I still haven’t seen any reports showing all the effects of SBS for all routes and complimentary local routes. All they do is quote a three year-old microscopic one day phone survey of the M15 to apply to all SBS routes, and repeat that the misleading statement about a 20% travel time savings as to why we need SBS all over the city and how it will cure the bus problems.

As I stated, even if passengers would have a 20% shorter trip time with SBS, which they don’t, it would still apply to only a very small percentage of bus routes and bus riders anyway, since most routes will never be made into SBS routes. The other problems are being ignored such as better routes nd reliability.

When I see a proper SBS study, then I may change my tune depending on the results.

Or it could mean that they have done them, and they didn’t like the results they got so they are doing the studies over again with slightly different questions to slant the data so the results seem more favorable.

Or that it has done them and you’ve found them but you’ve chosen to ignore them, or that it has done them and you’ve found them but you don’t understand them, or that it has done them and you’ve found them and you understand them but you choose to deliberately misinterpret them.

Consider, for instance, the M15 SBS Progress Report, which (in its Project Results section) discusses ridership, bus travel times, fare collection, customer satisfaction, bus lanes, traffic impacts (speed and volume), road safety, and bicycle ridership. You (Allan) have often criticized the customer satisfaction section (yesterday you decided that it’s a “microscopic one day phone survey” and somehow concluded that it’s been applied to anything other than the M15), and you’ve insisted that the traffic impacts section (which explicitly states that traffic volumes have remained constant) doesn’t take into account traffic diverted elsewhere (which by definition doesn’t exist if traffic volumes have remained constant), and you go ahead and ignore everything else – in particular, ridership, which is the ultimate measure of customer satisfaction.

And you appear to be unaware of, or you choose to ignore, the similar information posted on the NYC and MTA websites about the Bx12 and the M34 and the S79 and the Bx41.

“And you continue to insist that traffic from First and Second Avenue was not diverted to Third or York Avenue, when before and after traffic counts were not made on those streets which should have been included in the traffic survey. So we don’t know how much traffic was diverted which could have been the case even if First and Second Avenue traffic did not increase.”

If traffic had been diverted from First and Second avenues, traffic on those streets would have *decreased* (because that’s what “diverted” means). The fact that traffic did not decrease means, by definition, that no traffic was diverted. That’s called “math.”

If before and after traffic counts on First and Second avenues showed essentially the same traffic volumes, your point is irrelevant — no traffic was diverted. Your reasoning assumes that traffic counts *must have* been reduced, and it also assumes that First and Second were at or above capacity before the bus lanes were put in (because otherwise there would have been spare capacity that could be filled without worsening congestion). Do you have evidence to support either of those assumptions?

I didn’t say that First and Second Avenue carried the same traffic volumes.

You didn’t say it, but the report did:

“ATR counts from June 2009 and April 2011 showed little significant change in traffic levels at most intersections. Traffic flow was maintained despite the reduction of moving lanes along many stretches due to better traffic organization, including reducing illegal parking, and providing turn lanes in the bus and bike lane designs.”

Read my response to Andrew below and look at the M15 progress report which shows the average speed to be about 12 mph. That can only be explained by traffic congestion and has nothing to do with driver competence and spare capacity which doesn’t exist much of the time.

Regarding your first point, if capacity is reduced, which it was, and if there is no increased congestion, then the traffic volume had to have been reduced. However, congestion did increase in places, so the traffic volume was not reduced all over.

When did I ever say things are simple?

Looking at the chart on Page 21, traffic volumes went up in different amounts at five intersections, went down at four, and stayed the same at one. Most of the changes were not significant but two were with volumes increasing about 18 and 25 percent. As I stated, since the term “significant” is not defined and is interpreted differently in different reports as DOT sees fit, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions without adequate data.

Just because the report concludes traffic volumes and flow were MAINTAINED, by choosing to ignore intersections with SIGNIFICANT volume increases of 18 and 25%, doesn’t make it so.

My reasoning is not simplistic. I am just stating facts. I never said that traffic volume increases at two locations represent traffic diverted off First and Second Avenue. Don’t put words in my mouth. I was merely refuting Andrew’s assertion that traffic volumes have not increased by quoting from the report.

I stated that it is probably but not certain because of inadequate data collection that traffic could have been diverted from First and Second Avenue to parallel roads since traffic volumes did increase significantly at two measured intersections because the road is already operating over capacity with speeds of only about 12 mph.

It stands to reason that when you are moving that slowly, you will seek another alternative even if the other road isn’t moving any faster. If someone switches roads at 34 Street because of the congestion on

“My reasoning is not simplistic. I am just stating facts. I never said that traffic volume increases at two locations represent traffic diverted off First and Second Avenue. Don’t put words in my mouth. I was merely refuting Andrew’s assertion that traffic volumes have not increased by quoting from the report.”

I’m not putting words in your mouth. That was my best guess as to what you meant. If you don’t want people guessing about what you mean, write more clearly.

“I stated that it is probably but not certain because of inadequate data collection that traffic could have been diverted from First and Second Avenue to parallel roads since traffic volumes did increase significantly at two measured intersections because the road is already operating over capacity with speeds of only about 12 mph.”

In other words, you’re guessing and you don’t have any evidence of any kind to show that traffic was diverted from First and Second avenues.

Low speed does not necessarily mean a road is being used to capacity. As the report makes clear, a number of obstacles to free movement restricted automobile throughput before the two streets were improved in connection with the SBS project.

“It stands to reason that when you are moving that slowly, you will seek another alternative even if the other road isn’t moving any faster. If someone switches roads at 34 Street because of the congestion on Second Avenue, chances are he won’t switch back even if the congestions lessens further south because of the time it takes to go back and forth. So even if traffic volumes significantly increased only at two intersections, the effects could be more widespread. There is nothing simplistic about that reasoning. In fact, the entire situation is very complex and everything is just conjecture because we don’t have sufficient data to properly analyze what is occurring.”

Then why do you keep carping about traffic being diverted from First and Second avenues, when you don’t even know whether that happened or not? You’re guessing, and without much basis, IMO.

None of what you say is true. I have not chosen to ignore anything.

I presented two options aside from your having chosen to ignore them, and fdtutf presented three.

I am only familiar with the M15 data because that is what the MTA has chosen to publicize the most and quote from.

Really? How often has the MTA publicized and quoted from it? (Perhaps you’re only familiar with the M15 data because you were simply unaware of the existence of anything else and you couldn’t be bothered to run a few quick Google searches.)

But first, the M15 customer satisfaction survey was a one day microscopic sample of several hundred riders.

Do you base that claim on any particular evidence, or are you just guessing?

Do you have informat ion to the contrary?

No, I never made a claim regarding the duration of the survey. Why do you expect me to have evidence to support a claim I never made?

Where in the M15 progress report does the MTA ever give any raw numbers of passengers surveyed?

Nowhere. It’s a summary of the findings. (It’s too bad you burned your bridges at NYCT among those who might have been able to give you those details without your having to jump through FOIL hoops.)

All they show are percentages. There is zero information given regarding the survey methodology. Any responsible survey details the dates, and times of the survey, the number of respondents, etc. The MTA merely says just trust us.

It’s a summary, not an encyclopedia.

Zero information is given regarding passenger travel time savings which is my major criticism. All they discuss is bus travel time savings from one end of the route to the other which is a distortion of what the real savings for the passenger is since no one rides from the first to the last stop.

I certainly wouldn’t say that a 15% savings, or an 18% savings during rush hours, only applies to someone who rides from the first to the last stop. (And this was prior to the implementation of transit signal priority in 2012 or of bus bulbs, currently under construction.)

A significant majority of former M15 Limited riders both boarded and alighted at stops that would later become SBS stops (give or take a block, since some of the stops were shifted slightly). For everybody in that category, access time to and from the bus is essentially unchanged. Some former Limited riders do have a longer walk to and/or from the bus (or now have to ride the local if they are unable to or choose not to walk), but they are in the distinct minority.

If riders in fact found the post-SBS M15 less convenient than the pre-SBS M15, there wouldn’t have been a 12% increase in M15 ridership from July 2010 to July 2011 (compared to a 5% drop in overall Manhattan bus ridership over the same period). As I said yesterday, ridership is the ultimate measure of customer satisfaction, and ridership gains on the SBS corridors have been huge.

Further, bus travel time savings is all that is discussed in all the other studies you link except for the M34 where it is stated there is a 10% passenger travel time savings because of reduced dwelling time at bus stops, but even that is misleading because it doesn’t include those missing a bus because they have to pre-pay their fare.

Pardon?

The Bx12 report discusses revenue and ridership and customer satisfaction and fare inspection statistics and parking/moving violations and availability of fare payment machines and customer complaints and new SBS stops and sidewalks and instructional decals and fare machinery and electrical outages. Did you miss all of that?

The S79 report discusses ridership and traffic impacts and travel times for motorists and customer satisfaction and safety. Did you miss all of that?

The Bx41 report (which is much briefer) discusses ridership. Did you miss that?

The M34 report discusses ridership and passenger satisfaction and a cost-neutral service increase. Did you miss all of that? Fare prepayment adds a negligible few seconds to the access time – anybody missing the bus due to the fare payment process would have caught it had they arrived at the stop a few seconds earlier. It’s essentially the same as missing a train because of having to swipe at the turnstile. (I missed a train today for that very reason, but I’m certainly not about to advocate for on-board subway fare collection!)

As for applying M15 data to other routes, that is exactly what DOT did to make a case for SBS on Woodhaven Blvd, implying the same savings would occur on Woodhaven as on the M15 when there is no evidence that our happen.

I’m sorry? Did you actually see that somewhere, or is it a figment of your imagination?

And you continue to insist that traffic from First and Second Avenue was not diverted to Third or York Avenue, when before and after traffic counts were not made on those streets which should have been included in the traffic survey. So we don’t know how much traffic was diverted which could have been the case even if First and Second Avenue traffic did not increase.

The M15 progress report measures traffic volumes on 1st and 2nd. They’re unchanged. That means there’s been no diversion away from 1st and 2nd.

As far as Staten Island, drivers have complained en mass that removal of the curb lane for general traffic and conversion to a bus lane greatly slowed traffic. The DOT traffic studies not only showed that traffic is worse on Hylan but also on the alternative Father Capaddano Blvd, but somehow the MTA dismisses it way by saying that a slowing of traffic of at least 10% on both streets is insignificant attributing it to day to day variations. Since more data is not given telling us how many days we re studied before and after the changes, we have no idea if it is due to day to day variations or something else. Another instance where disclosing methodology details would help us draw conclusions. Of course, the MTA and DOT are saying just trust us by disclosing only the information they want to disclose, not what is necessary.

I’m sorry? Where does the report claim that “a slowing of traffic of at least 10% on both streets is insignificant”? I don’t see that anywhere; if I’ve missed it, perhaps you can point me to it. Here’s the paragraph that concludes with day to day variations: “While travel times did increase on Hylan Boulevard when the bus lanes are in effect, they also increased in the off-peak direction where the bus lanes were not in effect, and on Father Capodanno Bouelvard, where no operational changes were made. This suggests that the changed travel times on both corridors is likely not related to the addition of bus lanes on Hylan Boulevard. Rather, it most likely reflects natural day to day variation in travel times captured during the before and after study periods.” I don’t see anything there about a 10% change being insignificant!

Yes, drivers have complained. Drivers like to complain. Drivers right here on Sheepshead Bites (yourself included) regularly complain about not only enforcement of bus lanes but also enforcement of red lights and enforcement of speed limits and enforcement of yield-to-pedestrian laws. So I’m not particularly inclined to treat the existence of driver complaints with any particular significance.

The Bx 41 report, like all the others except the M34, only talks about bus travel times, again nothing about passenger travel time savings.

The Bx41 report discusses ridership, which has gone up. If passenger travel time hasn’t been reduced, then why on earth would ridership have gone up?

And as for ridership increasing after SBS is implemented, so far that hasn’t been the case with the B44, where 2013 ridership declined from 2012, although SBS was only in effect for the last six weeks of the year.

Why are you citing a statistic that you know quite well is irrelevant? For 88% of 2013 the B44 didn’t have SBS.

For the nth time, how much is the MTA paying you to defend their bad statistics?

I’m not defending anything, actually – I’m simply pointing out that there’s been a lot more information released than a “microscopic one day phone survey” on one line. And you make it easy enough to do that I don’t expect compensation from anybody.

First and Second Avenue traffic volumes:

Water seeks its lowest level. The same applies to traffic. Drivers will seek the road with the least amount of traffic. The facts are that First and Second Avenue is overloaded with cars much of the time with an average speed of about 12 mph according to the progress report. If traffic volumes went up on portions of First and Second Avenue, drivers would seek alternatives such as York and Third Avenues which they probably did.

The facts are that First and Second carried about as much traffic after SBS as before, and therefore, by definition, there was no diversion.

This is what you stated. “The M15 project report measures traffic volumes on First and Second. Their unchanged. That means there was no diversion away from 1st and 2nd.”

Did you even read the report? Because that’s not what it states at all. Look at the chart on Page 21 showing before and after traffic volumes at selected intersections. The changes at 60 St on 1st Aven ue and 34 St on Second Avenue were very significant. Traffic volume increased by about 25% at the first location and about by about 18% at the second location. Also notice how they switched the order of the bars on the first chart to hide the 25% increase so it looks like a decrease unless you read the key. So at least at those two locations traffic was probably diverted, but without the data that was never collected, we cannot say that for certain.

I’m sorry? Traffic volumes are up yet you still insist that traffic has been diverted? Do you not know what the words traffic volumes mean?

(Incidentally, I said “They’re unchanged,” not “Their unchanged.” If you’re going to quote me, please do so without introducing misspellings.)

The key word in discussing traffic volumes is “significant” which has not been defined. If traffic was slowed by 10% in Staten Island, why was that considered “no substantial impact”.

It wasn’t. You made that up. Nowhere doors the S79 report claim that a 10% increase in travel time is insignificant. What it does state is that travel times were also up in the reverse-peak direction (with no active bus lane) and on a parallel street (with no bus lane), and it’s hard to blame a bus lane for a travel time increase in the direction where there’s no bus lane.

That is the same as saying “not significant.” What about 15%? Would that be significant? We do not know because the term is not defined.

The term isn’t defined because it isn’t used in this context!

However, bus travel time savings of 10% on 34 St (which has been exaggerated), is considered “significant.” It is irresponsible to give the same word different definitions depending on what you want to prove, but the MTA is always being inconsistent in its reasoning. That is nothing new.

A 10% travel time savings is most certainly significant, and I’ve seen no evidence that it’s been exaggerated.

They may have not used the word ” insignificant”, but the fact that they try to explain it away and call it “not substantial” saying it was due to daily variations and not the bus lane with no proof whatsoever to support that theory, and proposing no remedies to increase non-bus trip times, says they don’t think it is important.

Where do they call it “not substantial”? What explanation do you have for increased travel times in the direction opposite that of the bus lane?

Didn’t they average traffic on many days both before and after? If so, why would the slowing of travel time be as a result of daily variations? If they only used on e or two days before and after, that would not be a responsible study.

They certainly didn’t use hundreds or thousands of days. There will be some degree of natural variation. Again, you are welcome to propose an alternative hypothesis that accounts for the increased delays in both directions on a street whose bus lane is in effect only only direction at a time.

You say that drivers always complain so you don’t take their complaints seriously.

I have no objection to serious complaints. But when motorists whine (as many motorists are wont to do) that they can no longer drive however they want wherever they want whenever they want, I tend not to take them very seriously.

You’ve provided an excellent example of typical motorist whining, by the way. Thanks! How dare anybody try to blame the effects of trying to cram too many cars into a limited space on the individuals who opt to cram too many cars into a limited space. It’s obviously everybody else’s fault! (Hint: Read some Donald Shoup.

When B44 local bus riders complained of long waits after SBS was instituted, you didn’t take their complaints seriously either, blaming them for not reading the signage because you always stick up for the MTA, so I dismiss your comment that drivers’ complaints should not be taken seriously because they “like to complain”.

I didn’t take their complaints seriously? Really? That’s news to me.

I didn’t blame anyone for not reading signage. I stated the obvious fact (maybe you were absent that day of grad school) that it takes riders some time to internalize the intricacies of a service change, and that initially many of them will take suboptimal routings, until they’ve had a chance to try out other options and discover something better. Many of the people who used to transfer from east-west bus routes to the northbound B44 Limited at New York Avenue didn’t realize right away that the better transfer point with SBS had shifted to Rogers. Similarly, many who originated from Nostrand itself continued to walk east rather than west to catch the northbound bus. I’ll be the first to say that the initial round of customer information could have been better in this regard – for instance, drivers on intersecting routes should have been instructed to make explicit announcements about the change in transfer point – but it was a short-term problem that’s largely solved itself as riders have become accustomed to the new routing.

Are some B44 riders seeing worse service than in the past? Of course, and I’ve never denied it – almost any service change will have winners and losers. The question is whether B44 riders overall are better or worse off than before. It’s too soon to answer that question for the B44, but riders on the first five SBS corridors are, in general, better off with and than they were without. Again, that doesn’t mean that every single rider is better off, because every transit system has to balance the diverse needs of its many riders when weighing a service change.

I responded to all the options you and fdtuft provided. I did not ignore anything in sp ite of what you say.

This is what I said a few days ago: “Or that it has done them and you’ve found them but you’ve chosen to ignore them, or that it has done them and you’ve found them but you don’t understand them, or that it has done them and you’ve found them and you understand them but you choose to deliberately misinterpret them.”

Fine, I accept that you haven’t chosen to ignore them. The other two possibilities are still open. (In the case of traffic volumes, you clearly don’t understand what the words mean.)

M15 Customer Satisfaction Survey:

The only information provided is that 99% of SBS passengers were satisfied and 90% of local passengers were satisfied. So we know at least 100 people responded to a survey. Why should we assume there were more?

I have no idea how many people responded, and I’ve made no assumption. You’re the one who made the claim of a “microscopic one day phone survey” – apparently without any evidence whatsoever.

Kindly provide evidence or retract the claim.

When I went to school we were taught that any survey results must include raw numbers as well as percentages and also reveal the survey sample, disclose the margin of error, etc for it to be accepted as statistically valid. Yet the MTA decides to ignore all this and just present percentages and nothing else. It has nothing to do with presenting an “encyclopedia.” Excuse me, I forgot. I went to school over 40 years ago and what was taught back then is not valid today.

When I went to school we were taught to tailor our output to the relevant audience, and that the audience for a summary of results is different from the audience for a detailed technical report.

This was taught in 1974 much as it is in 2014.

You should not have to go to the Freedom of Information Act to get basic information that should have been provided in the report’s appendix which the MTA does not make public.

Actually, this is exactly why FOIL exists. Take advantage of it, or if you’re not willing to take advantage of it, then please stop passing off your speculation as confirmed fact.

What are they hiding? Plenty. Like all the numbers they don’t want you to see.

What was I just saying about speculation?

In order for someone to benefit from the entire travel time savings, one must ride the entire route as I stated. You can try to twist that as much as you want. It doesn’t make what you say true.

That’s why I cite percentages rather than absolute times.

All the data you mention included in the Bx41, S79, and Bx12 does not change the fact that the most important statistic of all, the amount of time saved by the average passenger as a result of SBS, is ignored in all but one report.

That statistic is not measurable. The best you can get, if you’re unwilling to rely on modeling, is a small sample of the gut feelings of riders who happen to have used the service regularly both before and after SBS. Gut feelings are notoriously unreliable, and you’d miss out on anybody who either was attracted to the line or chased away from it after SBS stated.

Bus travel times, on the other hand, are easily and reliably measurable.

The single most illustrative statistic is corridor ridership change as compared to citywide or boroughwide ridership change, because it correlates directly to how useful people find the service as opposed to its alternatives.

Your point that if someone arrived a few minutes earlier, he would have not missed the M34 due to the prepayment requirement is irrelevant. The fact that you may have to wait another ten minutes more than wiping out your three minute time savings, is significant and just must be factored in. Ignoring that possibility skews the statistics.

(A few minutes earlier? Did I really say minutes? Because it only takes a few seconds to get an SBS receipt.)

Anybody can miss a bus, SBS or conventional. (It happened to me yesterday.) Yes, if you miss a bus, then you’re unfortunately stuck waiting for the next one.

The only change with SBS is that it takes a few seconds to get a receipt before boarding. If it takes me 4 minutes to walk to my bus stop, I now need to give myself 4 minutes and (say) 15 seconds, to walk and to get a receipt. If my travel time on board the bus has dropped by more than 15 seconds (as it has four nearly every SBS trip), I’ve come out ahead.

In the DOT’s presentations of the proposed SBS service on Woodhaven, which I attended and you didn’t, they frequently referred to the “success” along First and Second Avenues and the 99% satisfaction rate both verbally and in printed information that was distributed, to imply there would be similar results along Woodhaven. It is not a factor of my imagination.

Really? They referred to the success of the second SBS corridor in particular, rather than to the program as a whole? I wonder why they would have done that. Could it be that you assumed that they were referring to the M15 because you didn’t realize that four other corridors had also been evaluated? Just a guess on my part.

You try to make an erroneous inference that since Bx41 ridership went up, travel time had to have decreased. Bronx borough local bus ridership increased by 4.2% so am I to assume that travel times decreased systemwide? Nonsense.

Ridership swings across an entire borough are often dominated by overriding factors, such as general increases in employment. What’s interesting to look at is the change on one particular corridor compared to the borough as a whole.

Yes Bx41 ridership saw a greater increase than the borough average, but four other non-SBS routes saw much greater increases than the Bx41 and the Bx12 which has SBS showed an increase of less than the borough average. Should I conclude travel times got worse on that route?

Ridership surged on the Bx34 because of the restoration of weekend service. The Bx24 continued to grow following its initial 2011 startup. The Bx15 Limited replaced the Bx55 mid-2013, so most former Bx55 riders became Bx15 riders. That explains three of the high-ridership-growth Bronx routes, leaving only the Bx13 ahead of the Bx41 – and that’s for an SBS startup that began mid-year.

SBS on the Bx12 started in 2008. A change in ridership (up or down) from 2012 to 2013 is unlikely to have had anything to do with the introduction of SBS 4-5 years prior, so I’m not entirely sure why you bring it up. In fact, with two SBS routes intersecting at Fordham Plaza, the availability of faster Bx41 service might have diverted a bit of ridership away from what had previously been the only SBS line available.

It is so much easier to collect the proper data which the MTA doesn’t do, than try to guess what probably happened.

Ridership isn’t the proper data? News to me.

I don’t know what else I have to say to convince you all the data is slanted. In the S79 report, they pick out two specific points, probably where there is the greatest time savings for the passenger, and present that data when we need to know what the average passenger saves.

I’m sorry? Two specific points? Those two points are the terminals, and the total running time prior to SBS is compared to the total running time with SBS in order to arrive at an overall percentage savings. Or are you referring to the discussion of running times specifically along the two mile segment of Hylan Boulevard where bus lanes were installed? I think it’s pretty important to determine to what extent the bus lanes are helping – don’t you?

Then they state the chief complaint among local riders is the need for an additional transfer, but they do not tell you how many local riders are affected or how much time that additional transfer costs.

No, they don’t, but with 96% of S78 (local) riders “satisfied” or “very satisfied,” it’s apparently not a big deal for most.

In the Bx12 report, they state that 32% of local riders reported quicker trips. So what does that say about the remaining 68% of local riders. How many trips were made longer and how many riders were affected? Which is a more important number 32% or 68%. Breakdowns are only given when the numbers are to the benefit of SBS. Fair studies do not draw their conclusions beforehand and then structure the presentation of data in a skewed manner as the MTA does to not present the complete picture, but only what they want you to see. That is my problem in a nutshell with SBS.

Seeing as the SBS had twice as many riders as the local (and I believe the split has grown since 2009), and the primary point of SBS is to improve travel time and reliability for longer trips, I don’t think it’s necessary to dwell on this issue.

Finally, I see that SBS is the only thing you chose to comment on from the entire three-part series. Am I to conclude you agree with the other 95% of this series? If so, I would say, I did pretty well.

Pardon me for being busy with two trips out of town in the past three weeks. Please don’t take my silence to mean agreement. It could simply mean that I was busy or that I didn’t feel like responding.

You want a general response? Transit will always be a last resort as long as we go out of our way to prioritize driving. Any time we force developers or taxpayers to provide parking, we make it easier to drive places and we make it harder to walk or to effectively serve an area with transit. High density development with no parking, on the other hand, makes it harder to drive and easier to walk and use transit. Personally, I think society is best off with the middle ground approach of permitting but not requiring parking and density and allowing the market to respond to the needs and tastes of the public.

Correction. Should say “15 seconds earlier so as not to miss the bus.”

I am not going to waste my time with someone who insists that traffic volume and flow worsening significantly on Hylan Blvd and all parallel streets does not mean that reduced capacity for general traffic on Hylan Blvd was diverted to those parallel streets. And somehow because traffic also worsened in the non-peak direction due to whatever reasons, that somehow means that the bus lanes did not contribute at all to the worsening traffic.

As for your allegation that the average 15 second time loss, if true, due to prepayment of fare is insignificant and should be ignored, you fail to mention that the 10% time savings due to reduced dwell times only amounts to about 2 minutes in the first place, but real numbers don’t matter to the MTA, only percentages to make the savings appear more dramatic. So 15 seconds is 12 1/2% of 2 minutes, so if 10% is significant, so is 12 1/2%. It must be factored in the equation or else the savings percentage is wrong.

As for your other comments, you ask me to restate things I have already proven. I will not continue to have endless discussions with

I am not going to waste my time with someone who insists that traffic volume and flow worsening significantly on Hylan Blvd and all parallel streets does not mean that reduced capacity for general traffic on Hylan Blvd was diverted to those parallel streets.

Traffic volumes dropped on both Hylan and Father Capodanno, and were essentially unchanged on Richmond Road (down by 1% in the AM, up by 1% in the PM). If traffic had been diverted, then volumes would have gone up somewhere. They didn’t.

And somehow because traffic also worsened in the non-peak direction due to whatever reasons, that somehow means that the bus lanes did not contribute at all to the worsening traffic.

The greatest increase in travel times in the PM was northbound on Father Capodanno. Do you think the bus lane on Hylan, which is in effect southbound only at that time of day, caused the increased congestion on Father Capodanno northbound?

As for your allegation that the average 15 second time loss, if true, due to prepayment of fare is insignificant and shoul d be ign ored,

Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s not insignificant, and it shouldn’t be ignored. It should be recognized for what it is: 15 seconds, no more and no less.

you fail to mention that the 10% time savings due to reduced dwell times only amounts to about 2 minutes in the first place,

The 10% time savings due to reduced dwell times varies by length of trip. For virtually all trips, though, it exceeds 15 seconds.

but real numbers don’t matter to the MTA, only percentages to make the savings appear more dramatic.

Actually, percentages are a quite standard measure of change, especially in a case like this, where the absolute improvement is smaller for short trips and larger for long trips.

So 15 seconds is 12 1/2% of 2 minutes, so if 10% is significant, so is 12 1/2%. It must be factored in the equation or else the savings percentage is wrong.

Huh? Congratulations, you know how to divide, but what does this have to do with anything?

The time to obtain a receipt cuts into the overall travel time savings. The relevant arithmetic operation is subtraction, not division. If my ride is 2 minutes shorter, but I need to spend 15 seconds getting a receipt, then my total time savings is 1:45, all else being equal.

As for your other comments, you ask me to restate things I have already proven.

The only thing you’ve proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – is that the MTA was absolutely correct in removing you from your planning position in short order. Planning relies on quantitative reasoning, which you are clearly incapable of.