|Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322645)|
|Home > BusChat|
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.
I did and am not going to keep repeating myself going in circles with you.
Me: And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into it.
You: What is there to respond to? They said they'll look into it. Standard response.
But people deserve answers to their questions. These workshops should be a give and take. Not standard responses of “we will look into it”, then DOT doing whatever they want to anyway without explanation. THAT IS NOT MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. It is just a façade.
That is what there is to respond to. Don’t people who ask questions deserve meaningful responses? You apparently believe “standard responses” are all that is necessary. I disagree.
You: Where do they admit to this?
Me: At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites.
You: So you have no credible source.
Any source or data you disagree with you claim is not valid. Again you are calling me a liar claiming I did not hear DOT correctly. That is the only thing you can claim since you don’t have a valid response.
You: “but there is no reason to assume they did such.”
Me: 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.
You: ”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.”
Standard tactic. When you have no response, criticize the credibility of person making the claim. I would expect nothing less from you. Mere baseless accusations of dishonesty, from the person who constantly retracts what he previously stated even when the links of those statements are presented.
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.
You: “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.”
Something can be found and at the same time be particularly hard to find if it takes you considerable time to find it. You usually have to know something exists and the date it was presented to the Board. Then you may have to sift to hundreds of pages of data without any search ability. THAT IS RIDICULOUS when an agency is claiming they are transparent.
Even finding something as simple as bus patronage data by route is very difficult within the MTA website. If you go to Google and type in Ridership statistics or Facts and Figures, the proper link comes up. But if you type the same thing into the search box on the MTA site, you get meaningless links like to press releases. In one instance, I did get general ridership statistics but no link to specific statistics. I also understand that there are separate ridership statistics somewhere just for the SBS portion of a route, but still have been unable to find it.
Its more than a problem of poor web design. It is a problem of sloppiness and non-caring. There is no valid reason why the planning studies listed under “Planning Studies” should be incomplete and you have to look elsewhere to find the rest of them. None of this would matter if the MTA didn’t claim to be transparent which they are not.
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: “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.”
Then that needs to be clearly stated. In one document DOT states in a footnote that the numbers do not include the cost of new buses. But in other documents costs are listed as “total costs” when they are not. If it is not intentional deception, it is sloppiness or incompetence, neither of which is acceptable because it calls into question their competency to perform valid and unbiased studies.
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: I don't see any intersection/street/lane here, let alone worn ones or ones with inadequate signage...
That’s because you never clicked on the link I provided with clear pictures of inadequate signage and worn out pavement. Either that or you are just blind or just refuse to see the truth when it disagrees with your perception of reality.
You: When have they ever implied that? Cite it.
Me: 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.
You: 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?
It does imply that bus travel time reductions from one end of the route to the other is the same as what an average passenger saves on his trip. Original Bx12 documentation predicted that the average Bx passenger would save 5 minutes.
Similarly, B44 documentation stated the average passenger who makes an average 2.3-mile trip would save six minutes. Neither figure is a 20 percent savings for the bus passenger. The only way you can arrive at 20 percent is by using total bus travel times.
As far as her prediction for Woodhaven, no way could that be correct since first of all most passengers do not use an entire bus route which that number is based on. They are assuming since regular SBS routes save 20 percent in bus travel time, since Woodhaven SBS would be enhanced though still not BRT, the savings would be greater.
It is a number they just pulled out of thin air, something you always accuse me of. You continually ask me for data to prove my claim. But when DOT makes baseless future claims, you don’t ask them to prove their claims. Instead you accept their baseless claims as fact and ask me to disprove it. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DISPROVE DOT’S BASELESS CLAIMS. It is their JOB to PROVE their claims. Even if somehow buses would have 30% quicker running times. That still does not equate with passenger times being 30 percent quicker.