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 15:58:18 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 11:43:12 2017.

Me: I already gave you the example of eliminating a bottleneck on the BQE 30 years ago resulted in much more free flowing traffic without any increase in demand. And lowering capacity on a street may lower demand on that street but will have little affect on overall demand shifted to other slower corridors.

You: A. You have before and after traffic counts for the BQE Bottleneck removal?
B. The second claim depends on whether or not there is capacity on the other streets.

There you go again requesting data as if I can just pull up thirty-year old traffic data without any problems. Just because I canít provide the data you request, DOES NOT MAKE MY CLAIM UNTRUE. It stands to reason that when you add a lane for a short distance by removing a bottleneck, traffic will flow better. Your theory that people will run out and buy cars solely because they no longer are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic is PREPOSTEROUS. There are many variables involved in someoneís decision to purchase a car, not a single factor as you claim.

And mentioning neighboring streets is yet another attempt by you to divert the topic. It has othing to do with what we are discussing.

You: In general any user who is complaining about the SBS project has likely been mislead by charlatans like yourself.

Again your baseless accusations attacking me is a diversion from what we are discussing.

Me: Just yesterday I spoke to a friend who complained about SBS. He used to take the B46 local for a half mile. Now he has to walk a long block in the wrong direction to the SBS stop. So he saves np time with the SBS because the three minute extra walk makes up for the few minutes he may save on the bus. Waiting for the local is no longer an option since most often he can walk to his destination faster than waiting for the local bus so now rather than use the bus he just walks most of the time.

You: This has nothing to do with SBS.

Me: It has everything to do with SBS and every other SBS comment I made that you don't agree with, you claim is irrelevant because you can't refute them.

If they were riding on the LOCAL Their problem is with the LOCAL not the SBS. It sounds as if they are complaining because the SBS is now a better alternative, but they have to walk for it. That is an example of SBS being a SUCCESS, so I suppose I was wrong when I said it was irrelevant. Look at me! I admitted to a mistake!

You are incapable of simple reading comprehension. How is SBS now a better alternative when before he took the bus for a few blocks and now he is walking because he doesnít want to walk a long block extra in the wrong direction in order to use SBS?

As I previously stated many times, people are being forced into using SBS because local service has deteriorated with the replacement of the Limited with SBS because they do not want to have to wait 20 to 40 minutes for a local. So yes for them SBS has become their preferred alternative, not because they like SBS or want to use it, but because they can no longer reasonable use the local without waiting extraordinary long times for it to arrive. THAT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF SBS BEING A SUCCESS. And why you cannot simply look at SBS data and ignore local data in an analysis. THEY BOTH MUST STUDIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME ROUTE. Looking at only one or the other, as you suggest claiming one has nothing to do with the other, is incomplete and will result in a faulty analysis.

Me: No wonder why SBS has resulted in fewer riders in most cases.

You: Except it has done the reverse.

Me: It definitely has not.

You: You still don't know how to isolate variables. Kingsborough used to have classes on basic algebra. I'd have to imagine they still do.

Me: The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.

You: Actually that would be 1.5 million, but that is not a relevant number as you have been told time and time again. Ridership went way up after SBS conversion.

Me: Where is the PROOF it was only $1.5 million? I know you don't need proof. You claiming it makes it a fact.

You: 2010 M15 ridership: 16,070,701
2015 M15 ridership: 14,556,785

Again, you are changing what I stated.
I stated ďThe M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.Ē That is a true fact.

I did not say since before SBS inception. The first year SBS was in operation (2011), the route carried 17,424,366. That is nearly 3 million fewer riders than 2015. The only way you can prove your points is by changing what I stated as you just did again.

Claiming any figures after the 2011 is irrelevant does not jive with DOT claiming second year statistics ARE relevant for the B44 SBS. Why donít you lecture them on their need to take basic algebra courses at Kingsborough on how to isolate variables?

Apparently, you can use the same course since you believe that a single variable of removing one traffic bottleneck will be someoneís determination to purchase an automobile because you donít realize there are many more variables involved. I have shown you an instance where removing a traffic bottleneck did not result in additional traffic, but in less traffic. And your only response was to request 30-year old traffic data to prove it. Yet you consistently make all sorts of outrages claims without a single shred of data claiming you donít need any because you only state facts.

Me: It also cost millions more each year to operate so it doesn't make economic sense either.

You: SAS Cost BILLIONS!!! Does that mean it makes no sense? A few million is a small price to pay for creating a functional service.

Me: de Blasio's plan is 20 routes. We are talking at least a half billion in capital costs and about $60 million a year in additional operating costs for less and less riders each year on most SBS routes.

You: Regardless of the systemwide trend of bus ridership loss, Our bus ridership is absolutely massive. And considering that SBS causes ridership to go up...

More baseless claims from you. You have not provided any data that shows bus ridership is rising because of SBS. It is declining on SBS Justas it is declining on most other routes.



Me: Yet you believe it is irrefutable that it is a great transit improvement in all cases which you have no evidence to support that conclusion.

You: Improved ridership, Improved reliability, Decreased Runtime.

Me: Less ridership, no significant change in reliability.

You: There has certainly been a significant change in reliability. There has certainly been an increase in ridership.

Yes there certainly has been a significant change in reliability. THE LOCALS ARE NOW MUCH LESS RELIABLE. If you are claiming that SBS is more reliable, where is your data to back that up? You havenít provided any. I forgot. Excuse me. You can make any absurd claim you want and claim it is a fact without providing any data. Only I have to support my claims.

Me: Yes, decreased runtime because of reduced bus stops causing increased walks to bus stops. It stands to reason that reducing service (i.e. eliminating bus stops would decrease running times.


You: Bus running times are directly related to trip times. They are measuring the same exact thing, just with a different metric.

When you say ďtrip timesĒ do you mean bus trip times or passenger trip times? If you mean bus trip times, then you are correct, bus running times and bus trip times are the same metric. But if you are saying bus running times is the same metric as passenger trip times, then you are incorrect. THOSE ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT METRICS.

You: "It is just a wild unsubstantiated claim. A claim I never made."

Me: So you never claimed that most of the people in the area support SBS.

You: Correct.

Me: If so, you shouldn't object to my claim that most are against it.

You: Major logical fallacy.

Me: No fallacy in logic. We can safely conclude that you support a plan that most people in the area oppose.

You: There is no reason to assume that most people oppose the plan.

Me: Since you don't believe that most people support the plan, the converse must be true that you believe most are opposed to the plan.


Me: The only other possibility is that you won't commit to an estimate if more are for or are against the plan even though available evidence shows among those who spoke out who live in the area, the vast majority are opposed to the plan.


Going in circles again? You never claimed most people in the area support SBS. You also believe that most people do not oppose it because you claim there is no available evidence. That is because any evidence you do not agree with, you automatically discount. So, if most people do not support it and most people do not oppose it, the only conclusion left is that most are ambivalent or have no idea SBS has even been proposed on Woodhaven. It certainly is possible that most have no idea SBS has been proposed on Woodhaven. That would be because DOT has made no attempts to reach out to auto users on Woodhaven because they know the opposition it would receive if drivers knew they were losing two lanes. THAT IS WHY YOU WONíT FIND THAT STATEMENT IN ANY DOT LITERATURE AND WHY THAT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ANY MEETING.

As I stated you will discount any evidence of those in opposition to SBS. Even if every community board in the area and every elected official came out against SBS on Woodhaven, you would still discount that by saying they do not represent the public. So what evidence would convince you that SBS is opposed by most of those who would be affected by it assuming they know about it?

You : Yes, because it is crazy. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist.

Me: As I already have stated, when you can't logically argue the points, you attack the speaker.

You: If you continue to go on about a conspiracy...

I never said anything about a conspiracy. Those were your words not mine.

Me: So you are saying that they still didn't know how many parking spaces they would be eliminating until they actually eliminated them because they never even bothered counting them.

You: No.

Me: So what are you saying?

You: I am saying you are making unfounded accusations.

Me: So you are stating they did count the number of parking spaces they were removing but refusing to divulge that information three weeks before implementation when requested for that information by the Community Board, was proper.

You: I am not saying that either. I am saying you have no way of knowing how they quantified parking loss.

Correct. I have no way of knowing how they quantified parking loss because when they were asked the question three weeks before implementation of how many parking spaces the community would be losing, DOT refused to provide a number. You believe there is nothing wrong with them refusing to answer that question as you believe it was correct in them repeatedly replying to another question with a response that they will look into it without providing reasons for their decision.

And you have the nerve as DOT does to call that meaningful community participation because you are not willing to admit that DOTís community participation is just a charade. When someone asks will you implement SBS if everyone is against it, and the response was you will get it anyway regardless if you want it or not, (which is exactly what happened not a hypothetical if situation) DOTís community participation can only be considered a charade. And that is not a conspiracy theory.

You: If the question and questioner are absurd, There is nothing to be gained on their part. I believe they have correctly identified you in such a way. I believe that is why they do not respond to you.

Me: But your assumptions are incorrect. The questions were relevant and the questioner is someone regarded with great credibility.

You: If you are referring to yourself as someone with great credibility... Well, I doubt your opinion is shared by many who would be responding to such questions.

DOT greatly respects my opinions. They abandoned their plan to make Trotting Course Lane a two-way street and ban left turns at Metropolitan Avenue because of the objections I made. Usually they only make changes when vast numbers of people are in opposition. I was the sole reason they even produced a document claiming to answer community questions even if they selectively chose the questions, they would respond to.

Me: And your response does not explain why they would not respond to the Community Board with a proper response either.

You: And who determines proper? You?

No not me. The community determines if the responses they receive are proper and both Community Board 15 in Brooklyn believed they did not receive a proper response to their question of how many parking spaces would be lost and they told that to the MTA and DOT. The Woodhaven Association also told DOT their responses were not proper at their November 2015 meeting.

Me: Are they not relevant also? Was the question they asked regarding the number of parking spaces to be removed not relevant also?

You: I don't see it as particularly important to the project.

There are a lot of things you donít feel are relevant or important. It was obviously important to the Community asking the question and their opinion is want counts. The fact that you donít consider the question important is completely irrelevant.


 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]