Southern Brooklyn

The Commute: We Now Have Definitive Proof Select Bus Service (SBS) Is A Failure – Part 1 Of 2

The Bx12 SBS on East Fordham Road and Webster Avenue in the Bronx. Source: Wikimedia / AEMoreira042281
The Bx12 SBS on East Fordham Road and Webster Avenue in the Bronx. Source: Wikimedia / AEMoreira042281

THE COMMUTE: We know this because 2014 ridership figures are now available. The two metrics the MTA have been using to tout SBS as a success are that ridership has increased and bus trip times have been reduced by 20 percent. However, there have been no statistics whatsoever for the most important metrics: how much time passengers are saving, and how much time other road users are losing. Instead, the MTA and its proponents have been relying on the fact that bus ridership on SBS routes has been increasing during the first year of operation, using the logic that ridership increased because travel times were reduced.

However, in most cases, that is no longer true. Bus ridership figures for 2014 indicate that ridership is declining on many SBS routes at a rate greater than the borough average. So if one uses the logic that increased bus patronage means shorter passenger travel times, the converse would also be true, that a reduction in bus ridership indicates longer trip times.

Could this decline in ridership be the reason why the MTA has not released its first-year assessment for the B44 SBS due at the end of last year? Have they not yet figured out a way to twist the statistics to make it appear to be a resounding success? Apparently not.

Let’s Take A Closer Look

SBS has been implemented on the Bx12, Bx41, M15, M34, M60, S79 and B44 bus routes. The M86 will begin operation this spring and there are plans for the B46, probably next year. In 2018, Woodhaven Boulevard and Cross Bay Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is due to begin. I have written much about the B44 and the proposed Woodhaven routes. Let’s now take a look at all the SBS routes.

The Bronx And Manhattan

The first one was the Bx12 along Fordham Road/Pelham Parkway. Annual ridership on the SBS and local are up in 2014 by 3.4 percent more than double the borough average of 1.5 percent, surpassing the M15 as the city’s most heavily traveled bus route.

Ridership on the Bx41 increased by 21.4 percent while the borough average increased by only 1.5 percent. However, this SBS route also involved elimination of the Bx55 and a shifting of service from the Bx15 to the Bx41. So when all three routes are considered as one, the ridership increase shrinks to 8.0 percent, still impressive. However, one would have to check old schedules to determine if a service increase was at least partially responsible for the passenger gains.  If you use ridership as a guideline, SBS may indeed work in the Bronx.

Now let’s look at Manhattan. Annual ridership on the M15 declined by 8.6 percent. (Statistics for local versus SBS buses are not available.) Annual ridership on the M34, which uses standard buses, declined by 11.2 percent. Manhattan local bus ridership declined by 5.8 percent. Can those SBS routes be considered successes?

The M60 local and SBS were down by 5.0 percent — slightly better than the borough average of 5.8 percent. However, the route operates partly in Queens, which is only down by a fraction of a percent when you consider both New York City Transit and MTA Bus. Those each carry about half the borough’s local bus passengers. So it has performed worse than the combined Manhattan and Queens average.

Staten Island

The S79 along Hylan Boulevard also uses standard buses and you still pay upon entering the bus. Its ridership increased by 7.2 percent. However, ridership on its local counterpart, the S78, declined by 5.7 percent. So when these two routes are considered as a group, the combined ridership increase is 2.0 percent. Local ridership throughout the borough was up by 1.9 percent. So SBS in Staten Island had minimal effect on ridership. More importantly, an increase in SBS ridership and a decrease in local ridership would indicate that local riders are walking extra distances to access the SBS. To what extent we do not know. Nor do we know the impact the extra walking has on their SBS bus travel time savings.

In Part 2, tomorrow, we will examine the B44 Nostrand Avenue SBS and future routes.

The Commute is a weekly feature highlighting news and information about the city’s mass transit system and transportation infrastructure. It is written by Allan Rosen, a Manhattan Beach resident and former Director of MTA/NYC Transit Bus Planning (1981).

Disclaimer: The above is an opinion column and may not represent the thoughts or position of Sheepshead Bites. Based upon their expertise in their respective fields, our columnists are responsible for fact-checking their own work. Their submissions are edited only for length, grammar and clarity. If you would like to submit an opinion piece or become a regularly featured contributor, please e-mail nberke [at]sheepsheadbites [dot]com.

Advertisement
Comment policy

62 COMMENTS

  1. More importantly, an increase in SBS ridership and a decrease in local ridership would indicate that local riders are walking extra distances to access the SBS.

    Or it could indicate that the SBS stops were very well chosen, shifting riders from the local routes onto SBS without affecting their access time. I don’t know — and neither do you.

  2. In Staten Island the SBS stops are about a mile apart. Many riders may have origins, destinations, or transfers at or near an SBS stop. I will acknowledge that. However, I think the odds that both the origin and destination for many are at or near an SBS stop are slim so that an extra walk would be common at least at one end ofthe trip. An SBS stop may be near a business or transfer point, but is less likely to be near your home.

  3. However, I think the odds that both the origin and destination for many are at or near an SBS stop are slim so that an extra walk would be common at least at one end ofthe trip.

    Right, that’s what you think. You have no proof of this, but you don’t seem to care.

  4. (Statistics for local versus SBS buses are not available.)

    I know MTA reps are slow at getting back to people, but if you ask them for a breakdown, give them the years you want data from, whether you want average weekday/weekend/annual total, which routes you want etc…they will send it to you in a few days or a month or so.

  5. Okay, I will try but in the past I have not received answers to questions I have asked but only form responses. I wouldn’t be surprised if I receive a response that I will have to file a freedom of information request for that information.

  6. Considering the “trolls” who often question your viewpoints here, I am interested to see their reaction to this new data and your analysis.of it. Keep up the good work.

  7. Let’s be realistic: The reason you don’t like the SBS bus is that it takes away your PARKING SPACES!!!!

  8. Why are you comparing 2014-2013 ridership changes instead of ridership pre/post implementation? If there was no M15 SBS do you think ridership would have dropped by less than it did from 2013-2014? Do you think ridership would increase without the bus lanes?

    Re M60

    About 20% of boardings/alightings were in Queens outside of the airport, another 10% at the airport pre SBS. Some people who took a subway to 125th then got on the m60 heading to/from the airport last year or the year before might be taking the Q70 now. Some who used to board/alight in Queens might be on the Q19 instead.

    Re S78/S79

    How do you conclude that riders are walking further? Why didn’t they start walking farther to an SBS station before 2014?

  9. Why are you comparing 2014-2013 ridership changes instead of ridership pre/post implementation?

    Because this isn’t about finding the truth about SBS; it’s about making a predetermined point, truth be damned.

  10. Because pre-post implementation would be different for each route. Are you suggesting I only look at the ridership after implementation and ignore future years as the MTA has done? How would that make the results fairer? A comparison between 2013 and 2014 keeps the analysis simple and less confusing and the results are no less accurate. Big dear if ridership rose during the first year which it certainly didn’t for the B44 and the M60. The important thing is what is happening today. Besides, I already analyzed the M15 for ridership prior to implementation and at the end of 2013, and it also was down.

    If you would like to present other numbers other than what the MTA has already shown in its biased reports that you believe indicate success, be my guest. As far you are concerned, the truth be damned. I am all about finding the truth.

  11. What I think might have happened with the M15 under different circumstances is irrelevant. The point is that ridership dropped greater than the borough average with SBS and that is not indicative of success. And what is your point with the M60. You are trying to rationalize why ridership dropped. Isn’t the point of SBS to increase ridership? Regarding the S78/79, who said they didn’t start walking farther prior to 2014? That is your erroneous conclusion. Yes ridership on both the local and SBS increased between 2012 and 2013. But if you look at the borough average between those years, it was much greater than it was between 2013 and 2014.

    Why is it so difficult for you to admit my analysis is correct?

  12. Why is it so difficult for you to admit my analysis is correct?

    Because it’s wrong 🙂

    Isn’t the point of SBS to increase ridership?

    Is it? I thought the biggest point to SBS was to improve the quality of bus service for existing riders.

    All things equal that might be expected to increase ridership. But all things aren’t equal. With the M60 I gave you a couple reasons why increased bus service quality might not lead to an increase in ridership.

    What I think might have happened with the M15 under different circumstances is irrelevant.

    If ridership would drop by 50% if you returned the M15 to the local/limited arrangement it had a few years ago would that make SBS a success? And before you try, no, I am not claiming that ridership would drop by 50% if you returned to the local/limited arrangement it had a few years ago.

    Regarding the S78/79, who said they didn’t start walking farther prior to 2014? That is your erroneous conclusion.

    If they were walking further to an SBS stop instead of a closer local in 2013 then they didn’t switch from local to SBS for 2014. From your article…

    More importantly, an increase in SBS ridership and a decrease in local ridership would indicate that local riders are walking extra distances to access the SBS.

    It wasn’t my conclusion. It was yours. If they didn’t start walking further for 2014, which you now say is an erroneous conclusion, then you need a different explanation for the drop in local and increase in SBS ridership. Here’s a possible one to consider: The local and SBS lines serve overlapping, but not identical markets. It’s possible travel demand for the short trips served well by the local bus dropped, while travel demand for the longer trips, including those to Brooklyn, increased.

  13. A comparison between 2013 and 2014 keeps the analysis simple

    And fatally flawed.

    the results are no less accurate

    It makes the results meaningless.

  14. If you’re looking for the effects of SBS, then you have to compare “before SBS” with “after SBS.” Nothing else is going to tell you anything about the effects of SBS.

    This is so elementary that I can’t believe I’m having to sit here and type these words.

  15. For what it’s worth, the S59 also runs along the S79 route, and that route has seen a slight increase in ridership (though that could also be from riders north of the mall). Keep in mind that the S59 ended up getting streamlined around the ETC (to use the stop built for the S79), so that by itself was a small improvement in S59 service, but it wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for the S79 getting limited-stop service.

  16. What proof does the MTA and DOT ave by claiming trips will be shortened by 35 % on Woodhaven? You ever ask them to provide proof. Why is that so? Because you beleve all of their lies?

  17. I did compare before SBS with after SBS on the M15 using 2013 data, and ridership was down. What do you have to say about that? I also did it with the B44 and it was down too. What do you have to say about that?

  18. Yes, one goal is to improve the quality of bus service for riders. How do you know if you succeeded? You know by collecting adequate data and the right types of data, neither of which the MTA or DOT has done. We could conjecture all ay long what might have or might not have happened. If bus riders walked further or not. Which types of trips may have resulted from increased demand, etc. All I did was to present some likely scenarios. It is the responsibility of those in charge to provide the data so we do not hae to guess. You do that by daring the results of your models or trough surveys which consider walking distance. You also consider how much longer other users of the road had to travel because that is also part of it. You don’t stop sharing your data after one year.

    In your hypothetical example, if ridership would drop by 50% if you return SBS to a Limited, I suppose that woud indicate SBS was successful, but since that would never happen because SBS didn’t make that much of a difference anyway, it doesn’t matter. An M15 bus driver reported on another forum that M15 buses are 30 minutes late everyday requiring they be paid overtime. Do you think that is a well designed and well run route?

  19. What I think might have happened with the M15 under different circumstances is irrelevant.

    No, what changed between 2013 (when SBS was in effect) and 2014 (when SBS was in effect) is irrelevant. SBS started on the M15 in 2010, and what’s relevant is how ridership changed from an M15 without SBS to an M15 with SBS.

    (In case you haven’t ridden the M15 in a while, there has been a lot of bus bulb construction in the past few years that has temporarily shifted some stops and obstructed some sections of bus lane, leading to longer walks to the bus for most riders at affected bus stops and longer rides where the bus can’t use the bus lane. In other words, to accommodate the construction, service has been temporarily degraded. What happens to ridership when service is degraded? And what do you think might happen when the construction is finished and the bus bulbs are in service?)

    And what is your point with the M60.

    I think his point is that, completely independent of SBS, there’s a new option to get to LaGuardia now, attracting a lot of riders who otherwise would have taken the M60. Have you ridden the Q70 yet? It’s much faster than the old Q33, and along with the subway is probably a better route to much of Midtown than the M60, even an upgraded M60.

    (You’ve pointed out numerous times that the B44’s new northbound SBS route has attracted some riders off the B49; how is it that you suddenly don’t understand that the Q70 has attracted some riders off the M60?)

  20. The winter is only one quarter of the year. Your numbers 2 through 6 apply to all routes and doesn’t explain why patronage on four of the seven SBS routes declined greater than te average for the borough’s local buses.

  21. They must have not been teaching before-and-after analyses in grad school in 1974. (Not that they should need to; it’s an obvious concept to any intelligent person.)

  22. I did use a before and after analysis for the B44, also the M60 which I believe is also about a year old. Both show passenger declines. The B44 is a miserable failure just as I have been predicting for the past five years. It could have been successful if the MTA would have adopted my suggestions.

    Continuing to use five year old ridership statistics as the MTA is doing is meaningless. That should be obvious to any intelligent person.

  23. Can you ever take responsibility for your own statements, rather than trying to deflect responsibility onto someone else?

  24. SBS on the M15 began in 2010. If you’re looking at data past 2011, you may no longer be seeing the effects of SBS, but of other factors.

    How is this not obvious to you?

  25. (You’ve pointed out numerous times that the B44’s new northbound SBS route has attracted some riders off the B49; how is it that you suddenly don’t understand that the Q70 has attracted some riders off the M60?)

    It’s funny how easy it is to fail to understand something, even something elementary, when your argument depends on you not understanding it.

  26. So your point is that 2014 M15 ridership is irrelevant because SBS started in 2010. The fact is that in 2014, the M15 has 900,000 fewer riders than it had in 2009 before SBS was instituted and that is very relevant. You can continue to deny the facts insisting that 2011 ridership statistics are more valid in 2015 than 2014 statistics, or blame ridership decreases on things like construction, but all that doesn’t change the truth. You previously made the case that increased ridership was indicative of faster trips fr the passenger. Then passenger decreases indicate slower passenger trips since SBS was instituted.

  27. The fact is that in 2014, the M15 has 900,000 fewer riders than it had in 2009 before SBS was instituted and that is very relevant.

    That depends on what you mean by “relevant.” It’s not something to ignore altogether, so it is “relevant” in that sense, but if you’re trying to specifically evaluate the effects of SBS, it’s too far removed from the introduction of SBS to be “relevant” for that purpose.

    You can continue to deny the facts insisting that 2011 ridership statistics are more valid in 2015 than 2014 statistics, or blame ridership decreases on things like construction, but all that doesn’t change the truth.

    Actually, this sentence makes clear that you are invested in a predetermined outcome and couldn’t care less about the actual truth. If construction, as is likely, is the explanation for the decline in M15 ridership, then why would you not want to highlight that? (Before you bother, I know the answer to that question.)

    You previously made the case that increased ridership was indicative of faster trips fr the passenger. Then passenger decreases indicate slower passenger trips since SBS was instituted.

    Very possibly…but probably for reasons that have nothing to do with SBS. That’s the point.

    You’re really quick to leap on any bit of information that serves your purpose, without stopping to inquire whether it actually, truthfully supports your case or not.

  28. It’s obvious you’re not a real planner. Did you even go to planner school? All real planners know about the four year rule. After an ‘improvement’ if you don’t have a sustained increase after four years then it was a waste. That’s why we know that SBS is a disaster. By we I mean real planners like the brilliant Allan Rosen and myself. The first year people might try it out. But ridership went down after because it took time for people to move and find new jobs and stores to avoid the disaster that SBS has been on 1st and 2nd avenues. SBS has decimated the area. It’ll be even worse on Woodhaven. Woodhaven should never get SBS. The only people pushing it are developers who want to drive down property values so they can pick up land for cheap then undo the disastrous SBS and overdevelop the area for profit.

  29. How is it that, when a before-and-after analysis shows improvements in many areas including but not limited to ridership, you insist that there isn’t enough evidence, but when you see a simple ridership drop, you declare it “definitive proof” of “a mistake failure”? Could it be that you already made up your mind years ago, regardless of the facts?

    I explained to you why M60 ridership dropped. M60 ridership dropped because of a new option for reaching LGA, the Q70, that has been attracting a significant share of the M60’s market.

  30. I certainly do take responsibility for my statements. Now how about answering my question?

  31. I don’t know who you are directing that statement to but it isn’t taking away my parking spaces.

  32. By the same token even looking at the 2011 data, you are also seeing other factors besides SBS like possible improved service levels or reduced fare evasion that may have caused passenger increases. There are always additional factors and they exist in 2011 as well as in 2015. The difference is that what is happening today is what is relevant, not what happened four years ago.

    If I did a study using four year old data to prove something that is happening today, you would be the first one to call my data invalid. But according to you no matter how old MTA or DOT data is, it is still valid today.

  33. Thank you. The people who are pushing Woodhaven BRT/SBS are the same ones who are pushing Queensway, the wasteful bike trail which would be used a hundred days a year so they can kill plans to rebuild the Rockaway Line. That is no coincidence. Queensway will be abandoned after a short piece is built because it will cost too much to complete. Then the right of way will be sold off to developers who will make a killing. This will go unnoticed because the headlines will read “New parkland added to Forest Park.”

    What a shae if that happens to deprive Rockaway of a quick north south 15 minute connection across Queens. Instead we want to give them a road with a lower speed limit so that bus and car trips will take even longer. DOT even admits that outside of the rush hours, The exclusive bus lane will not help bus riders much. But it will make your car trip much longer.

  34. However, I think the odds that both the origin and destination for many are at or near an SBS stop are slim so that an extra walk would be common at least at one end ofthe trip.

    That’s your own pure speculation.

    It certainly doesn’t match my own personal experiences, in which the vast majority of my rides on the lines with SBS have both started and ended closest to SBS stops.

    Of course, I don’t know that my experiences are typical, but I’m not about to accept your blanket assertion that they’re radically atypical. If you intended this to form part of your “definitive proof,” you forgot to provide the proof.

  35. Why would I answer your question? You never have answers to any of mine; all you do is duck responsibility for the wild claims you make.

  36. By the same token even looking at the 2011 data, you are also seeing other factors besides SBS like possible improved service levels or reduced fare evasion that may have caused passenger increases. There are always additional factors and they exist in 2011 as well as in 2015.

    You’re too thick to realize it, but what you’ve just said is that no real conclusions can be drawn about the effects of SBS, good or bad.

    Yet you wrote two columns under the headline, “We Now Have Definitive Proof Select Bus Service (SBS) Is a Failure.” What led you to do that, since by your own admission, that proof cannot be provided?

    The difference is that what is happening today is what is relevant, not what happened four years ago.

    So if I want to look at the effects of the Civil War on American society, I should look at data from today, rather than data from the latter half of the 1860s, because the earlier data is not relevant?!?!? Why do you think that makes sense?

  37. It depends what effects of the Civil War you are looking for. If you want to know what state the US was in right after the Civil War, you collect data from right after the War. If you want to know what effects there are today, you look at what is happening today. And don’t say there are no effects today. A few weeks ago soeone got into trouble trying to fly a Confederate flag.

    As far as SBS is concerned we are interested in what s appending today, not what ridership was in 2009 or 2011.

    And you are correct, no real conclusions an be drawn because we don’t ave enough data. You want to know why the sensational headline? You can blame Andrew for that one. When I insisted we needed data on if passenger trips are quicker or slower with SBS and local as opposed to Limited and Local, he argued with me that passenger data was unnecessary since ridership going up can only ran one thing and one thing only that passenger travel times have to be faster because people vote with their feet.

    If you accept that, then you have to also accept that declining patronage must mean longer trip times. Since patronage only rose significantly on 2 of the 7 SBS routes and declined greater than the borough averages on the other five routes, that would indicate slower passenger trips and therefore failure. If you don’t buy that because you say other factors may be involved, you can’t buy Andrew’s premise either that increased ridership has to mean shorter passenger trips.

  38. It depends what effects of the Civil War you are looking for. If you want to know what state the US was in right after the Civil War, you collect data from right after the War. If you want to know what effects there are today, you look at what is happening today.

    Except that at this remove, the effects are much more attenuated, so the relationship is very hard to reliably establish.

    The principle is the same with looking at SBS four years afterward. There are confounding factors that prevent you from establishing a relationship between SBS and what’s happening today. You’re falling into the post hoc ergo propter hoc trap in a different form, and you don’t even realize it.

    And you are correct, no real conclusions an be drawn because we don’t ave enough data. You want to know why the sensational headline? You can blame Andrew for that one.

    The headline, per se, is not my concern. It’s your reckless willingness to assert a relationship that you can’t prove.

  39. Idiotic question is idiotic. That’s my answer.

    Why don’t you provide some proof of what you’re saying, instead of constantly bitching about the MTA? If you can’t prove what you’re saying, don’t say it.

  40. The fact that patronage on only two of the seven SBS routes increased greater than the borough average in the past year shows they are no better at attracting new patronage than limited or local routes. Barring obtaining any better data, that indicates they are not the success the MTA claims they are. You just insist on ignoring the facts and any data that doesn’t show what you want it to show. I certainly have proved my point.

  41. I have proved it as I stated above. You can’t fool me with your Latin gobbledegook. You don’t know what you are talking about. There were extraneous factors involved when comparing 2010 to 2011 SBS patronage and there are still extraneous factors comparing 2013 to 2014 SBS patronage. The difference is that in 2015, the 2014 data is more relevant than the 2011 data for the M15.

    Also how do you explain that the decline in B44 patronage is twice the borough average? 2014 was tend first full year of B44 SBS operation. We are not talking three years removed on ths route. Don’t forget to reply with a question instead of answering my question or an excuse why you are not answering, like I didn’t answer your last question.

  42. Except he wasn’t being sarcastic. He was talking about Planning principles, something you know nothing about.

  43. I have proved it as I stated above. You can’t fool me with your Latin gobbledegook. You don’t know what you are talking about.

    This is hysterical.

    There were extraneous factors involved when comparing 2010 to 2011 SBS patronage and there are still extraneous factors comparing 2013 to 2014 SBS patronage.

    I think fdtutf was under the impression that you were comparing 2010 to 2014, not 2013 to 2014. In which case extraneous factors obviously have more of an influence over the much longer period of time.

    If you’re comparing 2013 to 2014, though, then your not even comparing the M15 without SBS to the M15 with SBS. Your comparison is entirely meaningless!

    The difference is that in 2015, the 2014 data is more relevant than the 2011 data for the M15.

    No, the difference is that SBS started up on the M15 in the 2010-2011 period, not in the 2013-2014 period. The 2013-2014 comparison may answer lots of interesting questions, but the effectiveness of SBS is not among them.

  44. Then you surely have one source, anywhere, for this supposed planning principle? (Good luck with that.)

  45. If you want to know what effects there are today, you look at what is happening today.

    And you attribute everything that’s happening today to the Civil War? Or do you recognize that lots of other stuff has transpired since the Civil War, and most of what’s happening today is not a direct outcome of the Civil War?

    As far as SBS is concerned we are interested in what s appending today, not what ridership was in 2009 or 2011.

    As far as SBS is concerned, we are actually interested in what happened when SBS started. Comparing ridership between two years when SBS was in effect doesn’t tell us anything about the effectiveness of SBS.

    And you are correct, no real conclusions an be drawn because we don’t ave enough data. You want to know why the sensational headline? You can blame Andrew for that one. When I insisted we needed data on if passenger trips are quicker or slower with SBS and local as opposed to Limited and Local, he argued with me that passenger data was unnecessary since ridership going up can only ran one thing and one thing only that passenger travel times have to be faster because people vote with their feet.

    Nice try, but that’s not what I said. What I said was that many pieces of days are interesting, but the single piece of data that most directly addresses whether SBS was a positive or a negative change for riders is a comparison of ridership trends before and after SBS implementation. If SBS was a net positive change, ridership will tend to increase with implementation, while if SBS was a net negative change, ridership will tend to decrease with implementation, barring any other service changes that might have an impact on ridership (such as Q70 implementation).

    But aside from thoroughly misunderstanding what I said (what else is new?), you also insisted that I was wrong. So why do you now suddenly accept your misinterpretation of what I said back then?

    If you accept that, then you have to also accept that declining patronage must mean longer trip times. Since patronage only rose significantly on 2 of the 7 SBS routes and declined greater than the borough averages on the other five routes, that would indicate slower passenger trips and therefore failure. If you don’t buy that because you say other factors may be involved, you can’t buy Andrew’s premise either that increased ridership has to mean shorter passenger trips.

    I never made the claim that ridership on successful SBS corridors would keep going up and up and up year after year after year. I said that the implementation of a successful SBS corridor would tend to increase ridership. Only the Bx41, B44, and M60 had SBS implementations in the 2013-2014 period that you are looking at, and the M60’s gains due to SBS were offset by losses due to the implementation of Q70 service.

  46. But ridership went down after because it took time for people to move and find new jobs and stores to avoid the disaster that SBS has been on 1st and 2nd avenues. SBS has decimated the area.

    It’s news to me that SBS has “decimated” First and Second avenues. Have you any evidence of that?

  47. I have proved it as I stated above. You can’t fool me with your Latin gobbledegook.

    You haven’t proved a damn thing, and any literate person should know what “per se” means (notwithstanding the fact that many people today misuse it — many people today aren’t literate), and anybody can look up “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to see what it means. Try that. Believe me, you could stand to know.

    There were extraneous factors involved when comparing 2010 to 2011 SBS patronage and there are still extraneous factors comparing 2013 to 2014 SBS patronage.

    Right, but the effects of any change are most clearly seen immediately after it happens. That’s obvious to pretty much everybody except you.

    The difference is that in 2015, the 2014 data is more relevant than the 2011 data for the M15.

    Relevant for what purpose?

    Also how do you explain that the decline in B44 patronage is twice the borough average?

    I can’t, but I’m not the champion conclusion-jumper that you are. Have you even looked for alternative explanations in a sound scientific manner?

  48. It’s news to me that SBS has “decimated” First and Second avenues. Have you any evidence of that?

    You haven’t noticed that nine-tenths of First and Second avenues have gone missing in the wake of SBS?

  49. If construction, as is likely, is the explanation for the decline in M15 ridership, then why would you not want to highligh t that?

    Come to think of it, did all of the temporary (construction) bus stops get fare machines? I don’t think they did. So in addition to a temporary reduction in the attractiveness of the route, some actual riders aren’t being counted, because they’re unable to pay the fare (and the ridership statistics we’re looking at are based on fares paid).

  50. No, that somehow has escaped my notice when I’ve ridden the M15 SBS. I’ll have to look more carefully.

  51. So according to what you said, do you now admit that the B44SBS is a failure and what I said about it back in 2010 calling it a sham was correct?

  52. Relevant to finding out how SBS performance compares with performance of other routes. Apparently it performs no better.

    You are not a conclusion jumper? Didn’t you jump to the conclusion that if ridership rose, it had to mean trips were taking less time and nothing else?

  53. Relevant to finding out how SBS performance compares with performance of other routes. Apparently it performs no better.

    It’s not relevant for that purpose and I’m not going to tell you why for the fiftieth time. You should be able to figure it out for yourself at this point.

    You are not a conclusion jumper? Didn’t you jump to the conclusion that if ridership rose, it had to mean trips were taking less time and nothing else?

    No. You’re confusing me (or possibly your distorted conception of me) with your distorted conception of Andrew.

  54. No. You’re confusing me (or possibly your distorted conception of me) with your distorted conception of Andrew.

    “Distorted” being the operative word.

Comments are closed.