|
|
| Re: Why Northern Brooklyn Needs Better Bus Service (260811) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why Northern Brooklyn Needs Better Bus Service |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:38:16 2012, in response to Re: Why Northern Brooklyn Needs Better Bus Service, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue May 22 13:08:32 2012. You asked "In your experience, how many of those cars depart with one or more passengers after each departing train." Right? How is that different from asking, how many car service cars leave after each train arrives?" They woudn't leave if they didn't get a passenger unless the driver decided to go home, so you asked what I essentially said you asked. But you make it into a big deal as if I accused you of asking a totally different question. Nope. You're confused again. Please reread what I wrote. I'll even paste/link it here for you: I quite clearly and obviously asked "And in your experience...how many of those cars depart with one or more passengers after each arriving subway train? Where in there did I ask for "exactly" how many? I said "in your experience", which means "while you surely were observing the car service operations for several minutes here and there". That's why a conversation with you never comes to a conclusion. Nope. But it is why you drag these things out so much - you keep getting confused and/or interjecting STUPID comments that are completely irrelevant. You just find something to nitpick about and change the subject. Nope. I asked two simple questions and it took you like 20 posts to answer them when it could have only taken you one post. And then once you finally answered both of them, I concluded the *original* conversation. You're now still going on and on about stuff you brought up AFTER I began the original conversation. Let's suppose I stated that I watched for ten minutes, and four cars left each with one person. How woud that information help you draw any conclusions. You would just come back with statements like ten minutes isn't long enough to wait or how do you know those people coud have taken the B4? The the point is no matter how someone answers your questions it is never good enough for you. You just move the topic elsewhere. That's why no one wants to talk to you. Here you go again, making up irrelevant hypothetical situations and then making assumptions as to how I would answer them in order to boost your ego to make yourself feel better after I successfully challenged your conclusion. I'm glad you now explained to me how "things work" since I am not a competent planner and you are, according to you. What you explained is how things should work and you did a good job of that. Yes, I did a good job of that because I am competent and you are not. Thank you. But that is not how things happened. There were no thresholds or ranking that the MTA used to decide where the cuts were to be made. What they did was lay out a bunch of guidelines they said they were using and presented a ranked list of costs to provide service, and never revealing their methodology then presented a final list of cuts. If they "never revealed their methodology" then how do you know that there were "no thresholds or ranking"????? For example, they state they considered ridership history as a criterion to decide if a route would be cut. They showed that the B71 ridership increased by 29% in the past five years. Virtually no other route had that type of gain, yet they eliminated it anyway. Where did thy show how they weighed that against other criteria. They didn't. That criteria doesn't exist in a vacuum!!!! If the ridership increased 29% but it still cost a lot of money to operate, then why shouldn't it still be on the table for cuts? They arbitrarily decided what to eliminate based on a hodgepodge of criteria. You need to find out what the methodology was instead of assuming there was none or it was some abstract "hodgepodge". Once you find it out, then you can criticize it. If what you say is true that there was a logical ranking of routes to be cut according to certain thresholds that had to be met, if I came to you with $20 million that I just made available, you would be able to go to that list and show me the first route on that list that should be restored. That cannot be done because no such list exists. Maybe I misspoke. When I said ranking, I meant that each route could be ranked by one or more factors. And then if a route exceeded the thresholds in a certain number of factors, then it could be more likely slated for cuts. Are you familiar with MS Excel? It is like the "SORT" function, when you sort multiple columns at once. And that said, they certainly may have done this but not released it publicly. |
|
|
|