|
|
| Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments (316773) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 25 12:38:03 2016, in response to Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:09:19 2016. "1. What great deal of information about the B44 SBS was available prior to the report?"Ridership, like any other route. In addition, Wait Assessment data is available on the B44 and B44SBS, which is not available for all routes. Because the construction supposed to be finished before the project starts so it can work properly. The MTA even blamed the construction fir the 8 percent ridership decline the first year. So it made perfect sense to delay the project start until construction was completed to avoid an 8 percent ridership decline. Potential delays due to construction are no reason to delay improvements, especially when those improvements CAN MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RIDERS. The questions I asked are ridiculous? Come on now. A progress report needs to describe all relevant events. Fare evasion and machine reliability, for example are legitimate subjects that need to be discussed in a progress report whose purpose should be to tell the complete story, not only the positive aspects. Past SBS projects have made it clear that these are not notable subjects. Fare evasion has not increased on SBS lines. Fare machine reliability matters little to riders. You are being totally inconsistent. There is nothing inconsistent about what I am saying. The data seen for the B44 and M15 are DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA. "You state that in the case of the M15, only first year ridership results matter because ridership went up." NO. The data in the first year is the only data that matters because before and after is the only thing that shows you the effects of the SBS CHANGE. "But in the case of the B44 when ridership decline by 8 percent the first year, much greater than the borough average, then it's the second year results where SBS went up by 10 percent is what matters." On its own, yes, that would be the case. But here we have substantially better data. We don't have to rely on the annual ridership statistics to get a good picture of the SBS effects. We have what I assume is day by day ridership data on a chart, which actually shows what is happening. Ridership was in freefall before the SBS changes went into effect. Shortly after SBS was implemented, ridership quickly turned around and started rising again, albeit substantially slower than the rate at which it had been falling immediately before. The report shows this very well. 1, as you stated that SBS is far superior to the local service and 2, the local service has deteriorated so much that people are forced to take the SBS if they do not want to wait inordinate amount of times for the local. You just completely discounted the second possibility despite tons of customer complaints regarding the second possibility. There is no evidence whatsoever that the second possibility has happened at all. You seem to have made up your mind that you will not concede a single point despite the evidence and are just making up things by saying there was much material available prior to the progress report proving success. If that is true post those links. If you can't, then you are just blowing hot air. Search MTA site for Wait assessments. Not that hard to find. If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations, I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts. But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying. The degree to which you project your flaws onto others is absolutely breathtaking. |
|
|
|