|
|
| Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments (316818) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 15:37:32 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 21:55:31 2016. "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."Doing a search of a website is not jumping through hoops. It IS READILY AVAILABLE. The point of the MTA website is to show people the information they need to actually ride the services. The website is already cluttered with too much unessential information on its front page. ""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. " None of that shows in any way that the improvements did not mitigate it. It just shows that the construction still degraded service. If the changes resulted in a substantially smaller degradation in service, they were a large success! "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. " Weekday ridership is certainly useful. It gives you the reality of weekday ridership. There is nothing wrong with using it. "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." Anecdotes are not data and cannot be treated as such "It was so bad that the MTA had to increase local service and decrease SBS service." The MTA is constantly evaluating and changing service frequency systemwide. Such is what any competent agency would do. "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." Without load evaluations, one cannot realistically estimate that the local is substantially more crowded than the Select. Select bus rides are substantially longer than local bus rides, as had been the case with the old limited and local. The average Select bus rider uses more seat miles than the average local rider "TOTAL TRIP TIMES WERE NOT EVEN MEASURED." Realistically speaking, they cannot be. The MTA provided better data than trip times, as it is actually REAL data. "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." That is not the meaning of transparency. If the information was staring at you on the webpage it would be a poorly designed webpage. Maps, schedules, service advisories, delays, and fare information should be what is staring at you on the webpage, as that is what 99% of visitors to the MTA website are looking for. "If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations," It seems pretty clear that this is what YOUR MO is, not mine. I like to show WHY you are wrong. "I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts." Yes, it has to suck to be constantly proven wrong by myself (and many others) "But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying." You are wasting your time by posting anything anywhere, as long as cogent sane people can read and respond. Wherever you post, you are almost instantaneously shown to be a charlatan. "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." Why would passengers care about fare machine reliability? It has no effect on their ride whatsoever. "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 have never seen you have a serious discussion anywhere. Here is no different. When the numbers clearly show the service has been a success, you stammer on and on about how they are false or inapplicable, despite being clearly the correct numbers to use. Such would be less ironic if you didn't constantly use false and inapplicable numbers in your own arguments. "I am not even going to waste my time by reading your two or three other posts." You clearly realize that I am not going to let your bullshit go unchallenged. Good. You should have realized that a long time ago. "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." I never said that. The B44 analysis does not only look at the second year. The MTA would be using inappropriate data if they simply looked at the two years after SBS was implemented, compared them, and claimed SBS was a success. BUT THE KEY IS, THE MTA DID NOT DO THAT. "It is cherry picking your data just as the MTA has done to support a predetermined conclusion of success." Data does not need to be cherry-picked. Nobody serious is claiming it is a failure. "A progress report needs to be objective showing the good with the bad, not only half the picture." A progress report does not need to be anything at all. There is no need for such a report to be made, at all. "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." Such would be a relatively safe predetermination, but one cannot predetermine HOW your statements will be wrong, so I had to actually read them to see that. You did not disappoint in that regard, but again, you very rarely do. Good bye. And a good day to you too! |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|