|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (310916) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:01:01 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 24 12:23:00 2016. "The assumption you base it on is wholly irrelevant."No it isn't. If the average trip on Woodhaven is 2.7 or even 3 miles after you factor in the bridges, the time savings would be 4 or perhaps 5 minutes at the most. Still insignificant for an average trip of 60, 75, or 90 minutes. "You stated the opposite that bus lanes do not require more maintenance than ordinary lanes..." Totally untrue. You are a LIAR. I was very clearly arguing the opposite that bus lanes require extra maintenance, therefore extra cost. YOU STATED THAT REGULAR LANES REQUIRE THE SAME LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE AS BUS LANES so bus lanes do not cost extra to maintain. I successfully disputed that. Now you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. In this post you make the following two statements: 1. "Nothing is required for a bus lane that is not required for other lanes." and 2. "ordinary lanes do not need to have missing or faded bus signs replaced or rust colored pavement replaced." Therefore bus lanes need to have missing or faded signs replaced and rust color pavement replaced just as I stated. (You stated "bus lanes require what other lanes require.") YOU CAN'T TAKE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME ARGUMENT AND BE RIGHT. If you are now stating Statement 2 is true, we have no disagreement. If you still insist on Statement 1, then you are clearly incorrect. BUT YOU CAN'T IN THE SAME BREATH SAY BOTH (1) AND (2) BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSITE STATEMENTS. So you are saying the same personnel without additional overtime can maintain 1,200 machines without adding any incremental costs. THAT IS COMPLETELY SUBSTANTIATED. For it to be true, the employees must all be goofing off now when the fact is many are already putting in overtime because it is cheaper for the MTA than to hire more employees. Buses are in service for 48 hours between refueling. Less stop and go will give you slightly better fuel efficiency. I will grant you that But like 80% of the costs are labor. Fuel is like 20% if you ignore maintenance. So if run times are reduced, the bus will make more trips in the 48 hours it is in service so maintenance costs are unaffected and the drivers are still paid for 8 hours of work. If the fine revenue goes to the city and does not improve the MTA's budget, IT DOES NOT ENTER THE EQUATION. So you can't take it off the MTA's increased operating costs as you unsuccessfully tried to do. It won't help the MTA maintain the fare. So as I stated SBS puts an additional operating strain on the MTA's budget without additional riders today, not five years ago. What do you consider "cutting many stops". For the people of Rockaway, they are cutting many stops, like half of them. "The MTA seems to be looking closely here and on other SBS (And limited) routes and adjusts as needed." BS. It took a over a year and much political pressure to get a stop added at Avenue L on the B44 SBS. Riders have been asking for two years for another stop at Avenue R which the MTA rejected ALTHOUGH THE EXISTING STOPS ARE ONE MILE APART. "Nearly everybody else sees a bunch of successful improvements which have turned around the routes they are on" Who is "nearly everybody else"? You certainly can't be talking about Woodhaven residents where only 1 out of 100 supported SBS on Woodhaven. And do you mean less ridership by "turned around" because we are talking what's happening today, not what happened five years ago. |
|
|
|