|
|
| Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (322646) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
|
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 14:47:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 14:21:40 2017. 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. Not all questions have meaningful responses. Nobody can possibly have all potential data present to immediately respond to any conceivable question. Your demand is an outright impossibility. 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. We have no source here. If we did, you'd link to it. Recollections of verbal testimony are unreliable years after, even if they came from a competent, honest, and normally reliable source. You are none of those. 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 still have not provided a single retraction of mine of a statement you claim I have retracted. If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is hidden. No. For something to be hidden, there must be an intent to hide it. Infrequently accessed resources should never be the most prominent items on a website as that would effectively hide the frequently accessed resources. 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. In general, I agree with you here. The MTA needs to work a lot on their web design. Overall, I would say it is rather poor. That does not however, imply that they have any intent to hide these figures. 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. There is nothing indicating either dishonesty or incompetence here. The term "Total Costs" is certainly context dependent when dealing with government agencies. 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. Or perhaps because you never actually included the link. 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. There has never been any such implication that I have seen. Original Bx12 documentation predicted that the average Bx passenger would save 5 minutes. Ok. Do you have any proof that that is a false statistic? (Do you have a link to this documentation?) Similarly, B44 documentation stated the average passenger who makes an average 2.3-mile trip would save six minutes. Ok. Do you have any proof that that is a false statistic? (Do you have a link to this documentation?) Neither figure is a 20 percent savings for the bus passenger. Proof? The only way you can arrive at 20 percent is by using total bus travel times. Unsupported assertion. 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. But nobody said they did! It is an absolutely correct statement. If bus runtime is reduced by 30%, passenger ride time is reduced by up to 30%. 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. You still do not understand. BRT=SBS. Get your terminology straight. But outside of this basic lack of understanding, where is your proof for this absurd allegation? It is a number they just pulled out of thin air, something you always accuse me of. Proof they did so? 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. Perhaps there is a reason for this. DOT=CREDIBLE SOURCE. AR=NOT CREDIBLE SOURCE. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DISPROVE DOT’S BASELESS CLAIMS. It better not be! If it were, I doubt you'd still have that job! It is their JOB to PROVE their claims. Nobody sane is challenging them. Even if somehow buses would have 30% quicker running times. That still does not equate with passenger times being 30 percent quicker. Again, nobody is saying they are. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
Responses disabled
|