Wow, so okay! I totally can post on this blog now. What shall I use to mark this monumental occasion? What sonnet shall spring forth from my words of wisdom? What brilliant post can I use to leave my legacy on this blog? What incredible, original, shocking truth will I bring to light in this commune of the wise?
...screw it, here's another picture of TriMet doing weird stuff.
~Cameron
15 comments:
How does removing the shelter "save" money.
just leave it there and it costs nothing but moving it means manpower and expense!
At least put it somewhere it could be useful! (Foster and 94th, I'm sure Erik has many ideas of where it could go.)
How many MAX shelters are being removed in the name of budget constraints?
How many Transit Tracker signs are being removed in the name of budget constraints?
Or, why does TriMet continue to provide 24/7 maintenance and operational expense for the WES platforms that are only open seven hours a day, five days a week? Those stations require electricity, telephone service, landscaping and garbage service all the time, why not remove those shelters, TVMs, telephones, lights and trees - and move them to serve paying bus riders?
One thing about ERIK-he is definitely consistent!
You're right Al - every time I take a moment to determine the factual accuracy of one of Erik's claims I find out that it's WRONG!
Very consistent, indeed!
Now Max-that is not what I said!
*face-palm* this is the exact same thing they did down at the 58 stop at 110th and canyon. That stop USED TO have a shelter. Then trimess put one of those signs up and it was gone the next day.
Actually, Erik's right in that almost anything spent on WES facilities is way out of proportion to any benefits provided by WES to area transportation.
It's a total "Potemkin Village" operation for the Feds and Trimet management.
Max, I see that once again you make a personal attack statement but you can't even prove one thing you say.
The ONLY "fact" I stated was:
"Or, why does TriMet continue to provide 24/7 maintenance and operational expense for the WES platforms that are only open seven hours a day, five days a week? Those stations require electricity, telephone service, landscaping and garbage service all the time"
Must I actually go to the Tigard Transit Center and take a photograph of the WES shelter that has lighting turned on at 9:00 PM (a full hour after the end of service), the TVM that is turned on (and requires a telephone line), the telephone that TriMet pays for, the Transit Tracker sign, the garbage can...because apparently I'm lying through my teeth about all those things? Maybe I should take a video of the PGE electric meter to show you that it's "spinning" (since digital meters don't actually spin but simulate a spin)?
You clearly can't validate your argument so instead of focusing on the issues I bring up, the only thing you can do is attempt to attack me personally. I'm not sure if that's because you have some fetish or attraction or jealousy...or just you have nothing better to do so why not take out your sexual aggravations on someone else. Look, move on. I ride the bus every day, I see the service, I put up with TriMet's shit. You have had many opportunities to prove me wrong, and you've said plenty enough that I am wrong, but you have never once proved me wrong.
Pff... Erik, you can't really complain about personal attacks and then... you kind of make a personal attack.
I definitely agree that TriMet needs massive attention to their shelters and the amenities they give to bus stops. I'm not saying every stop should have WES like amenities but definitely the bigger ones, some of which don't have much of anything at all (82nd at Insley/Foster, Lents Town Center, several places in the West Side I'm sure). I know it's not like we can move WES stops to bus stops, though.
On a side note, I've always found it funny how there's a bus shelter on the Eastbound side of Foster at 82nd (where the bus only has a few more stops to go until it reaches the MAX station and the end of the route) but two uncovered, breaking benches on the Westbound site (where the whole rest of its route is.) It'd be a lot more sensible to trade a bench on the West for the shelter on the East due to the amount of volume and productivity. But then again- TriMet? Sensible? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.
Now two of these notices have shown up today on 2 of the 3 shelters the 51 has on the line. One at sw salmon & 20th and one at sw vista and main st.
I've got a question for you, trimet. How does it save you money to spend time and money removing a bus shelter that you don't maintain in the first place?
God I wish you guys would STOP THIS BICKERING!
Wow, ain't that lovely. Using that as an excuse to get rid of bus shelters on low-service routes. I have a feeling they're prepping them for elimination or something.
Also, this picture was taken on NE 102nd at Weidler. At the moment, it has 4 boarding rides a weekday. But a new route (line 87) will begin service there. I bet the BR/VH will increase... although that's still on the end of the line. AGAIN, THOUGH, THERE IS NO SHELTER ACROSS THE STREET GOING NORTHBOUND where there is two bus lines (22 to Parkrose, 24 to Fremont) and a third to go there (87 to Airport Way, 181st and Eastman) this fall.
Well, I see that not one of my statements has been proven wrong.
Erik -
I said this:
"You're right Al - every time I take a moment to determine the factual accuracy of one of Erik's claims I find out that it's WRONG! Very consistent, indeed!"
Off the top of my head, here are the last 3 things I took a moment to check factual accuracy, all of which were wrong:
1) You said TriMet didn't receive federal money for buses, which it did (the link you provided even said that).
2) You made the claim that YouthPass was used by students during the the summer, which it's not.
3) You said (several times) that TriMet has no contingency bus fleet, which it absolutely does. (you can read about that, and several other things you said that were wrong here)
As I said before, every time I take a moment to fact check something you say, you're consistently wrong. That is factually correct -- not subject to opinion.
If you consider this a personal attack, well then I don't know what to tell you - I guess that's your opinion.
In my opinion, I would characterize a personal attack as being more like the time you said that Jason had an "insane sexual fascination with [you]"
As for whatever it is you're saying above, I haven't read it. I read only Al's comment -- that you're consistent.
Post a Comment