|Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322545)|
|Home > BusChat|
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 16:10:28 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Feb 1 15:35:05 2017.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).
You have not made any valid argument below.
And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into it.
What is there to respond to? They said they'll look into it. Standard response.
You: Where do they admit to this?
At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites.
So you have no credible source.
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.
Slight nitpick- I do not assume it is your hearing that is faulty. I believe it is your capability of understanding. Further doubt is cast upon what you hear by your blatant dishonesty.
So yes, if you present something, you need sources. Other people can get away with things they hear, but you have abused the trust of this community far too much for any reasonable person who has experience dealing with you to give you the benefit of the doubt.
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.
If something isn't easily obtainable, that means it is not something that they expect sizable amounts of site users to regularly be accessing. Furthermore, if you can find something, it cannot be particularly hard to find. Also, poor web design would be a much more likely reason for something to not be prominent on the page, which is a problem I believe the MTA has.
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.”
As I have mentioned many times before, it is likely they are referring to different things. My guess is that the FTA cost is including actual new buses, and the DOT cost is not.
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.
I don't see any intersection/street/lane here, let alone worn ones or ones with inadequate signage...
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.
That is not implying that bus travel time reductions are the same thing as passenger travel time reductions. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they are false?