|
|
| Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven (310922) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 R30A on Wed Feb 24 22:47:09 2016, in response to Re: Summary and Video of November 2015 SBS meeting in Woodhaven, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 24 22:01:01 2016. "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."People with average trip times so long probably aren't only riding for 2.7 to 3 miles. Again, wholly made up numbers on your part. ""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." This has to be the pinnacle of your misunderstanding career. YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT. I WAS QUOTING YOU. THE YOU is ME there. And YES, I did do that. Seriously. learn how to follow a thread. "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." I never did. Add English and the Internet to the things which Allan Rosen don't understand. (i.e. Transit, Basic Math, Algebra, Traffic,) Signs last a long time for most people. They won't be replaced after a year because only people named Allan Rosen can't read them. Paint which has worn on the street does not need to be immediately replaced in a bus lane. It can wait for when the street being repainted anyway. "So you are saying the same personnel without additional overtime can maintain 1,200 machines without adding any incremental costs. THAT IS COMPLETELY SUBSTANTIATED." I thank you for backing me up that it is substantiated. That said, it isn't. But there ARE large economies of scale factors here. The more machines you add, the cheaper each machine ends up being to maintain. "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." Overtime vs new hires does not seem particularly relevant. "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." I'd like to see the numbers behind that, but that sounds reasonable to me. "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." Yes, but you are getting MORE WORK out of BOTH the employees and the buses for that same cost, so productivity is up! "If the fine revenue goes to the city and does not improve the MTA's budget, IT DOES NOT ENTER THE EQUATION." Err. why not? City pays MTA to run the bus. City gets fine revenue from farebeaters. How is that out of 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." I don't think you understand the funding structure for MTA BUS. To be continued on the next post... |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|