|Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322512)|
|Home > BusChat|
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.
"Despite claims to the contrary, you still clearly do not understand induced demand. People would likely take up other modes."
I know exactly what induced demand is. People would only take other modes if those other modes improved which they haven't so they would most likely stay in their cars and use alternate slower routes further clogging up those streets and making fewer discretionary trips.
"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."
Again, you are just making things up. Anyone watching that video would conclude that they care very much about improving transit. It's just that they believe SBS is not the way to do that. Virtually everyone I hear from has a negative SBS comment for me. Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.
How many others fall into that category? There are certainly more half mile trips like his than there are trips from the first stop to the last stop where passengers can save 15 minutes. No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases. The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems. It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either. Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.
"It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."
So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS. If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.
"By having separate meetings, they can avoid answering certain questions that pertain to the entire project.
More conspiracy nonsense."
Keep throwing in buzzwords like "conspiracy" because we all know that conspiracy equals crazy. And why should they be able to avoid answering questions that pertain to the entire project? They shouldn't be able to avoid answering any questions.
Me: 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.
Me: So what are you saying?
"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."
Another tactic of yours when you have no legitimate answer to a question. Attack the questioner.
"Who is to say they didn't look at it?"
I didn't say they didn't look at adding the Avenue R stop. I said they didn't do a proper analysis and they only gave reasons after elected officials got involved. She should have been answered at the second or third workshop she attended, not being continually told they will look at it.
Me: 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: You claim they didn't. (without any justification whatsoever.)
I certainly did provide justification. They admitted to only looking at transferring passengers at Avenue R and non-transferring passengers boarding there to base their conclusion that ridership would be to little for an SBS stop. That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained. Additionally, usage isn't the only factor. IT is also important that the nearest SBS stop in either direction is one half mile away, a distance too great to expect someone to walk since some may also be walking a quarter mile or more just to reach the bus stop at Avenue R. So asking them to walk three quarters of a mile to the bus is just ridiculous as is taking the local and changing for the express when that would entail an addition fare for some.
Me: 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.
You: 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.
Me: So now that I discounted your first explanation that prices went up over time, let us assume for the moment your explanation is correct. So why would you include the cost of buses when requesting and receiving money from the feds, but omit the cost of the buses when you are trying to get community support? It is obvious the lower figures were used in all cases for the communities to make the project seem more cost effective. That is why they conveniently failed to mention the increased operating costs at every community meeting and in all their documentation. THAT IS PLAIN DISHONESTY AND OIT IS MISLEADING AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS.
"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?"
The higher figures were hidden in technical reports not easy to obtain. The lower figures were presented at meetings and on their website.
Me: 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.
You: Because there is no reason to assume they lied.
Me: There is every reason to believe they lied as I have just shown you.
Me: I told you that it won't make a difference to you if I provided the links or not and I was correct.
You: It certainly makes a difference. I knew you were incorrect, but now I know WHY you are incorrect here.
Me: You can only state I am incorrect which means nothing since I have provided you with proof of deception which you just discounted. When providing total costs, it is essential that you provide the initial capital costs as well as the ongoing operating costs. Providing only the former is incorrect and not a true representation of total costs. It is intentional deception.
Me: 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.
You: I would hope this means you are learning, but by now I have learned such would be overly optimistic to the point of foolishness.
Me: Learning what? That trying to have a fair and honest discussion with you is just not possible? Yes I have learned that which is why responding to you ridiculous posts is no longer a priority of mine. I do it when I have nothing more important to do which is why my responses this time are two weeks late. Worn out pavement markings and inadequate signage certainly are examples of poor execution.
Me: 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.
You: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.
Me: You just ignored the proof I provided in my links how DOT was deliberately dishonest when conveying cost figures to the communities by providing ridiculous explanations. They are also dishonest by not providing estimated time savings for a typical passenger, but rely on bus trip time savings when that only benefits the MTA, not the bus rider since practically no one rides from the first to the last stop of an SBS route to take full advantage of bus travel time savings. If you go back to original documents you will find they did state the average Bx12 SBS rider will save five minutes and the average B44 SBS rider will save six minutes. But such small savings can in no way justify the many hundreds of millions extra it is costing to provide SBS service, so now all time savings are quoted from the first stop to the last stop only. THAT IS DISHONEST AND MISLEADING. When you publicly state bus trips are 20% quicker with SBS as DOT has stated, the assumption is that the average passenger trip is 20% quicker AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
You: I don't deal with unsubstantiated facts. That is why I am usually not wrong.
Me: Thanks for providing me with my laugh for today.
Me: People can see right through you.
You: I certainly hope so! I am pretty simple to see through. Pro transit, Pro pedestrian safety.
Me: I meant they can see through your BS.