|Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322532)|
|Home > BusChat|
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 19:25:32 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jan 31 15:22:38 2017."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.
There is no reason to believe that they did not do proper analysis based on anything you are saying here.
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.
Where do they admit to this?
That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained.
but there is no reason to assume they did such.
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.
Some stops end up being eliminated. Half a mile more isn't that much to walk for most people. And it is less for many people.
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.
It isn't misleading at all. When upgrading lines, you can often get funding for aspects of the service that you would have to pay even without making the upgrades. Nothing at all dishonest.
"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.
If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden.
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.
You have not demonstrated such
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.
You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.
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.
Poor maintenance is not an issue related to execution. Your judgement of signage is of little consequence to reality.
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.
It does not matter what evidence is presented if all the evidence is fabricated and/or irrelevant.
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.
When have they ever implied that? Cite it.
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.
I am glad reality entertains you so.
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.
Irony meter is rising again!