|
|
| Re: MTA's Poor Priorities (314845) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: MTA's Poor Priorities |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 23 23:33:46 2016, in response to Re: MTA's Poor Priorities, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jun 23 23:15:08 2016. "But they also have the option of the Q."2 riders also have the option of the 5. "Probably initially. But what if it turns out to be more popular than the Q35. Then that would change." But it clearly wouldn't, so that is irrelevant. "Anyway, people could tKe the bus that comes first and wouldn't have to wait for the hypothetical bus if they didn't want to." They could Inbound. "And it would only split the market if no new transit rides would result. That would be highly unlikely." That is blatantly false. If there was any success it would largely cannibalize the Q35, even if some of the riders were new. "Atlantic Avenue is one of the most complex transfers in the system, certainly not a simple one. At the new entrance 72 stairs are required to get from the Q to the 2." Use the old transfer. Up stairs, walk over a short distance, walk up another longer set of stairs. Nothing is forcing people to the new end. "An across the platform transfer is a simple transfer." Yes, it is! But it is far from the only type of simple transfer. "But since you can define anything anyway you want and always be correct, it really doesn't matter." If you don't say anything that is wrong, yes, you are always correct. "You have alleged parking at Riis Park is absolutely unworkable but have provided zero proof, but again you don't have to. Anything you say has to be automatically correct." Only a lifetime of dealing with National Parks service automobile access rules. They are a pain to deal with. (And notice how everybody else here realizes this too...) "And as for Rockaway having low auto ownership rates when compared to the rest of Queens, why are you comparing it to the rest of Queens? The half of Queens with higher auto ownership is miles from the closest subway. Half of Rockaway has access to the A train so why would you expect higher auto ownership there than areas without any subway service?" Because the Rockaways are part of Queens! Easiest comparison! "You need to compare auto ownership in the Rockaways to other portions of the city which also has nearby subway access." No, I really don't. "Discounting Manhattan and Staten Island, when you do that, the auto ownership in the Rockaways is much higher than those other areas once you discount Flatlands which also has no subway." So if I ignore half the city... "The only area on the map with higher auto ownership than the Rockaways (50 percent) that also has a subway is Middle Village, but only a small portion if that area has access to the M while half of Rockaway has access to the A." The M has substantially higher ridership than the A in the neighborhoods being discussed. The Rockaway A ridership is abysmal. "So don't try to make it appear that auto ownership in Rockaway is low. I don't consider 50% low." 10% below borough average. That is low. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|