|
|
| Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments (316780) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 21:55:31 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 25 12:38:03 2016. My new comments are in boldMe: What great deal of information about the B44 SBS was available prior to the report?" You: Ridership, like any other route. In addition, Wait Assessment data is available on the B44 and B44SBS, which is not available for all routes. Yes, the only other information readily available are annual and weekday ridership numbers for the combined B44 and local. That is hardly "a great deal of information." I understand that if you know how to obtain it and know where to look you could also get separate numbers for SBS and also the wait assessment data. However, the MTA claims it is transparent and if that were really the case, one wouldn't have to jump through hoops to obtain the data which may not even be sufficient for one's needs. IT SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE, not through specific searches where you already have to know the types of info that is available before you request it for the search to be successful. Me: Because the construction supposed to be finished before the project starts so it can work properly. The MTA even blamed the construction for 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. You: 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. "CAN" is your key word here. The facts are that the so called improvements did not mitigate the effects of construction for the riders. The MTA plainly states that the results were less than favorable the first year probably because the construction was not finished which was why ridership was down 8 percent. Me: 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. You: 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. Just because you make the ridiculous statement that fare machine reliability matters little to riders, we are supposed to take you seriously? Where is your data that shows that? Of course riders care about the machines working. And no past SBS projects ever made it clear that fare evasion and machine reliability are unimportant subjects not worthy of discussion. You criticize me for making statements without data or proof. At least my statements are based on logic and reason. Yours are based on hot air. Me: You are being totally inconsistent. You: 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." You: 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. Me: "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." You: 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. The report shows nothing very well. It is showing average weekday ridership which is incomplete and neglects about 30 percent of the days. Annual ridership would be more indicative of reality. So why did the MTA choose average weekday ridership instead? Because they calculated the numbers both ways and average weekday ridership showed more favorable results because they are playing on a slanted playing field in order to falsely give the impression SBS is doing better than it actually is doing. Me: 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. You: There is no evidence whatsoever that the second possibility has happened at all. There is plenty of evidence according to numerous newspaper articles I cited in my Sheepsheadbites articles where riders initially claimed to wait 40 minutes routinely girl the local. It was so bad that the MTA had to increase local service and decrease SBS service. Still with SBS buses 50 percent longer than local buses, patronage is roughly split 50 50 meaning locals are much more crowded than SBS buses so anyone who wants a seat will probably also walk farther to or from an SBS bus just to get a seat, not because his total trip time is any quicker. TOTAL TRIP TIMES WERE NOT EVEN MEASURED. Me: 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. You: Search MTA site for Wait assessments. Not that hard to find. Shouldn't be necessary. Should be easy to find, not "not that hard" to find. The information should be staring at you on the webpage. THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSPARENCY. 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. You: The degree to which you project your flaws onto others is absolutely breathtaking. Talk about the one with flaws. Your statement alone that passengers do not care about fare machine reliability is enough of a reason not to take anything else you say seriously. As I told Merrick, as long as you are not willing to have a serious discussion and insist that only positive numbers that show success matter, and any negative numbers should be discounted and are unimportant, there is no reason to have any further discussions with you on this subject. I am not even going to waste my time by reading your two or three other posts. Your statement that it is correct to only consider first year ridership numbers for the M15 because they were higher, and future years are irrelevant to SBS, then take the exact opposite stance with the B44 saying first year numbers do not matter and only SBS second year increases count (even discounting local patronage decreases) because SBS ridership rose the second year, is totally contradictory and illogical. It is cherry picking your data just as the MTA has done to support a predetermined conclusion of success. A progress report needs to be objective showing the good with the bad, not only half the picture. And just as the MTA predetermined success regardless of what the numbers show, you predetermined that everything I wrote was wrong before even reading a single word I wrote. Good bye. |
|
|
|