Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Council Member Won questions DOT's daylighting study methodology
1:07:20
·
110 sec
Council Member Julie Won challenges DOT's methodology in their daylighting study, questioning their use of hydrant zones and bus stops as proxies for daylighting. She criticizes the study's conclusions and methodology, highlighting potential flaws in the analysis.
- Questions DOT's claim that daylighting may have negative effects on safety
- Challenges the use of hydrant zones and bus stops as proxies for daylighting
- Raises concerns about data granularity and potential cherry-picking of results
- Asks about statistical significance and multiple comparison corrections
Julie Won
1:07:20
Soft daylighting methodology, we're gonna start there.
1:07:23
In DOT's report on daylighting you state research found that universal daylighting as evidence in DOT's hydrant zone analysis does not have widespread safety benefits anticipated and may have negative effects on safety.
1:07:37
That's quite a bold claim.
1:07:38
How does DOT explain the success of daylighting in Hoboken and other cities?
1:07:43
Hoboken has not had a single traffic fatality in seven years and sees continued reductions in injuries.
1:07:49
DOT analysis used hydrant zones in air quotes and bus stops, 90% fire hydrants, 10% bus stops as a proxy for daylighting without physical barriers to conclude soft and unhardened daylighting could adversely impact safety.
1:08:04
However, hydrant zones are chronically blocked by illegal parking in New York City.
1:08:09
Bus stops are even worse.
1:08:10
By nature, they have buses in them blocking visibility and achieving the exact opposite of daylighting.
1:08:16
Furthermore, since the crash data lacks granularity, it is unknown whether crashes actually took place on the side of the intersection with a hydrant or bus stop.
1:08:25
So how can DOT claim that soft daylighting can potentially have an adverse effect on safety when you use such a flawed proxy for soft daylighting?
1:08:34
Can DOT say definitively that an increase in injuries at these locations was a result of cars not being present and there being greater visibility?
1:08:43
This analysis includes many factors and variables, some of which were in your own words discarded due to redundancy and lack of statistical significance.
1:08:53
I'm sorry, but you can't just throw out results you didn't like.
1:08:55
That's called cherry picking.
1:08:57
Given that this analysis includes hundreds of comparisons, did you apply multiple comparison corrections to control for false positives?
1:09:05
If not, how can you claim that the hydrants effects were statistically significant?
1:09:09
So we'll start there.