Home · Maps · About
Home > The Reef

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

view flat

Re: B44 Progress Report Released

Posted by R30A on Thu Jul 21 16:21:40 2016, in response to Re: B44 Progress Report Released, posted by R30A on Fri Jul 8 13:22:30 2016.

Part 1. Synopsis

"Using misleading and incomplete statistics, the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT)claims its joint venture with the MTA, Select Bus Service,or SBS as it is more commonly known, is a huge success which meritsfurther expansion."
Nothing is misleading or incomplete about the statistics released.


The B46 SBS just started operation on July 3, 2016with the M23 and Q70 to start within the nextfew months.DOT Commissionerand MTA BoardMemberPolly Trottenberg stated to Jose Martinezof NY 1on his program” InTransit”on July 1st:"Usually we see a 10 percent increase in ridership on SBS routes. B44 SBS ridership increased by 10 percent. Travel times decreasedbybetween 10 and 30 percent.”

"However, further investigation reveals these conclusions are misleading at best or at worst,outright wrong.The 10 percent increase in SBS service was for the second year only and does not consider the four percent decrease in local service. So the B44 ridership increase in 2015 was really six percent.
However, during the first year of SBS operation, 2014, B44 ridership declined by eight percent. So when you examine B44 ridership before and after SBS, you find that since its institution,B44 ridership actually declined by two percent.(The borough average for non-express routes declined by 1.9 percentduring that time. So the B44 performed no better or worse than a typical bus route.)
They were looking at the stats for SBS B44, not the B44 overall. You are looking at different statistics. Not a valid comparison.

"Bus reliability, the bus riders’ chief complaint is not improvedby SBS."
You have absolutely no support for this claim.

"In the first few days of operation, a B46 bus rider was already complaining she let three SBS buses pass before the arrival of a local."
What does the B46 have to do with this? Regardless, if one improves the limited/SBS service, it makes sense that more limited/SBS buses would pass before the local comes. Furthermore, reliability is not frequency. She is complaining about FREQUENCY of a DIFFERENT SERVICE, NOT SBS, NOT RELIABILITY, NOT EVEN THE B44!

"The MTA's claims of B44 SBS success are largely fictional."
No, they are not. They actually back up their successes, with REAL and RELEVANT numbers!

"Neither SBS goal of reversing the decline in local bus ridership nor notslowing down traffic flowdue to the institution of exclusive bus lanes wasmet."
A. Where did they say these were their specific goals?
B. Where did they say that these were their ONLY goals?
C. There is no evidence here that either was not achieved regardless.
D. They DID show that traffic was not slowed substantially.
E. They DID show that ridership quickly rebounded from the freefall it was in at the time of implementation.

"(So a new set of goals waschosen.)"
Or so you claim.

"The Progress Report, just released the last weekin June,is grossly deficient and incomplete by failing to include necessary data and information such as data on passenger trip times,"
Actually, it is full of good data. Unfortunately you seem unable to read it.

"number of passengers having to payan additional fare due to SBS,"
There is no reason to assume ANY of these exist, so such would be a nonissue.

"fare machine reliability,"
Not particularly relevant from a riders perspective.

"deficient signage and roadway markings,"
Absolutely irrelevant to the bus riders.

"bus and curbside traffic lane enforcement problems,"
If nothing is worth noting, it won't be noted.

"the number of parking spaces removed,"
Again, absolutely irrelevant to bus riders

"fare evasion data,"
Again, if there is nothing notable to note, why would anything be mentioned.

"inadequate public noticecausing initial mass confusion,"
There was substantial notice. People ignore posters all the time.

"and data on bus bunching reductions due to the exclusive bus lanesif in fact that was the case."
I'd certainly like to see more reliability data here too.

"There also is no mention of annual bus ridership. Only average weekday ridership was considered."
They show average weekday ridership. The two are closely related. This is a nonissue.

"The MTA failed to survey local bus riders after SBS implementation or provide a survey methodology."
That is blatantly false.

"Much of the report relates to meetings held prior to implementation instead of describing the progress since implementation."
OK. So?

"The MTA also falsely equates bus travel time with passenger travel time when the twoare two totally different metrics."
Yes, they are different. They are certainly related however, and the numbers they produced are SUBSTANTIALLY more reliable than any estimate of passenger travel time would be as they are REAL.

"Passenger travel time also includes walking and waiting for a bus. Walking times are especially significant because SBS bus stops are placed further apart than Local or Limited bus stops and can be as far as a mile apart. Limited bus stops can be a mile apart too. Historically some were substantially longer than that! The number of stops being changed is nowhere near as significant as you imply it is.

"A 30 percent reduction in bus travel time does not indicate that passengers are completing their trip in 30 percent less time, which is what the MTA is inferring."
Actually, it isn't what they are inferring. That is why they put a large range of 10-30%.

"There needs to be an immediate moratorium on new SBS routes until the MTA switches to contactless media in 2019."
No. There is absolutely no reason for such.

"It is a waste of money to now invest in fare equipment thatwill be obsolete in three years."
The existing fare equipment can easily be modified to handle contactless fare media.

"Not charginga fare on the proposed Q70 SBS,as suggested by the Riders Alliance,is more prudent than spendingmillions of dollars on fareequipment to be used only for two or threeyears."
There is no reason to believe it would only be used for two or three years. BUT. EVEN IF IT WAS. THERE ARE ONLY TWO STOPS WHICH NEED IT.

"DOT and the MTA must be made accountable by providing fair, complete and transparentanalyses of their SBS projects and to spend their limited funds wisely."
Which they do time and time again.

I'll get around to dissecting the rest soon enough.


Responses

 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]