it’s not worth their while to play games with running red lights.

    New York City’s speed camera program is too recent for such trends to be apparent, but I don’t see why the pattern would be any different.

    Taking pedestrians into account is not improper engineering. Applying the same methodology used on rural highways to avoid vehicle-on-vehicle crashes in an urban street setting to avoid vehicle-on-pedestrian fatalities, however, is grossly improper engineering.

  25.  

    Vooch

    and increases Business because more Customers

  26.  

    Andrew

    Nonsense. Different problems have different solutions.

  27.  

    Joe R.

    I see them regularly blow through intersections even when they can’t see. To me it doesn’t matter much if it turns out daylighting is of no benefit to motorists because they compensate by driving through the intersection faster. It’s still of value to pedestrians and cyclists in that it lets us see motorists in enough time to avoid being hit by them. On one of the streets near me a school bus consistently parks next to the crosswalk. It have to literally be almost in the traffic lane to see what’s coming. Problem is turning cars can’t see me at all until I’m in their path (and I can’t see them). I would welcome daylighting at this intersection. Here’s the intersection:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7304532,-73.8054157,3a,75y,49.19h,79.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPg6Z63uvvyEHCms2VZSe2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

    The school buses are almost always parked right over where the manhole cover is. Impossible to see anything when they are. Only safe way to cross the street is to cross on the other side (or in the middle).

  28.  

    Andrew

    Which doesn’t contradict anything I said.

  29.  

    Vooch

    dude

  30.  

    Alicia

    Kids are likely to be present more than just 2 hours a day, 5 days a week. That’s true in my quiet community, it’s true in Ann Arbor, and it’s true in New York City. Schools have day cares. Schools have after-school activities. Schools have playgrounds that kids may use at their leisure. Slowing for traffic 2 hours per day is not enough.

  31.  

    Alicia

    I disagree with both points.

    Yes, of course you do. However, that disagreement is based on feelings, not hard facts. It is a fact that most New Yorkers don’t own a car, and that most visitors don’t arrive by car. It is a fact that buses can transport more people on the roads than private automobiles can. It is a subjective opinion to state that “Converting existing lane capacity paid for largely with fuel taxes from the users is grand larceny.”

  32.  

    Alicia

    It is also likely that parts are designed to make it more difficult to travel by car, and those parts will hurt the economy of NYC.

    Who says that will hurt the economy of NYC? Again, your premise for that statement seems to be the assumption that there are enough people will either come by car or not at all, to hurt the NYC economy. That’s an assumption with no apparent support behind it other than your own individual preference.

  33.  

    Alicia

    Germany is a small country by USA standards so the distances most people drive are shorter,

    Does not follow. The overall size of the country does not dictate the amount people need to travel on a regular basis. Germany is over 600 miles north/south, and over 200 miles east/west. Most people in the US don’t travel anywhere near those distances on a daily basis. The typical commute is under 20 miles. The other items you listed are, of course, deliberate policy choices.

  34.  

    tstaub

    That’s the exact reason Hoboken nerfed their main drag bike lanes, businesses have to do business.

  35.  

    Jesse

    Devil’s Advocate: what if daylighting the intersection emboldened drivers to blow through it, thinking they had a better view of cross-street traffic?

  36.  

    Cat Lover

    I just read this, then just yelled at my cat, “You gotta be shitting me!”

    I almost thought I heard my cat reply, “Yeah I know.” (WAIT DID I??)

  37.  

    Kevin Love

    Yes, it is possible for an improvement to simultaneously convey more than one benefit. But hey, haters gonna hate, crazies gonna be crazy and stupids are not going to be able to understand the concept of two benefits.

  38.  

    Kevin Love

    It is difficult to point to the death that did not happen because of the safety improvement.

  39.  

    jcwconsult

    I last drove though parts of NYC about 3 years ago.

    Do you have figures for crashes, injuries, and fatalities for the most recent year and 5 and 10 years ago for the same area(s)?

    No one excuses going too fast for safety in school zones AT THE TIMES KIDS ARE LIKELY TO BE PRESENT.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  40.  

    jcwconsult

    1) Germany is a small country by USA standards so the distances most people drive are shorter, gas is 2.5 to 3 times more expensive, many cities have good public transit systems, cars are taxed more heavily so purchase costs are higher, and I likely missed others.

    2) We strongly support realistic fuel and registration taxes that would actually support the roads – as they did for many years. I have testified at least 6 times in Michigan for higher gas taxes to make up for 20 years of inflation losses since the rates per gallon were last set. They are legitimate user fees, but both federal and most state legislators lack the gonadal material to do this. We strongly oppose the theft of vehicle fuel taxes to pay for transit that most car drivers never use.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  41.  

    jcwconsult

    It is likely that parts of the plan are smart and effective.

    It is also likely that parts are designed to make it more difficult to travel by car, and those parts will hurt the economy of NYC.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  42.  

    jcwconsult

    And one of those choices should be to NOT get familiar with the transit system, but to use their car.

    I have driven by choice in NYC, Chicago, LA, London, Paris, Rome, Moscow, many others, and most recently Berlin.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  43.  

    jcwconsult

    I disagree with both points.

    And dedicated bus lanes are fine IF they are NEW capacity funded by the fares and subsidies voluntarily paid by the users and residents. Converting existing lane capacity paid for largely with fuel taxes from the users is grand larceny.

    James C. Walker, Life Member – National Motorists Association

  44.  

    Joe R.

    If anything bad driver behavior should give us MORE reasons to build bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Count me in as another one on whom this reasoning is totally lost.

  45.  

    bolwerk

    Haha, nitpick:

    and you have a legit excuse for the Calatrava head house

    Not sure anything can excuse that “headhouse.” :-p

  46.  

    AnoNYC

    Lower tolls on the Triborough and a congestion charge for the Manhattan CBD would reduce traffic on local streets in Mott Haven and East Harlem as well.

  47.  

    Ben Fried

    DOT did say what it meant — this bike corral is a safety improvement. Sometimes crashes happen after a safety improvement, and that gives people like George Stamatiades license to spout cynical garbage. I think that makes it all the more important to explain why the original intervention was in fact a plus for public safety.

  48.  

    WalkingNPR

    I don’t get it. Over and over (Clinton Ave, UES, this) we keep hearing examples of bad driver behaviors being given as the reason not to build bike/pedestrian infrastructure. If the car drivers are behaving badly, let’s get mad at the drivers!

    I mean, I DO get it. It’s a perfect illustration of what decades of car-centric infrastructure and auto industry propaganda does to people, but….I don’t get it!!!

  49.  

    Morris Zapp

    Here’s more from DKCA president Thea Romano:

    “Bike racks are needed in Dutch Kills, but put them on the sidewalks. We can’t lose any more parking. It’s our commercial area. Businesses have to do business.”

    http://qns.com/story/2016/05/10/rather-than-stop-sign-city-installs-a-bike-corral-at-a-dangerous-long-island-city-intersection/

    Got that, kids? Keep your little toys on the sidewalks. The adults and their cars have business to take care of.

    If you think DKCA is mainly worried about safety I’ll take your bet on Romney/Ryan for the White House in 2012.

  50.  

    Doug G.

    Of course not! Which is why DOT should have the courage of its convictions and just straight up say what it means. Where bike corrals are a part of the safety toolkit and can be used as a quick, cheap solution to daylight an intersection, great! Where it’s only about adding parking capacity, that’s great too.