|
|
| Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. (321363) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||
|
| (322635) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 12:46:52 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:44:23 2017. Only you would fight half of a tautology. |
|
| (322636) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 13:05:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 02:25:49 2017. You certainly did.The conversation started with me stating more would be harmed than helped. And you disagree, I stated that at least 70 percent of the vehicles were cars and 30 percent were buses. http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=321863 You responded: "Based on your fake numbers." Then R30A stated:" And he and I and many others have shown you how equal bus and auto users is equally likely." http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=322061 The "he" R30A was referring to was YOU. Go back and reread the thread. You deny that that 80% of the users are in cars. You deny that 70% of the users are cars. You now deny that 50 percent of the users are in cars. So what do you believe is the correct number? If you claim you do not know, then you are not presenting any argument to refute my based on vehicular volumes posted by Stephen Bauman from the DOT website and bus passenger numbers provided by DOT. They are not numbers I arrived at out of thin air. |
|
| (322637) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 13:07:26 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Thu Feb 2 09:16:38 2017. And what was it you claim never to have said? |
|
| (322638) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 13:13:18 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 13:05:21 2017. How do you not understand this by now.ANY ATTEMPT TO ASSERT AN EXACT AMOUNT WITHOUT ANY DATA TO BACK IT UP IS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT IS ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST. |
|
| (322639) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:20:07 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 13:05:21 2017. Is there any chance that someday, you might learn the difference between someone questioning what you say and someone making a positive assertion?Neither R30A nor I made any positive claims about the actual numbers. On the contrary, we are pointing out that neither we nor you have enough hard data to make any such claims. Your inability to read and accurately parse English sentences is not our fault. |
|
| (322640) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 13:21:21 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 13:07:26 2017. Things in this branch of this thread which I never said which you claim I said:A. A majority of intersections are synchronized. B. That the only instance I am referring to is synchronized signals. C. That lowering the speed limit cannot reduce the average speed. This is not an exhaustive list. The further you go back, the more your illiteracy will shine through. |
|
| (322641) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:21:49 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 12:36:44 2017. Bingo.Furthermore, my point is that someone who questions your assumptions is not raising a new subject. You introduced the subject when you made the assumptions. |
|
| (322642) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 13:22:43 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:21:49 2017. Certainly true as well! |
|
| (322643) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:23:51 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 12:44:23 2017. Only your opinion. Not backed up by anything.Priceless. I could literally use this as my reply to every single post you make, and I would be right 85-90% of the time. |
|
| (322644) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:32:22 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 13:21:21 2017. |
|
| (322645) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 14:21:40 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Wed Feb 1 16:10:28 2017. You: “You have not made any valid argument below.”I did and am not going to keep repeating myself going in circles with you. Me: And you conveniently avoided commenting on them not responding to her at future workshops other than continually saying they will look into it. You: What is there to respond to? They said they'll look into it. Standard response. But people deserve answers to their questions. These workshops should be a give and take. Not standard responses of “we will look into it”, then DOT doing whatever they want to anyway without explanation. THAT IS NOT MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. It is just a façade. That is what there is to respond to. Don’t people who ask questions deserve meaningful responses? You apparently believe “standard responses” are all that is necessary. I disagree. You: Where do they admit to this? Me: At the press conference several years ago held by the Councilman that I wrote about in Sheepsheadbites. You: So you have no credible source. Any source or data you disagree with you claim is not valid. Again you are calling me a liar claiming I did not hear DOT correctly. That is the only thing you can claim since you don’t have a valid response. You: “but there is no reason to assume they did such.” Me: I am not assuming anything but relating what they stated at the press conference. Your response obviously will be that I did not hear them correctly since you won’t be able to refute the facts. You: ”Slight nitpick- I do not assume it is your hearing that is faulty. I believe it is your capability of understanding. Further doubt is cast upon what you hear by your blatant dishonesty. So yes, if you present something, you need sources. Other people can get away with things they hear, but you have abused the trust of this community far too much for any reasonable person who has experience dealing with you to give you the benefit of the doubt.” Standard tactic. When you have no response, criticize the credibility of person making the claim. I would expect nothing less from you. Mere baseless accusations of dishonesty, from the person who constantly retracts what he previously stated even when the links of those statements are presented. You: If even you are able to find something, it sure as hell isn't hidden. If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is hidden. You: “If something isn't easily obtainable, that means it is not something that they expect sizable amounts of site users to regularly be accessing. Furthermore, if you can find something, it cannot be particularly hard to find. Also, poor web design would be a much more likely reason for something to not be prominent on the page, which is a problem I believe the MTA has.” Something can be found and at the same time be particularly hard to find if it takes you considerable time to find it. You usually have to know something exists and the date it was presented to the Board. Then you may have to sift to hundreds of pages of data without any search ability. THAT IS RIDICULOUS when an agency is claiming they are transparent. Even finding something as simple as bus patronage data by route is very difficult within the MTA website. If you go to Google and type in Ridership statistics or Facts and Figures, the proper link comes up. But if you type the same thing into the search box on the MTA site, you get meaningless links like to press releases. In one instance, I did get general ridership statistics but no link to specific statistics. I also understand that there are separate ridership statistics somewhere just for the SBS portion of a route, but still have been unable to find it. Its more than a problem of poor web design. It is a problem of sloppiness and non-caring. There is no valid reason why the planning studies listed under “Planning Studies” should be incomplete and you have to look elsewhere to find the rest of them. None of this would matter if the MTA didn’t claim to be transparent which they are not. You: “You have not provided any proof of deception. There is no reason to assume costs in different places are referring to the same items.” FTA: Capital Cost of the B44 SBS project - $38 million to 50 million. DOT: Total Cost of the B44 SBS project - $15 million. How many B44 SBS projects are there. If anything the DOT should have been higher because the FTA figure does not include annual operating costs which the DOT figure does since they used the word “Total.” You: “As I have mentioned many times before, it is likely they are referring to different things. My guess is that the FTA cost is including actual new buses, and the DOT cost is not.” Then that needs to be clearly stated. In one document DOT states in a footnote that the numbers do not include the cost of new buses. But in other documents costs are listed as “total costs” when they are not. If it is not intentional deception, it is sloppiness or incompetence, neither of which is acceptable because it calls into question their competency to perform valid and unbiased studies. You: My judgement of signage? Okay tell me if you believe that this signage is adequate for turning vehicles to inform drivers that there are exclusive bus lanes. And remember that the lane markings are completely worn out. You: I don't see any intersection/street/lane here, let alone worn ones or ones with inadequate signage... That’s because you never clicked on the link I provided with clear pictures of inadequate signage and worn out pavement. Either that or you are just blind or just refuse to see the truth when it disagrees with your perception of reality. You: When have they ever implied that? Cite it. Me: Trottenberg has stated in numerous interviews that SBS passengers are completing trips 20 percent quicker. She promised Woodhaven passengers would save up to 30 percent of their travel time with SBS. You: That is not implying that bus travel time reductions are the same thing as passenger travel time reductions. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they are false? It does imply that bus travel time reductions from one end of the route to the other is the same as what an average passenger saves on his trip. Original Bx12 documentation predicted that the average Bx passenger would save 5 minutes. Similarly, B44 documentation stated the average passenger who makes an average 2.3-mile trip would save six minutes. Neither figure is a 20 percent savings for the bus passenger. The only way you can arrive at 20 percent is by using total bus travel times. As far as her prediction for Woodhaven, no way could that be correct since first of all most passengers do not use an entire bus route which that number is based on. They are assuming since regular SBS routes save 20 percent in bus travel time, since Woodhaven SBS would be enhanced though still not BRT, the savings would be greater. It is a number they just pulled out of thin air, something you always accuse me of. You continually ask me for data to prove my claim. But when DOT makes baseless future claims, you don’t ask them to prove their claims. Instead you accept their baseless claims as fact and ask me to disprove it. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DISPROVE DOT’S BASELESS CLAIMS. It is their JOB to PROVE their claims. Even if somehow buses would have 30% quicker running times. That still does not equate with passenger times being 30 percent quicker. |
|
| (322646) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 14:47:44 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 14:21:40 2017. But people deserve answers to their questions. These workshops should be a give and take. Not standard responses of “we will look into it”, then DOT doing whatever they want to anyway without explanation. THAT IS NOT MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. It is just a façade.That is what there is to respond to. Don’t people who ask questions deserve meaningful responses? You apparently believe “standard responses” are all that is necessary. I disagree. Not all questions have meaningful responses. Nobody can possibly have all potential data present to immediately respond to any conceivable question. Your demand is an outright impossibility. Any source or data you disagree with you claim is not valid. Again you are calling me a liar claiming I did not hear DOT correctly. That is the only thing you can claim since you don’t have a valid response. We have no source here. If we did, you'd link to it. Recollections of verbal testimony are unreliable years after, even if they came from a competent, honest, and normally reliable source. You are none of those. Standard tactic. When you have no response, criticize the credibility of person making the claim. I would expect nothing less from you. Mere baseless accusations of dishonesty, from the person who constantly retracts what he previously stated even when the links of those statements are presented. You still have not provided a single retraction of mine of a statement you claim I have retracted. If something isn’t easily obtainable and you have to do much searching to find it, then it is hidden. No. For something to be hidden, there must be an intent to hide it. Infrequently accessed resources should never be the most prominent items on a website as that would effectively hide the frequently accessed resources. Something can be found and at the same time be particularly hard to find if it takes you considerable time to find it. You usually have to know something exists and the date it was presented to the Board. Then you may have to sift to hundreds of pages of data without any search ability. THAT IS RIDICULOUS when an agency is claiming they are transparent. Even finding something as simple as bus patronage data by route is very difficult within the MTA website. If you go to Google and type in Ridership statistics or Facts and Figures, the proper link comes up. But if you type the same thing into the search box on the MTA site, you get meaningless links like to press releases. In one instance, I did get general ridership statistics but no link to specific statistics. I also understand that there are separate ridership statistics somewhere just for the SBS portion of a route, but still have been unable to find it. Its more than a problem of poor web design. It is a problem of sloppiness and non-caring. There is no valid reason why the planning studies listed under “Planning Studies” should be incomplete and you have to look elsewhere to find the rest of them. None of this would matter if the MTA didn’t claim to be transparent which they are not. In general, I agree with you here. The MTA needs to work a lot on their web design. Overall, I would say it is rather poor. That does not however, imply that they have any intent to hide these figures. Then that needs to be clearly stated. In one document DOT states in a footnote that the numbers do not include the cost of new buses. But in other documents costs are listed as “total costs” when they are not. If it is not intentional deception, it is sloppiness or incompetence, neither of which is acceptable because it calls into question their competency to perform valid and unbiased studies. There is nothing indicating either dishonesty or incompetence here. The term "Total Costs" is certainly context dependent when dealing with government agencies. That’s because you never clicked on the link I provided with clear pictures of inadequate signage and worn out pavement. Either that or you are just blind or just refuse to see the truth when it disagrees with your perception of reality. Or perhaps because you never actually included the link. It does imply that bus travel time reductions from one end of the route to the other is the same as what an average passenger saves on his trip. There has never been any such implication that I have seen. Original Bx12 documentation predicted that the average Bx passenger would save 5 minutes. Ok. Do you have any proof that that is a false statistic? (Do you have a link to this documentation?) Similarly, B44 documentation stated the average passenger who makes an average 2.3-mile trip would save six minutes. Ok. Do you have any proof that that is a false statistic? (Do you have a link to this documentation?) Neither figure is a 20 percent savings for the bus passenger. Proof? The only way you can arrive at 20 percent is by using total bus travel times. Unsupported assertion. As far as her prediction for Woodhaven, no way could that be correct since first of all most passengers do not use an entire bus route which that number is based on. But nobody said they did! It is an absolutely correct statement. If bus runtime is reduced by 30%, passenger ride time is reduced by up to 30%. They are assuming since regular SBS routes save 20 percent in bus travel time, since Woodhaven SBS would be enhanced though still not BRT, the savings would be greater. You still do not understand. BRT=SBS. Get your terminology straight. But outside of this basic lack of understanding, where is your proof for this absurd allegation? It is a number they just pulled out of thin air, something you always accuse me of. Proof they did so? You continually ask me for data to prove my claim. But when DOT makes baseless future claims, you don’t ask them to prove their claims. Instead you accept their baseless claims as fact and ask me to disprove it. Perhaps there is a reason for this. DOT=CREDIBLE SOURCE. AR=NOT CREDIBLE SOURCE. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DISPROVE DOT’S BASELESS CLAIMS. It better not be! If it were, I doubt you'd still have that job! It is their JOB to PROVE their claims. Nobody sane is challenging them. Even if somehow buses would have 30% quicker running times. That still does not equate with passenger times being 30 percent quicker. Again, nobody is saying they are. |
|
| (322647) | |
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 can’t 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 someone’s 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 doesn’t 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 “The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.” 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 don’t 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 someone’s determination to purchase an automobile because you don’t 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 don’t 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. 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 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. 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 haven’t 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. IT'S AVERAGE TRIP TIMES THAT MATTER TO THE BUS RIDERS NOT BUS RUNNING TIMES WHICH ONLY MATTER TO THE MTA. 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 “trip times” 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. You: YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC LOGIC. REJECTING A STATEMENT DOES NOT IMPLY VALIDITY OF THE INVERSE OR CONVERSE. 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. You: THERE IS NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. 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 WON’T 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 DOT’s 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) DOT’s 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 don’t 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 don’t consider the question important is completely irrelevant. |
|
| (322648) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:04:57 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:20:07 2017. When DOT states that there are 33,000 daily bus riders and vehicular counts show 50,000 vehicles passing a specific point in 24 hours, that certainly is enough data to conclude that the number of those in cars are significantly greater than the numbers in buses.The only way that could not be true is if the cars are driverless as well as passengerless. Yet you were arguing that it was a possibility that the numbers of those in buses could possibly equal the number in cars. THAT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY. To now state that you were never making any claims regarding actual numbers is just disingenuous on your part. |
|
| (322649) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:07:11 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 12:36:44 2017. You are saying it is not an obvious assumption that you cannot travel at the speed limit if traffic doesn't allow it? That was the assumption I was making. |
|
| (322650) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:08:39 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:21:49 2017. I will ask you the same question I asked R30A.Are you saying it is not an obvious assumption that you cannot travel at the speed limit if traffic doesn't allow it? That was the assumption I was making. |
|
| (322651) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:14:09 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 13:23:51 2017. No. I back up my opinions. You claim not to cite numbers when you don't have them, yet you are certain you would be right 85 to 90% of the time. Where are those numbers from if not only your opinion.That's correct. You don't have to back up your opinion. You can state any absurdity as fact, but I always must present data. That is not a level playing field. Sort of like Heads I win and Tales you lose. That is the game you both are playing. You think I do not see that. |
|
| (322652) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 16:16:20 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:07:11 2017. You are making the assumption that traffic is the only thing which makes higher speeds unattainable. |
|
| (322653) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 7 16:17:33 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:14:09 2017. YES. IT IS AN UNFAIR PLAYING FIELD IF ONE SIDE RELIES ONLY ON FACTS AND THE OTHER FABRICATES DATA OVER AND OVER AGAIN.However, there is an easy way to level the playing field. STOP MAKING SHIT UP! |
|
| (322655) | |
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. There you go again requesting data as if I can just pull up thirty-year old traffic data without any problems. Just because I can’t 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 someone’s 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 doesn’t 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 “The M15 has lost 3 million annual riders since SBS inception, more than the entire ridership of many transit systems.” 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 don’t 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 someone’s determination to purchase an automobile because you don’t 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 don’t 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 haven’t 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 “trip times” 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 WON’T 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 DOT’s 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) DOT’s 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 don’t 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 don’t consider the question important is completely irrelevant. The community is not an entity which determines anything at all. |
|
| (322657) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 21:36:24 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:04:57 2017. To now dial back your former wild claims about the number of road users, making yourself look halfway reasonable, is just disingenuous on your part. |
|
| (322658) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 21:39:53 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 16:07:11 2017. We've actually been saying sort of the opposite: that your claim, which was that average speeds necessarily will decline if the speed limit is lowered, is untrue because current actual speeds may be lower than the current speed limit.One obvious reason -- though, as R30A correctly points out, not the only one -- is that speeds may currently be limited by traffic to less than the current speed limit. |
|
| (322659) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Feb 7 21:44:20 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Feb 7 15:58:18 2017. There you go again requesting data as if I can just pull up thirty-year old traffic data without any problems. Just because I can’t provide the data you request, DOES NOT MAKE MY CLAIM UNTRUE.No, what it does is to make your claim UNPROVEN, yet you insist on proceeding as if it had been proven. If you don't want us to complain about this obvious logical lapse, stop making it. It stands to reason that when you add a lane for a short distance by removing a bottleneck, traffic will flow better. It does in principle, but actual results are situation-dependent. If you don't know what actually happened, stop pretending you do. |
|
|
Page 11 of 11 |
||