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 BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:35:05 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 19:25:32 2017.

Me: 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.

You: “There is no reason to believe that they did not do proper analysis based on anything you are saying here.”

There is every reason to believe they did not do a proper analysis as I have already explained (below). And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into 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.)

Me: 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.

You: Where do they admit to this?

At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites.

Me: That would severely be an underestimation of usage for an SBS stop as I have already explained.

You: “but there is no reason to assume they did such.”

I am not assuming anything but relating what they stated at the press conference. Your response obviously will be that I did not hear them correctly since you won’t be able to refute the facts.

Me: 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.

You: “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.”
As I already stated, the half mile walk is in addition to the quarter-mile service area for the route. Three-quarters of a mile is too far to expect people to walk to get to a bus stop. Try it sometime with packages or in less than perfect weather. In order to make up the ten-minute additional walk to the closest SBS stop, someone would have to save at least ten more minutes by taking the SBS instead of the local. That means they would have to be on the bus for over six miles. The average B44 trip length is 2.3 miles long. So, using simple logic most Ave R passengers would not save time by walking extra to another SBS stop. Additionally, you are only expected to walk ten minutes to a subway. Expecting 15 for SBS passengers is not within the realm of reason.

You: “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.”
Why would you have to pay for aspects of service relating to upgrades if you don’t make the upgrades?

You: If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden.

If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is 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.
I am not assuming they lied. They did lie and mislead by possibly only stating their costs and indicating that was the TOTAL cost. They also lied by only mentioning initial costs and omitting ongoing costs when stating they were TOTAL costs. It appears that you do not know the meaning of the words TOTAL COSTS. But DOT certainly does.

Me: There is every reason to believe they lied as I have just shown you.

You: You have not demonstrated such.
I certainly have in the above paragraph.

You: “You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.”

FTA: Capital Cost of the B44 SBS project - $38 million to 50 million.
DOT: Total Cost of the B44 SBS project - $15 million.

How many B44 SBS projects are there. If anything the DOT should have been higher because the FTA figure does not include annual operating costs which the DOT figure does since they used the word “Total.”

You: Poor maintenance is not an issue related to execution. Your judgement of signage is of little consequence to reality.
So you believe it only matters if the road markings are clear on the day of implementation and it is not important if years go by as they did in the case of the B44 with worn out lane markings. As of this writing, there are some markings that have been totally worn out for over two years. If DOT cannot properly maintain the current SBS routes, why should they be allowed to further expand the SBS system?

You: My judgement of signage?

Okay tell me if you believe that this signage is adequate for turning vehicles to inform drivers that there are exclusive bus lanes. And remember that the lane markings are completely worn out.

You: “It does not matter what evidence is presented if all the evidence is fabricated and/or irrelevant.”
Except that all the evidence is relevant and none is fabricated. Are you going to tell me the picture I linked to is a lie and not what turning drivers see?

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: When have they ever implied that? Cite it.

Trottenberg has stated in numerous interviews that SBS passengers are completing trips 20 percent quicker. She promised Woodhaven passengers would save up to 30 percent of their travel time with SBS.


 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]