Home ∑ Maps ∑ About

Home > BusChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 17:27:16 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 15:58:18 2017.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailB:detailStr
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 makes it baseless.

It stands to reason that when you add a lane for a short distance by removing a bottleneck, traffic will flow better.
It does not stand to reason that that is true.

Your theory that people will run out and buy cars solely because they no longer are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic is PREPOSTEROUS.
I have no such theory.

There are many variables involved in someoneís decision to purchase a car, not a single factor as you claim.
Yes, except for the fact that I do not claim such.

And mentioning neighboring streets is yet another attempt by you to divert the topic. It has othing to do with what we are discussing.
A. It is certainly applicable
B. You obviously think it is applicable, as you brought it up.



You are incapable of simple reading comprehension.
An elephant calling a mouse heavy would be a less hypocritical statement than the one immediately before this one.

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.
That indicates that the LOCAL is the problem, not the SBS line.

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 a problem with the LOCAL, not the SBS service.

THAT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF SBS BEING A SUCCESS.
ACTUALLY, IT IS!!!

And why you cannot simply look at SBS data and ignore local data in an analysis.
That depends on what you are analyzing. If you are analyzing the SBS service, THE LOCAL IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. If you are analyzing the corridor as a whole, it is not. But the problem is still on the LOCAL side.

THEY BOTH MUST STUDIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME ROUTE.
The local and SBS routes are in fact not the same route in many instances, and the B44/B46 are certainly examples of such.

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.
If you are looking at the corridor as a whole, yes. If you are trying to determine whether SBS is a success or not, no. You really need to understand the concept of how to isolate a variable.

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.
2010 would be the correct year to use here. 2011-2015 is comparing post SBS to post SBS. You have removed SBS from the analysis. (The change from 2012-2015 has nothing to do with SBS, but we have been over this over and over 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?
Nobody is saying second year statistics are relevant for the B44 without further qualification.

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 never made such claim.

I have shown you an instance where removing a traffic bottleneck did not result in additional traffic, but in less traffic.
You have claimed such, you have not shown such.

And your only response was to request 30-year old traffic data to prove it.
Yes, because I doubt that this example is real.

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.
Where have I done this?

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.
Actually, I (and others) have done so, repeatedly. If (ridership year before SBS) < (ridership year after SBS) holds true in nearly every case, SBS is clearly not what is causing the decline, and is likely reversing it.

YOU CANNOT STATE THAT ONLY FIRST YEAR RIDERSHIP MATTERS WHEN IT GOES UP, BUT THE SECOND YEAR IS THE IMPORTANT YEAR TO CONSIDER WHEN THAT YEAR GOES UP AND THE FIRST YEAR GOES DOWN.
That is why I do not do so.

That is exactly what DOT has done, which you agree with. AND THAT IS CALLED CHERY PICKING YOUR DATA TO ARRIVE AT THE PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS YOU WANT TO ARRIVE AT.
That is not what DOT has done.


Yes there certainly has been a significant change in reliability. THE LOCALS ARE NOW MUCH LESS RELIABLE.

If that is the case, that is yet again an example of problems with the LOCAL, not the SBS.

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.
Yes, that is what I am claiming. I believe I have provided such in the past, however I cannot find such right now. I'll get back to you on this one.

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.
I am saying they are different metrics. What part of my statement " a different metric" makes you think I think they are the same?

Going in circles again?
Yes, me repeating myself because you do not understand things certainly results in verbal circles being made, I do however, object to any blame for such.

You never claimed most people in the area support SBS.
Correct.

You also believe that most people do not oppose it because you claim there is no available evidence.
I do not assert such, but I do believe such is a near certainty.

That is because any evidence you do not agree with, you automatically discount.
No, that is because there is no evidence whatsoever.

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.
While I do not claim that either most support or most do not support, I do not outright reject them. Furthermore, while I do not assert that the majority is ambivalent or ignorant, I would be very surprised if the majority did have an opinion.

It certainly is possible that most have no idea SBS has been proposed on Woodhaven.
Yes.

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.
They aren't losing two lanes.

THAT IS WHY YOU WONíT FIND THAT STATEMENT IN ANY DOT LITERATURE AND WHY THAT WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ANY MEETING.
They aren't losing two lanes, so I suspect that is why they have not been told such in literature or in meetings.

As I stated you will discount any evidence of those in opposition to SBS.
Again, there IS no evidence beyond: Some people think SBS is bad. There is no quantification of "some people". "Some people" think the earth is flat. What some people think is absolutely meaningless.


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.
Regardless of what every community board in the area says, they do not in any way represent the public. Elected officials do represent people, however what they say is not necessarily related to what people believe.

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?
A scientific poll.



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.
I have no issues with their behavior here. Parking should not be a determining factor for planning decisions.

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.
But you later admit that they took your opinion into account, so which is it?

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.
There is no appropriate response to an absurd question. Would you prefer silence?


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.

My suspicion is that you whine enough to be viewed as vast numbers of people. If they are on the fence about something and vast numbers of complaints come in, they may be tilted in the other direction. Perhaps they didn't notice that it was just 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.
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.

The community is not an entity which determines anything at all.


(There are no responses to this message.)

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]