|
|
| Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd (317143) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 34 |
||
|
| (317212) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:51:38 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Cornell Park on Sat Aug 13 21:25:58 2016. Actually I stick up for the MTA on rare occasions like when people call everyone who works shiftless non-caring bureaucrats. |
|
|
| (317213) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:52:28 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Aug 14 09:57:20 2016. Guess you are back to your same old insuiting self. |
|
|
| (317214) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:53:00 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Aug 14 09:57:47 2016. Unworthy of a response. |
|
|
| (317215) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:54:26 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Aug 14 09:58:55 2016. Untrue. What I said was totally correct. If you want info on Woodhaven SBS there is no reason to click on a link that says B46 SBS. |
|
|
| (317216) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:55:53 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Aug 14 10:01:18 2016. My criticisms certainly have been constructive. I suggested SBS on the service roads only during rush hours to be shared with HOVs. |
|
|
| (317217) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:56:50 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by merrick1 on Sun Aug 14 08:26:01 2016. They are but legally, there will always be a distinction. |
|
|
| (317218) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:54:16 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:52:28 2016. Nope. Never. All in your mind. |
|
|
| (317219) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:54:38 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:53:00 2016. Wrong. |
|
|
| (317220) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:55:00 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:54:26 2016. Wrong. The link is clearly for all SBS. |
|
|
| (317221) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:56:23 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:55:53 2016. Generally, no they have not been. |
|
|
| (317222) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 08:03:19 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:56:50 2016. So???? |
|
|
| (317223) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:13:55 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 12 21:33:01 2016. You have many people willing to have an honest discussion. You refuse to join them in it. You get grief because of this. |
|
|
| (317224) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:14:24 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:55:53 2016. That would not be constructive. |
|
|
| (317227) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:48:50 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:54:16 2016. Calling someone "not bright" is an insult. It's one step above calling someone stupid or dumb.Now calling someone "ignorant" is not an insult. It just means they were not aware of something. |
|
|
| (317228) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:51:26 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 07:55:00 2016. Wrong. The link is for B46 only.Once you click on it, then you get links for all SBS, but someone would not know that until he clicks on the link which he would have no reason to do if he wasn't looking for information on the B46. Why can't you understand such a simple concept? |
|
|
| (317229) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:52:53 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:14:24 2016. Why would suggesting another alternative which was under consideration and many in the community preferred, not be constructive? |
|
|
| (317230) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:54:07 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:52:53 2016. Because it would not solve the problems being solved here. |
|
|
| (317231) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:55:09 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:13:55 2016. Untrue. It took several hundred posts until you even read what I wrote and supposedly wanted to have an honest discussion. But you proved after a few posts that wasn't the case. |
|
|
| (317232) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:57:04 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:55:09 2016. I have read every post you have written that I have responded to. I have never been dishonest here. |
|
|
| (317234) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Mon Aug 15 12:04:23 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 08:03:19 2016. Exactly. Only people like Bus who are looking for nits to pick will give a shit. |
|
|
| (317235) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Cornell Park on Mon Aug 15 12:36:31 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 01:56:50 2016. The people standing in the bus stop could careless what the bus says. If its the destination they want, the people want on. Since everything is blue now, there is no paint color distinguishing which bus pulled into shared stops. |
|
|
| (317237) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Aug 15 13:44:34 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:48:50 2016. I posted an insult about you in reply to the insult you posted about "me and my friends" by saying that you'd be happy if we couldn't read your links. |
|
|
| (317238) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Aug 15 13:53:06 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:51:26 2016. Nope. It's clear it's for all of SBS. On the main page there is a specific section carved out with the "+selectbusservice" logo and an image of an SBS-liveried bus. That makes it clear that it is the SBS part of the main page and to click there for all things SBS, even if the text of the link is highlighting the latest development.It's like if there was a section on the main page about the SAS and there was a text link right below the T bullet and "SAS" text that said something like "New: the 96th St Station is 90% complete!" and that link brought you to the main SAS page. |
|
|
| (317239) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Aug 15 13:54:53 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 09:52:53 2016. Why would suggesting another alternative which was under consideration and many in the community preferred, not be constructive?If the alternative was already known to DOT, then how would you suggesting it again be constructive? |
|
|
| (317244) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 15 17:49:55 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:54:07 2016. Ignoring the HOV proposal, why would a service road bus lane be worse than a main road one? |
|
|
| (317245) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 18:19:42 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:54:07 2016. Main roadway bus lanes will create more problems than they will solve which is the reason why those who know their community the best oppose it, as opposed to outsiders who know nothing. |
|
|
| (317246) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 18:22:18 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Aug 15 13:54:53 2016. Because DOT disregarded the wishes of the community when they stated they preferred service lane bus lanes to main roadway bus lanes which they view as dangerous to pedestrians and doubt they will be cleared during snowstorms forcing riders to wait for buses in the main roadway.After the last big storm it took three days to clear the snow in Woodhaven.. |
|
|
| (317247) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 18:51:26 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 15 17:49:55 2016. I wasn't ignoring the HOV aspect, nor the rush hour only aspect.That said, service road bus lanes have more substantial conflicts with turning traffic and get held up by double parked cars. |
|
|
| (317248) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 18:52:30 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 18:22:18 2016. Except NONE OF THAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE.And you claim other people are unwilling to have an honest conversation??? |
|
|
| (317249) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 18:55:23 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 18:19:42 2016. Main roadway bus lanes cause no issues.Those who know their community best support them. |
|
|
| (317250) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:25:12 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 09:57:04 2016. I didn't say you didn't read my posts. You are still changing what I write in order to prove your erroneous points.What I stated was that I posted an article about the B44 SBS trying to have an intelligent discussion and I got 100 irrelevant posts and arguments, none relating to the topic I wrote about. I received comments like why read the article when we know your history of always being wrong. Finally you were the first one to say you read the article. I do not know how much you actually read, but from your responses it was easy to tell you had your conclusions already predetermined. Then after about three or four back and forths I told you I was ending the discussion because it was going nowhere and I wasn't going to waste my time with you any more. |
|
|
| (317251) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:27:55 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Aug 15 13:44:34 2016. Saying I would be happy if you and your friends would not read my links is not an insult. |
|
|
| (317252) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 19:28:43 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 18:22:18 2016. Again, how is that constructive if they've already ruled it out? |
|
|
| (317253) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 19:31:02 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:27:55 2016. Yes it is! You want to exclude certain people from reading your posts on a publicly accessible forum! That's insulting. |
|
|
| (317254) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:31:37 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 18:52:30 2016. TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE ARE SAYING IT IS TRUE.Why is everyone who doesn't share the same opinions as you a liar? |
|
|
| (317255) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:32:51 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:31:37 2016. TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE ARE NOT SAYING IT IS TRUE.We are entitled to opinions, not facts. We all share facts. If people make statements which are contrary to facts, than yes, they are liars. That is why you are a liar. |
|
|
| (317256) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:39:38 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 19:25:12 2016. "It took several hundred posts until you even read what I wrote" "I didn't say you didn't read my posts. You are still changing what I write in order to prove your erroneous points. " Wow. Direct contradiction. Furthermore, both are clearly lies, as the latter is saying you never said the former, and the former is clearly wrong as you definitively stated something you would have no way of knowing. "What I stated was that I posted an article about the B44 SBS trying to have an intelligent discussion and I got 100 irrelevant posts and arguments, none relating to the topic I wrote about. I received comments like why read the article when we know your history of always being wrong." Except they were entirely relevant. My comments were directly refuting your absurd post which was filled with items irrelevant to the topic at hand and outright falsehoods. "Finally you were the first one to say you read the article. I do not know how much you actually read, but from your responses it was easy to tell you had your conclusions already predetermined." As I responded to all of it, it is pretty clear I read all of it. I don't know if it is worse to be so dishonest as to claim to not have seen that I clearly did read it, or so lazy as to not look and see that I clearly did read it. And yes, when presented with a rant of a report such as yours, of almost no relevance to the topic, it is incredibly unlikely that ones mind would be changed. "Then after about three or four back and forths I told you I was ending the discussion because it was going nowhere and I wasn't going to waste my time with you any more. " LOL. |
|
|
| (317257) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 19:50:18 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:39:38 2016. +456🚍🚝🚍🚝🚍🚝🚍 |
|
|
| (317258) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 21:48:51 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Aug 15 19:28:43 2016. Because DOT should have not ruled it out.You seem to be of the opinion that government agencies are always correct, when they make mistakes and errors all the time. I am in Atlantic City right now and the entrance to the Atlantic City Expressway from Baltic Avenue is marked "Exit Only" when it should have been marked "Entrance Only". You do not typically exit off local streets. It was confusing and appeared you should not enter through an "exit." But that was the way to get on the expressway. Confusing signage is a cause of accidents. |
|
|
| (317259) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 21:56:11 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:32:51 2016. No they are not saying anything contrary to any facts. They are saying something CONTRARY TO YOUR OPINION.Show me the facts that it is safer to wait for a bus in a median roadway than on a sidewalk. Show me proof that Woodhaven Blvd was clear of snow in less than three days when newspaper articles reported no snow plows for three days. You are the liar, not me, because you are stating proven facts never occurred and claiming that it is safer to wait for a bus in the median, even an uncleared median, which most likely would be the case based on past experience, than it would be to wait on a sidewalk which is cleared by commercial establishments at major intersections before the city clears the snow, and alleging your opinions are facts. |
|
|
| (317260) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:00:29 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:39:38 2016. There is no contradiction at all. When I stated you didn't read what I wrote, I wasn't speaking about my posts. I WAS REFERRING TO THE NINE PAGE REPORT I WROTE WHICH THE POST WAS BASED ON. That much should have been obvious from the context without me having to spell out every single detail.You and others argued for about 100 posts why it wasn't necessary to read that nine page report, rather than have an honest debate about it. |
|
|
| (317261) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:08:21 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 19:39:38 2016. Of course one's mind would not be changed when his mind is made up already and not willing to entertain any new facts and is willing to make absurd arguments as you did like insisting passengers are not interested if fare machines are functioning or not. It was that comment when I stopped reading anything further that you wrote.It is plainly obvious that it is EXTREMELY important to SBS passengers that fare machines are reliable and functioning most of the time. It is a documented fact that all machines were out of order at one stop on the M60 last year for over a month. If the passengers do not care about fare machine reliability, why did so Many call Channel 11 to complain? You make the most ridiculous statements out of your ass such as saying fare machine reliability is unimportant and has no place in a progress report, and you expect to be taken seriously. As I said before, you are nothing but a bad joke. |
|
|
| (317262) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 22:58:24 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:00:29 2016. "There is no contradiction at all. When I stated you didn't read what I wrote, I wasn't speaking about my posts. I WAS REFERRING TO THE NINE PAGE REPORT I WROTE WHICH THE POST WAS BASED ON. That much should have been obvious from the context without me having to spell out every single detail.You and others argued for about 100 posts why it wasn't necessary to read that nine page report, rather than have an honest debate about it." But I read it, so you lied, which was my point. |
|
|
| (317263) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 15 22:59:11 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 21:48:51 2016. Because DOT should have not ruled it out.That may be true. But the fact is they already ruled it out for whatever reasons. Unless your solution successfully addresses all (or at least most) the reasons they ruled it out, then it is not constructive to recommend to DOT an alternative they already dismissed. You seem to be of the opinion that government agencies are always correctI don't know why you'd say that. I've not said nor done anything to even remotely suggest that. This is yet another example of you completely misunderstanding what is going on and then getting all insulted when I tell you you're flat out wrong. You're flat out wrong! when they make mistakes and errors all the time.They make mistakes. They are human. I am in Atlantic City right now and the entrance to the Atlantic City Expressway from Baltic Avenue is marked "Exit Only" when it should have been marked "Entrance Only". You do not typically exit off local streets. It was confusing and appeared you should not enter through an "exit." But that was the way to get on the expressway.Dude. First of all, no, it is not confusing. Second of all, no, it in no way, shape, or form appears that you should not enter through an exit. If they didn't want you to enter, there would be completely different signage. It is quite clear that this is an EXIT off of Baltic Ave and/or an EXIT out of Atlantic City, and onto the AC Expressway to Philadelphia. Third of all, I spent a brief amount of timing looking at the MUTCD and the results are inconclusive. It shows this particular sign in the context of when you are already on a freeway/expressway. And in the context of a local road meeting a freeway/expressway, it provides examples of other signs that use the word entrance. However, it does not have this exact example situation of the lane layout leading to the entrance ramp. It also does not have the exact situation of this being one of the few exits off of an island. However, looking at another similar entrance to the AC Expressway from Atlantic City, I see more typical signage, though I see now that's it not really a similar situation as it is still local street and not really the point of no return. Finally, I see a sign that says "Expressway Only" with two arrows pointing ahead. That's a good sign, but it is beyond the intersection so again not a good example. I conclude at this time that the example you brought up seems to be non-standard, but there also does not seem to be a standard that correctly covers the situation. There's also the issue that Google Maps says this is a toll road, but all the advance signage leading to it does not mention a toll. Maybe there is an exit before the toll. You can tell me. It's a separate issue and I don't care to dive into that at the moment. I only mention it because it seems to be another non-standard issue in the area. But I assume there is a reason for it. I'm not going to first assume, like you often do, then the gov't is just plain wrong. I would do research before coming to even an initial high-level conclusion. Confusing signage is a cause of accidents.I don't see why you example would be confusing or the cause of accidents. The sign's meaning is very clear. |
|
|
| (317264) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 15 23:02:11 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:00:29 2016. You and others argued for about 100 posts why it wasn't necessary to read that nine page report, rather than have an honest debate about it.No, YOU (or your proxy) argued for 100 posts. We just made an initial relevant statement. Your disagreement with our initial relevant statement was the source of the "100 post argument." Get your facts straight. It takes two sides to have an argument. If you didn't want to discuss why we didn't need to read your report, then you shouldn't have replied to that post. |
|
|
| (317265) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 15 23:03:10 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:08:21 2016. absurd arguments as you did like insisting passengers are not interested if fare machines are functioning or not.That's not exactly what he said. |
|
|
| (317266) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 23:04:12 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 21:56:11 2016. "No they are not saying anything contrary to any facts. They are saying something CONTRARY TO YOUR OPINION.""They" don't exist, so they can't say something contrary to my opinion. As "they" don't exist, they cannot say anything factual. "Show me the facts that it is safer to wait for a bus in a median roadway than on a sidewalk." Show me proof that it isn't. You are the one making the assertion. "Show me proof that Woodhaven Blvd was clear of snow in less than three days when newspaper articles reported no snow plows for three days." Plows plow streets, not bus stops, regardless of their location. "You are the liar, not me, because you are stating proven facts never occurred" I have not stated that any proven fact (I presume you mean event) has not occurred. "and claiming that it is safer to wait for a bus in the median," I have made no such claim, but there is no reason to believe otherwise. "even an uncleared median," Again, I have made no such claim, but have no reason to believe otherwise. "which most likely would be the case based on past experience," Again, past experience shows nothing here that would make the existing plan preferable to the proposed plan. "than it would be to wait on a sidewalk which is cleared by commercial establishments at major intersections before the city clears the snow," Sidewalks are certainly not reliably cleared to the curb before the city clears them. If you ever actually rode buses in the winter, you would know this. "and alleging your opinions are facts." I am very careful not to do so, unlike yourself. |
|
|
| (317267) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 23:07:13 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 15 22:08:21 2016. "Of course one's mind would not be changed when his mind is made up already and not willing to entertain any new facts and is willing to make absurd arguments as you did like insisting passengers are not interested if fare machines are functioning or not. It was that comment when I stopped reading anything further that you wrote."I suppose passengers would care- If it is broken, their ride is functionally free, so I would tend to think they would love it! "It is plainly obvious that it is EXTREMELY important to SBS passengers that fare machines are reliable and functioning most of the time. It is a documented fact that all machines were out of order at one stop on the M60 last year for over a month." You think passengers get upset when they don't have to pay a fare? "If the passengers do not care about fare machine reliability, why did so Many call Channel 11 to complain? You make the most ridiculous statements out of your ass such as saying fare machine reliability is unimportant and has no place in a progress report, and you expect to be taken seriously. As I said before, you are nothing but a bad joke." Again, WHY would passengers complain about what is functionally a free ride? |
|
|
| (317268) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 15 23:07:38 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 23:04:12 2016. Sidewalks are certainly not reliably cleared to the curb before the city clears them. If you ever actually rode buses in the winter, you would know this.I agree!!!!!!!!!!! I am very careful not to do so, unlike yourself.+99999999999 |
|
|
| (317269) | |
Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 16 13:00:45 2016, in response to Re: Fighting the DOT S(BS) on Woodhaven Blvd, posted by R30A on Mon Aug 15 22:58:24 2016. You read it after 100 or 200 posts in the thread. . First you and others kept insisting it wasn't worth reading because of what you called my "track record". You should have read it right away and not have insisted for so long that it was not worth reading.So I wasn't lying about anything! |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 34 |
||