Home  Maps  About

Home > BusChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 14 23:30:01 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Sat Jan 14 22:59:23 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
And how would you know that reduced capacity on Queens Boulevard reduces demand? I already stated that traffic volumes would probably be decreased. That would be because traffic is diverted to other routes. Not because demand is lessened with a few discretionary trips just not being made like fewer visits to relatives. so in most cases demand would not be reduced. Traffic volumes on one street does not equate with demand when there are multiple routes available which is the case most everywhere here.
Despite claims to the contrary, you still clearly do not understand induced demand. People would likely take up other modes.

And the community board meeting was not an anti-transit venue. If you watch the video of the meeting you will see that numerous people asked for improved bus and transit service. Being anti-SBS on Woodhaven does not equate with being anti-transit. Yes, the community board is quite clearly anti transit considering their complaints here. Advocating against the greatest transit improvement in Queens since Archer Avenue is certainly an anti transit stance.

You can state that most of the people in the area are for SBS and it is meaningless that virtually everyone at the meeting who are against it was the exception to the general population, but you don't have a shred of evidence to back that up. It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made.

Different audiences who ask different questions shoukd get different answers. But the same question asked at each meeting should get the same answer. That is If each area asks how many parking spaces will be eliminated, the answer for each area will be different, but the total number remains the same. By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project.
More conspiracy nonsense.

So you are saying that they still didn't know how many parking spaces they would be eliminating until they actually eliminated them because they never even bothered counting them.
No.

They coukd get the same number of opinions with fewer meetings. I would not have made that complaint as long as they answered all the questions asked of them. It is obvious they did not.
I doubt the MTA will ever answer your questions. There is nothing to be gained by doing so. Engaging a raving lunatic rarely ends well for anybody.

When she one complained to me about there not being an Avenue R stop after implementation, I told her the time to ask for it was at the workshops before implementation. She responded that she attended every one of them and brought it up each time and was told they will look at it. In the end, they omitted it without giving any reasons until elected officials made a big stink out of it and then their reasons were not sufficient.
Who is to say they didn't look at it?

They said not enough passengers were transferring at Avenue R to merit a stop there. However, they also needed to count non-transferring passengers as well as passengers boarding at Quentin and Avenue S as well to make a determination, because in all likelihood many of this passengers would also walk to Avenue R and use that stop if it were SBS.
You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.)

Prices go up over time? Guess that explains why in 2011, the MTA stated the project costed $44.7 million and in 2013, it cost only $15 million. Thanks for clearing that up. It also explains why "total project cost" does not include additional annual operating costs.
Guess the MTA has their own definition of the word "total."
So what are the possible rationale explanations to explain a decrease in price by two thirds? And what became of all that extra money that was never spent? And you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

Perhaps one was including the cost of buses and one wasn't? Perhaps one was including the incremental cost of adding SBS vs the total cost of SBS support divided over the total? Plenty of logical potential explanations.


It is obvious who is being dishonest here and by not admitting they lied about the costs just to get public approval, you are no better than they are.
Or, one of the other of dozens of more rational explanations. You realize, if they were lying to make it look like the spent less, they would probably be CONSISTENT in their lies, and not release higher figures?

You asked me for the links insinuating that I was lying by pointing out the discrepancies if I didn't provide them. So I gave you the links, and you still won't admit THEY LIED.
Because there is no reason to assume they lied.

I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct.
It certainly makes a difference. I knew you were incorrect, but now I know WHY you are incorrect here.

That's why I won't post the pictures of inadequate signage and totally worn out pavement markings because you already stated that it is no indication of poor execution.
I would hope this means you are learning, but by now I have learned such would be overly optimistic to the point of foolishness.

So with you it does not matter what evidence is presented, you just ignore all evidence so as not to change your claims and keep claiming there is no data or the data is inadequate when I am making a point.
I do not ignore evidence. I never receive evidence from you to ignore. Yes, you almost universally use no data or inadequate data(or absolutely irrelevant data) when you are trying to make a point.

but all your unsubstantiated facts are true because you are the one who makes them.
I don't deal with unsubstantiated facts. That is why I am usually not wrong.

People can see right through you.
I certainly hope so! I am pretty simple to see through. Pro transit, Pro pedestrian safety.




Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]