|
|
| What happened to the B44 thread? (316752) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (316752) | |
What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 09:39:05 2016 I was about the answer R30A's questions about my comments to the report and the entire thread seems to have disappeared.It shows up in the searches, but when you click on a specific link like this one: www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=316451 you just get thrown back to the index. Can someone find the thread? |
|
|
| (316754) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Cornell Park on Mon Jul 25 10:35:57 2016, in response to What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 09:39:05 2016. I can find it. |
|
|
| (316758) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 10:58:39 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Cornell Park on Mon Jul 25 10:35:57 2016. Please post a link because when I click on any link from the thread it goes back to the index. |
|
|
| (316759) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 25 11:26:18 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 10:58:39 2016. Please post a link because when I click on any link from the thread it goes back to the index.Reefer madness |
|
|
| (316763) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Mon Jul 25 11:33:49 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 25 11:26:18 2016. That's what I should have done, checked The Reef, I checked it a day or so ago and it was empty. |
|
|
| (316764) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 11:45:59 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 25 11:26:18 2016. Thanks. I will reply to R39A's comments here in this thread. |
|
|
| (316766) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 25 11:59:42 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 11:45:59 2016. Why? Let it rest. There were so many responses in the original thread that nothing else can be said. So the same arguments will be presented again.Finally, as a thread gets longer and longer a flamage war occurs. It get proven over and over and over in most social media platforms. |
|
|
| (316767) | |
Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:09:19 2016, in response to What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 09:39:05 2016. I will do each of your posts separately and they may not be done all right now.First of all I want to thank you for reading the report. 1. What great deal of information about the B44 SBS was available prior to the report? 2. "Why delay an essential project for construction?" Because the construction supposed to be finished before the project starts so it can work properly. The MTA even blamed the construction fir the 8 percent ridership decline the first year. So it made perfect sense to delay the project start until construction was completed to avoid an 8 percent ridership decline. 3. The questions I asked are ridiculous? Come on now. A progress report needs to describe all relevant events. Fare evasion and machine reliability, for example are legitimate subjects that need to be discussed in a progress report whose purpose should be to tell the complete story, not only the positive aspects. 4. You are being totally inconsistent. You state that in the case of the M15, only first year ridership results matter because ridership went up. But in the case of the B44 when ridership decline by 8 percent the first year, much greater than the borough average, then it's the second year results where SBS went up by 10 percent is what matters. Also for the M15 we also count local ridership the first year, but for the B44 we ignore the second year local ridership decline but instead only count the SBS second year numbers, because for that route the first year results do not matter since they were lower. You are playing with a deck of five aces. That's why you win. I will have no part in playing a game of cards with you because you are cheating just as your buddies at DOT and the MTA are doing. Now I am wondering if you even bothered to read the report. I stated that there are two possible reasons for SBS ridership to have gone up. 1, as you stated that SBS is far superior to the local service and 2, the local service has deteriorated so much that people are forced to take the SBS if they do not want to wait inordinate amount of times for the local. You just completely discounted the second possibility despite tons of customer complaints regarding the second possibility. You seem to have made up your mind that you will not concede a single point despite the evidence and are just making up things by saying there was much material available prior to the progress report proving success. If that is true post those links. If you can't, then you are just blowing hot air. If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations, I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts. But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying. |
|
|
| (316769) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:20:32 2016, in response to Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:09:19 2016. The survey I said in my intro that was not taken was one of local riders after implementation. The other possibility I stated was the survey was taken but the results were so unfavorable, the MTA decided not to publish them. Their report states local passengers were only surveyed PRIOR to SBS. There needed to be another survey of local passengers after SBS was I instituted.B49 riders taking the B44 SBS instead is not any indication of success. It just means they could use either bus and took the first bus that came. That just makes sense. I didn't see any results that showed the B49 is operating any faster than it did before. In fact Stephen Bauman did an analysis on Second Avenue Sagas that showed the B44 local has not benefitted at all from the exclusive lanes and the entire time savings from the B44 SBS was due to fare prepayment and none of it was due to the exclusive lanes. I will read and reply to Part 3 when I have more time. |
|
|
| (316773) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 25 12:38:03 2016, in response to Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:09:19 2016. "1. What great deal of information about the B44 SBS was available prior to the report?"Ridership, like any other route. In addition, Wait Assessment data is available on the B44 and B44SBS, which is not available for all routes. Because the construction supposed to be finished before the project starts so it can work properly. The MTA even blamed the construction fir the 8 percent ridership decline the first year. So it made perfect sense to delay the project start until construction was completed to avoid an 8 percent ridership decline. Potential delays due to construction are no reason to delay improvements, especially when those improvements CAN MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RIDERS. The questions I asked are ridiculous? Come on now. A progress report needs to describe all relevant events. Fare evasion and machine reliability, for example are legitimate subjects that need to be discussed in a progress report whose purpose should be to tell the complete story, not only the positive aspects. Past SBS projects have made it clear that these are not notable subjects. Fare evasion has not increased on SBS lines. Fare machine reliability matters little to riders. You are being totally inconsistent. There is nothing inconsistent about what I am saying. The data seen for the B44 and M15 are DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA. "You state that in the case of the M15, only first year ridership results matter because ridership went up." NO. The data in the first year is the only data that matters because before and after is the only thing that shows you the effects of the SBS CHANGE. "But in the case of the B44 when ridership decline by 8 percent the first year, much greater than the borough average, then it's the second year results where SBS went up by 10 percent is what matters." On its own, yes, that would be the case. But here we have substantially better data. We don't have to rely on the annual ridership statistics to get a good picture of the SBS effects. We have what I assume is day by day ridership data on a chart, which actually shows what is happening. Ridership was in freefall before the SBS changes went into effect. Shortly after SBS was implemented, ridership quickly turned around and started rising again, albeit substantially slower than the rate at which it had been falling immediately before. The report shows this very well. 1, as you stated that SBS is far superior to the local service and 2, the local service has deteriorated so much that people are forced to take the SBS if they do not want to wait inordinate amount of times for the local. You just completely discounted the second possibility despite tons of customer complaints regarding the second possibility. There is no evidence whatsoever that the second possibility has happened at all. You seem to have made up your mind that you will not concede a single point despite the evidence and are just making up things by saying there was much material available prior to the progress report proving success. If that is true post those links. If you can't, then you are just blowing hot air. Search MTA site for Wait assessments. Not that hard to find. If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations, I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts. But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying. The degree to which you project your flaws onto others is absolutely breathtaking. |
|
|
| (316774) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Mon Jul 25 12:42:09 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 25 12:38:03 2016. Here we go again. |
|
|
| (316776) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 19:14:26 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by merrick1 on Mon Jul 25 12:42:09 2016. No, it's going to be over very quickly. I am only making one more post and then I am not going to waste my time replying any further. I thought he wanted to have a legitimate academic discussion. It is now obvious to me that isn't what he wants at all. I will make my last post on this subject after I eat dinner. |
|
|
| (316780) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 21:55:31 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 25 12:38:03 2016. My new comments are in boldMe: What great deal of information about the B44 SBS was available prior to the report?" You: Ridership, like any other route. In addition, Wait Assessment data is available on the B44 and B44SBS, which is not available for all routes. Yes, the only other information readily available are annual and weekday ridership numbers for the combined B44 and local. That is hardly "a great deal of information." I understand that if you know how to obtain it and know where to look you could also get separate numbers for SBS and also the wait assessment data. However, the MTA claims it is transparent and if that were really the case, one wouldn't have to jump through hoops to obtain the data which may not even be sufficient for one's needs. IT SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE, not through specific searches where you already have to know the types of info that is available before you request it for the search to be successful. Me: Because the construction supposed to be finished before the project starts so it can work properly. The MTA even blamed the construction for the 8 percent ridership decline the first year. So it made perfect sense to delay the project start until construction was completed to avoid an 8 percent ridership decline. You: Potential delays due to construction are no reason to delay improvements, especially when those improvements CAN MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RIDERS. "CAN" is your key word here. The facts are that the so called improvements did not mitigate the effects of construction for the riders. The MTA plainly states that the results were less than favorable the first year probably because the construction was not finished which was why ridership was down 8 percent. Me: The questions I asked are ridiculous? Come on now. A progress report needs to describe all relevant events. Fare evasion and machine reliability, for example are legitimate subjects that need to be discussed in a progress report whose purpose should be to tell the complete story, not only the positive aspects. You: Past SBS projects have made it clear that these are not notable subjects. Fare evasion has not increased on SBS lines. Fare machine reliability matters little to riders. Just because you make the ridiculous statement that fare machine reliability matters little to riders, we are supposed to take you seriously? Where is your data that shows that? Of course riders care about the machines working. And no past SBS projects ever made it clear that fare evasion and machine reliability are unimportant subjects not worthy of discussion. You criticize me for making statements without data or proof. At least my statements are based on logic and reason. Yours are based on hot air. Me: You are being totally inconsistent. You: There is nothing inconsistent about what I am saying. The data seen for the B44 and M15 are DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA. "You state that in the case of the M15, only first year ridership results matter because ridership went up." You: NO. The data in the first year is the only data that matters because before and after is the only thing that shows you the effects of the SBS CHANGE. Me: "But in the case of the B44 when ridership decline by 8 percent the first year, much greater than the borough average, then it's the second year results where SBS went up by 10 percent is what matters." You: On its own, yes, that would be the case. But here we have substantially better data. We don't have to rely on the annual ridership statistics to get a good picture of the SBS effects. We have what I assume is day by day ridership data on a chart, which actually shows what is happening. Ridership was in freefall before the SBS changes went into effect. Shortly after SBS was implemented, ridership quickly turned around and started rising again, albeit substantially slower than the rate at which it had been falling immediately before. The report shows this very well. The report shows nothing very well. It is showing average weekday ridership which is incomplete and neglects about 30 percent of the days. Annual ridership would be more indicative of reality. So why did the MTA choose average weekday ridership instead? Because they calculated the numbers both ways and average weekday ridership showed more favorable results because they are playing on a slanted playing field in order to falsely give the impression SBS is doing better than it actually is doing. Me: 1, as you stated that SBS is far superior to the local service and 2, the local service has deteriorated so much that people are forced to take the SBS if they do not want to wait inordinate amount of times for the local. You just completely discounted the second possibility despite tons of customer complaints regarding the second possibility. You: There is no evidence whatsoever that the second possibility has happened at all. There is plenty of evidence according to numerous newspaper articles I cited in my Sheepsheadbites articles where riders initially claimed to wait 40 minutes routinely girl the local. It was so bad that the MTA had to increase local service and decrease SBS service. Still with SBS buses 50 percent longer than local buses, patronage is roughly split 50 50 meaning locals are much more crowded than SBS buses so anyone who wants a seat will probably also walk farther to or from an SBS bus just to get a seat, not because his total trip time is any quicker. TOTAL TRIP TIMES WERE NOT EVEN MEASURED. Me: You seem to have made up your mind that you will not concede a single point despite the evidence and are just making up things by saying there was much material available prior to the progress report proving success. If that is true post those links. If you can't, then you are just blowing hot air. You: Search MTA site for Wait assessments. Not that hard to find. Shouldn't be necessary. Should be easy to find, not "not that hard" to find. The information should be staring at you on the webpage. THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSPARENCY. If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations, I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts. But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying. You: The degree to which you project your flaws onto others is absolutely breathtaking. Talk about the one with flaws. Your statement alone that passengers do not care about fare machine reliability is enough of a reason not to take anything else you say seriously. As I told Merrick, as long as you are not willing to have a serious discussion and insist that only positive numbers that show success matter, and any negative numbers should be discounted and are unimportant, there is no reason to have any further discussions with you on this subject. I am not even going to waste my time by reading your two or three other posts. Your statement that it is correct to only consider first year ridership numbers for the M15 because they were higher, and future years are irrelevant to SBS, then take the exact opposite stance with the B44 saying first year numbers do not matter and only SBS second year increases count (even discounting local patronage decreases) because SBS ridership rose the second year, is totally contradictory and illogical. It is cherry picking your data just as the MTA has done to support a predetermined conclusion of success. A progress report needs to be objective showing the good with the bad, not only half the picture. And just as the MTA predetermined success regardless of what the numbers show, you predetermined that everything I wrote was wrong before even reading a single word I wrote. Good bye. |
|
|
| (316785) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 08:00:18 2016, in response to What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 09:39:05 2016. reply to left turns and right of way by BrooklynBus hereAre drivers really being ticketed for not giving pedestrians the right of way and how is right of way being defined? Look it up here. You have 46 years worth of driving experience, you should know what right-of-way means. BTW, once a pedestrian legally (with the light in favor) steps onto the intersection, ummarked or marked crosswalk, the pedestrian has the right of way over all vehicles except active emergency vehicles. I also fail to see how restricting left turns and replacing them with right turns instead helps pedestrians. Left turns improve driver visibility and safety. On a left turn, the driver must focus on traffic in the opposite direction and pedestrians. On a right turn, the driver only focuses on pedestrians and bikes to the right. While it would yield an increase in right turn movements, the overall effect is improved traffic flow and reduction in left turn accidents. That's basic civil engineering 101 for you. Thus you do see a lot of new left turn bans in NYC. Get it? |
|
|
| (316786) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 08:00:33 2016, in response to What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 09:39:05 2016. reply to left turns and right of way by BrooklynBus hereAre drivers really being ticketed for not giving pedestrians the right of way and how is right of way being defined? Look it up here. You have 46 years worth of driving experience, you should know what right-of-way means. BTW, once a pedestrian legally (with the light in favor) steps onto the intersection, ummarked or marked crosswalk, the pedestrian has the right of way over all vehicles except active emergency vehicles. I also fail to see how restricting left turns and replacing them with right turns instead helps pedestrians. Left turns improve driver visibility and safety. On a left turn, the driver must focus on traffic in the opposite direction and pedestrians. On a right turn, the driver only focuses on pedestrians and bikes to the right. While it would yield an increase in right turn movements, the overall effect is improved traffic flow and reduction in left turn accidents. That's basic civil engineering 101 for you. Thus you do see a lot of new left turn bans in NYC. Get it? |
|
|
| (316788) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 09:01:27 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 08:00:18 2016. First word of your last paragraph should be "right", correct? |
|
|
| (316790) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 10:05:16 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 08:00:18 2016. In many cases, an automobile can make a right turn without interfering with pedestrian movements at wide intersections that are six lanes wide or wider. Motorists waiting 15 seconds for a pedestrian to approach the vehicle and then another 15 seconds for them to cross delays traffic and if there are many pedestrians who need to cross ensures only a single car can turn at each signal change.Motorists should wait for pedestrians to cross first if there is any conflict, but it makes perfect sense for cars to first complete their turns if it does not cause the pedestrian to slow down or stop. That is what makes sense. If the law is in conflict, it needs to be reassessed. Your link does not work. As for left turns vs right turns, I do not get it. You are merely trading one for the other. In right turns you must look for pedestrians and bikes and for left turns, vehicles in the opposite direction and pedestrians. So you are merely trading bikes for vehicles. That is still two variables. |
|
|
| (316795) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 12:02:27 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 09:01:27 2016. Yes, that is correct - - oops. |
|
|
| (316796) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 12:55:21 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 12:02:27 2016. I thought you stated the only errors you make are spelling errors.I am not criticizing you because I realize mistakes like that do happen, but you were very critical about my mistakes in a much longer document. |
|
|
| (316797) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 12:56:49 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 09:01:27 2016. To him you were polite. If it were me you would have added the word "moron". |
|
|
| (316798) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 13:00:22 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 10:05:16 2016. Motorists should wait for pedestrians to cross first if there is any conflict. but it makes perfect sense for cars to first complete their turns if it does not cause the pedestrian to slow down or stop. Wrong answer on a DMV question. Motorists should wait for pedestrians if the person is legally crossing the intersection before the vehicle enters, even after a signal change to green. Your link does not work. fixed link here. See section 1151 of the NY State VTL in that page. As for left turns vs right turns, I do not get it. You are merely trading one for the other. Left turns are more dangerous to make than right turn, and unless there are dedicated left turn lanes - - it slows down traffic too. On a left turn at an intersection with no turn lanes, vehicles must wait behind the turning vehicle (of course when the lead vehicle decides to signal at the intersection instead of at least 100 feet before it then it's bad for the vehicles trying to go around it.) Many intersections in NYC and also other cities ban left turns based an a variety of factors: Crash data, number of vehicles, alternative streets, and area prior to the intersection, such as a curve about 100 feet away. At Baychester Ave and East 233rd Street/Grenada Ave in the Bronx, left turns from eastbound 233 onto northbound Baychester in 2015 because it was most likely due to a high crash data on left turns there as well as a curve on westbound 233 (oncoming traffic.). There are many valid reasons why left turns are far different to approach than right turns. |
|
|
| (316799) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:36:03 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 12:56:49 2016. No I wouldn't have. |
|
|
| (316800) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:40:01 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 10:05:16 2016. As for left turns vs right turns, I do not get it.SMDH. Unprotected left turns have more going on than right turns. |
|
|
| (316801) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 26 16:41:33 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 10:05:16 2016. As for left turns vs right turns, I do not get it. You are merely trading one for the other. In right turns you must look for pedestrians and bikes and for left turns, vehicles in the opposite direction and pedestrians. So you are merely trading bikes for vehicles. That is still two variables.You're forgetting that pedestrians and bicycles exist on both sides of the road. |
|
|
| (316802) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:46:23 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:36:03 2016. Turning over a new leaf? |
|
|
| (316803) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:51:18 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 26 16:41:33 2016. Even when making a right turn you have to also look for other vehicles. Some streets have dual right turn lanes or cars still in the intersection that haven't gotten through yet. As for seeing bicycles when making a left turn it is easier for both to see each other whereas when making a right turn it is difficult for a bike to see you without a rear view mirror. So left turns by cars are actually safer for bikes than right turns. |
|
|
| (316804) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:55:16 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Tue Jul 26 08:00:33 2016. Link still does not work on my iPad.When I read the law it said nothing about cars having to stop the moment a pedestrian steps off the curb. It just said you must not interfere with their movement so completing a turn before the pedestrian us anywhere near the car would not be considered as interfering with the right of way. |
|
|
| (316805) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 17:00:58 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 25 11:59:42 2016. All the arguments in the original thread said nothing about the B44. So when someone finally wants to discuss the actual subject of the thread (or so I thought) I wanted to respond. But after I did, it became obvious that his negative answers were formulated before he even read my report.I ended the discussion when he made the statement that passengers don't care about machine reliability. That remark alone should discredit anything else he says. And he claims all his statements are fact based and he only speculates about things that are highly probable. |
|
|
| (316806) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 19:50:43 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:46:23 2016. No. I always wouldn't have. Only in your deluded mind would I do so. |
|
|
| (316807) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 19:51:52 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:51:18 2016. As we've between saying to you, right turns are better then left turns. |
|
|
| (316809) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Jul 27 07:47:22 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 12:55:21 2016. This is a discussion board which is far different than posting news and blogs.When people read news articles and blogs, they want the information from the author to be accurate. In community boards, the information should be accurate but it's not on the same platform (lol) as news. |
|
|
| (316810) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Jul 27 07:52:35 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 16:51:18 2016. As for seeing bicycles when making a left turn it is easier for both to see each other whereas when making a right turn it is difficult for a bike to see you without a rear view mirror.Of course you don't just use your rear view mirror to look for bicyclists, you are supposed to use your passenger side mirror as well and that gives you a better view. When I come up the ramp from the northbound Bronx River Parkway onto the westbound Cross County Parkway in Yonkers, there is a heavy dual merge (one from southbound BRP, and another from Kimball Ave entrance) to my right, I always use my passenger side mirror. Based on your driving protocol, would you use your rear view mirror to look for oncoming traffic from two entrance ramps spaced 15 feet apart? |
|
|
| (316814) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 27 12:28:09 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Wed Jul 27 07:52:35 2016. I wasn't talking about using my rearview mirror to check for cyclists. I said cyclists would have to use their rearview mirror (which of course they do not have, I was being sarcastic) to check for cars making right turns. When cars are making left turns, cyclists can see the car directly in front of them so cars making left turns are safer for cyclists than cars making right turns. That was my point. |
|
|
| (316815) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Jul 27 14:04:36 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 10:05:16 2016. If there was no difference between right and left turns, then why does UPS, which I think you'd have to agree is a pretty successful company, attempt to only make right turns whenever possible? |
|
|
| (316816) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 14:50:27 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 26 17:00:58 2016. Yes. I will always respond negatively to anti transit tirades. I can promise you that such will not change. |
|
|
| (316817) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 14:53:06 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 12:20:32 2016. They surveyed B44 Local passengers before AND after the SBS changes. Just because you do not know about the survey, that does not mean it did not happen.If the riders of the B49 now have a choice between the B44 and B49, and are electing to take the B44, it means service has improved for them. |
|
|
| (316818) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 15:37:32 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 25 21:55:31 2016. "Yes, the only other information readily available are annual and weekday ridership numbers for the combined B44 and local. That is hardly "a great deal of information." I understand that if you know how to obtain it and know where to look you could also get separate numbers for SBS and also the wait assessment data. However, the MTA claims it is transparent and if that were really the case, one wouldn't have to jump through hoops to obtain the data which may not even be sufficient for one's needs. IT SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE, not through specific searches where you already have to know the types of info that is available before you request it for the search to be successful."Doing a search of a website is not jumping through hoops. It IS READILY AVAILABLE. The point of the MTA website is to show people the information they need to actually ride the services. The website is already cluttered with too much unessential information on its front page. ""CAN" is your key word here. The facts are that the so called improvements did not mitigate the effects of construction for the riders. The MTA plainly states that the results were less than favorable the first year probably because the construction was not finished which was why ridership was down 8 percent. " None of that shows in any way that the improvements did not mitigate it. It just shows that the construction still degraded service. If the changes resulted in a substantially smaller degradation in service, they were a large success! "The report shows nothing very well. It is showing average weekday ridership which is incomplete and neglects about 30 percent of the days. Annual ridership would be more indicative of reality. So why did the MTA choose average weekday ridership instead? Because they calculated the numbers both ways and average weekday ridership showed more favorable results because they are playing on a slanted playing field in order to falsely give the impression SBS is doing better than it actually is doing. " Weekday ridership is certainly useful. It gives you the reality of weekday ridership. There is nothing wrong with using it. "There is plenty of evidence according to numerous newspaper articles I cited in my Sheepsheadbites articles where riders initially claimed to wait 40 minutes routinely girl the local." Anecdotes are not data and cannot be treated as such "It was so bad that the MTA had to increase local service and decrease SBS service." The MTA is constantly evaluating and changing service frequency systemwide. Such is what any competent agency would do. "Still with SBS buses 50 percent longer than local buses, patronage is roughly split 50 50 meaning locals are much more crowded than SBS buses so anyone who wants a seat will probably also walk farther to or from an SBS bus just to get a seat, not because his total trip time is any quicker." Without load evaluations, one cannot realistically estimate that the local is substantially more crowded than the Select. Select bus rides are substantially longer than local bus rides, as had been the case with the old limited and local. The average Select bus rider uses more seat miles than the average local rider "TOTAL TRIP TIMES WERE NOT EVEN MEASURED." Realistically speaking, they cannot be. The MTA provided better data than trip times, as it is actually REAL data. "Shouldn't be necessary. Should be easy to find, not "not that hard" to find. The information should be staring at you on the webpage. THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSPARENCY." That is not the meaning of transparency. If the information was staring at you on the webpage it would be a poorly designed webpage. Maps, schedules, service advisories, delays, and fare information should be what is staring at you on the webpage, as that is what 99% of visitors to the MTA website are looking for. "If this is the caliber of your analyses to just deny everything I stated and list unproven allegations," It seems pretty clear that this is what YOUR MO is, not mine. I like to show WHY you are wrong. "I am not even sure I even want to read your other posts." Yes, it has to suck to be constantly proven wrong by myself (and many others) "But I will try one more before I convince myself I am just wasting my time replying." You are wasting your time by posting anything anywhere, as long as cogent sane people can read and respond. Wherever you post, you are almost instantaneously shown to be a charlatan. "Talk about the one with flaws. Your statement alone that passengers do not care about fare machine reliability is enough of a reason not to take anything else you say seriously." Why would passengers care about fare machine reliability? It has no effect on their ride whatsoever. "As I told Merrick, as long as you are not willing to have a serious discussion and insist that only positive numbers that show success matter, and any negative numbers should be discounted and are unimportant, there is no reason to have any further discussions with you on this subject." I have never seen you have a serious discussion anywhere. Here is no different. When the numbers clearly show the service has been a success, you stammer on and on about how they are false or inapplicable, despite being clearly the correct numbers to use. Such would be less ironic if you didn't constantly use false and inapplicable numbers in your own arguments. "I am not even going to waste my time by reading your two or three other posts." You clearly realize that I am not going to let your bullshit go unchallenged. Good. You should have realized that a long time ago. "Your statement that it is correct to only consider first year ridership numbers for the M15 because they were higher, and future years are irrelevant to SBS, then take the exact opposite stance with the B44 saying first year numbers do not matter and only SBS second year increases count (even discounting local patronage decreases) because SBS ridership rose the second year, is totally contradictory and illogical." I never said that. The B44 analysis does not only look at the second year. The MTA would be using inappropriate data if they simply looked at the two years after SBS was implemented, compared them, and claimed SBS was a success. BUT THE KEY IS, THE MTA DID NOT DO THAT. "It is cherry picking your data just as the MTA has done to support a predetermined conclusion of success." Data does not need to be cherry-picked. Nobody serious is claiming it is a failure. "A progress report needs to be objective showing the good with the bad, not only half the picture." A progress report does not need to be anything at all. There is no need for such a report to be made, at all. "And just as the MTA predetermined success regardless of what the numbers show, you predetermined that everything I wrote was wrong before even reading a single word I wrote." Such would be a relatively safe predetermination, but one cannot predetermine HOW your statements will be wrong, so I had to actually read them to see that. You did not disappoint in that regard, but again, you very rarely do. Good bye. And a good day to you too! |
|
|
| (316822) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jul 27 19:59:28 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 19:50:43 2016. Bump. |
|
|
| (316823) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jul 27 19:59:37 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 19:51:52 2016. Bump. |
|
|
| (316825) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jul 27 22:22:01 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jul 25 11:59:42 2016. Bump |
|
|
| (316832) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 12:55:53 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 14:50:27 2016. It was not an anti-transit tirade. Simply pointed out shortcomings in the report. |
|
|
| (316833) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 12:57:21 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 14:53:06 2016. The MTA states they were not surveyed. |
|
|
| (316835) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 14:25:45 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Jul 27 14:04:36 2016. I can't answer for UPS. But they are only one company.Let's look at the left turns that were banned south on Ocean Ave and Parkside. It is not possible to make three rights so you have to make the next left at Caton which is usually congested. You can't turn at Church because that turn was also banned. I doubt it if many cars are making three rights at Caton. So with banning lefts at Parkside and Church you are doubling the lefts at Caton and Albemarle making those intersections more dangerous. So what are you actually gaining? You are only making driving more difficult, which is the real goal here. |
|
|
| (316837) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jul 28 14:35:19 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 12:57:21 2016. Where? |
|
|
| (316838) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 28 15:25:42 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 14:25:45 2016. Let's look at the left turns that were banned south on Ocean Ave and Parkside. It is not possible to make three rights so you have to make the next left at Caton which is usually congested.Ocean Avenue starts at Flatbush a half mile north of Parkside. The 4 vehicles an hour affected by the ban can just stay on Flatbush. |
|
|
| (316843) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 18:01:29 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 28 15:25:42 2016. Well if it is only four vehicles an hour, it couldn't have been much of a problem.But now there is one. I was there at 12:30 AM. Cars were using the right two lanes to make a right turn preventing through traffic from getting through the first signal since they were blocking both lanes causing delays. Before that dumb divider, it was possible to go around them and not have to miss a traffic signal. But that is the entire goal of Vision Zero to make it as inconvenient as possible to drive a car here. Of course you wouldn't consider unnecessary delays to cars a bad thing. The more delays we can cause the better so everyone switches to mass transit at 12:30 AM when buses operate at hourly headways. |
|
|
| (316844) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 18:16:38 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by R30A on Thu Jul 28 14:35:19 2016. Page 26 first paragraph. It states local riders were surveyed before implementation. Then they give the results. Nothing further is said. So there are two possibilities. (1) Local riders were not surveyed after implementation or (2) Local riders were also surveyed after implementation, but the results were so unfavorable, the MTA decided to keep them secret and not publish it. That is what I stated in my report review also. |
|
|
| (316846) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jul 28 18:35:36 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 18:16:38 2016. Or, perhaps since we can easily see what the truth is... 3. Local riders were surveyed after and they were irrelevant to the topic at hand.But they NEVER stated that local riders were not surveyed after. That is an outright lie on your part. |
|
|
| (316848) | |
Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jul 28 18:47:17 2016, in response to Re: Reply to R30A B44 comments, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 18:16:38 2016. BUMP |
|
|
| (316849) | |
Re: What happened to the B44 thread? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jul 28 18:47:45 2016, in response to Re: What happened to the B44 thread?, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 28 18:01:29 2016. BUMP |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|