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 Tue Feb 7 00:19:07 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Jan 31 20:00:24 2017.

You: “When there is no answer, questions should not be answered.”

There certainly was an answer. I asked him if pedestrians and cyclists were all that mattered. That requires a yes or no answer and he did not answer.

Me: Why don't you just let him speak for himself?

You: “He did. You just repeatedly misunderstand him and others.”

No, he did not speak for himself. You answered for him saying there is no answer.

Me: Now you are making an equally outrageous statement that the numbers of autos are inflated because many cars make multiple trips up and down the street while bus riders tend to make only one trip each way.

You: I am making no such claim.

Me: So what are you claiming then?

You: “I am claiming you have no applicable data. I do not claim to have data that I do not have.”

Stephen Bauman’s data certainly was applicable that showed major crossings with 35,000 to 50,000 daily vehicular crossings. DOT claims there are 33,000 daily bus riders and that also is applicable data. So you are lying by stating the data I used is not applicable.

Fdtutf claimed that the number of bus passengers was equal to the number in autos. I proved he was incorrect since 50,000 is higher than 33,000 and that assumes each car carries only one passenger and there is much turnover on Woodhaven so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the number of those in cars is somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 people daily. You finally admitted that 80 percent of users in motor vehicles are in cars or trucks.

You: Wrong. Each mile you drive cost you more gas.
Generally yes, unless you have an all electric car.

You: The Wrong was from you, so I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You stated that the auto numbers are inflated because many cars make multiple trips up and down the street while bus riders make only one trip each way. So I asked you for your rationale. If it was that car costs are stagnant while bus passengers pay a new fare each time they get on. I then asked you if you arrived at your conclusion thinking car costs are constant. If you would be wrong because each mile you drive cost you more gas. So if that wasn't your rationale, why do you conclude that the auto numbers are inflated?

Me: Got any other ideas why 50,000 car crossings is not more than 33,000 bus riders?

You: Nobody is saying that it is.

Me: That is exactly what fdtutf was saying.

You: No it isn't.

If he said something else, what was it?

Me: That certainly is relevant data. So don't lie and say I am basing my conclusions on no data.

You: Actually it isn't, as it gives you no real information outside of that location.

I was using data from many locations, not one.

You: 20% Bus users getting 1/4 lanes is certainly the most equitable distribution of resources. Congrats! You justified it!!!

Me: Your arithmetic is simplistic and off. 20% of the users (bus users) getting 25% of the space is not equitable.

Me: It also assumes that the proportion of car and bus users remains the same through out the day which certainly is not the case.

During midday, evenings and most weekends, the proportion of those in autos compared to those in buses reaches 95%, yet they still are allowed to use only 80% of the roadway. During off-hours the average bus has like 15 passengers or less, yet you would like us to believe that every bus carries 60 people.

You: More fabrications from Mr. Rosen!

You obviously never travel on Woodhaven. The only time buses on weekends are crowded is on a hot summer beach day.

But at least I am making some headway. I finally got you to admit that 80 percent of the traffic is drivers and car passengers and only 20% are bus riders.

You: I have never admitted such. I see no reason to assume such is true.

/b> A direct quote from you: “ And since Woodhaven SBS is projected to HELP THE 80% IN CARS. That is a REALLY hard argument to make.” (Last sentence here: http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=322166) 80% in cars + 20 percent in buses equal 100%. (And yes there are a few percent in trucks and on motorcycles.)

You: "I have not backtracked. I have not changed my claims."

Also you also previously said it is possible that the number of bus riders equals the numbers of those in cars agreeing with fdtutf.

Me: My trips used to average 45 minutes to an hour. Today those same trips take 55 to 70 minutes.

You: Source?

I time all my trips.

Me: So yes, if we keep slowing traffic to the point where using mass transit is just as slow, some will start switching to mass transit. Is that the plan you endorse?

You: There is no reason to assume it will reduce car speed.

I am not assuming anything. DOT’s preliminary numbers from the exclusive bus lane in Rego Park already showed it. During the AM peak, the average speed in the peak direction between Furmanville and Metropolitan went down from 19 mph to 11.5 mph.

After SBS, it will even be worse, because on the southern portion of Woodhaven some through traffic will be required to use the service road because of the loss of two lanes.


 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]