avigutman wrote:
PReciSioN wrote:
Yes, as you suggest,PReciSioN , the officialsCAN arguethat
Quote:
PReciSioN
URS has increased ridership of non-commuters which has decreased traffic congestion (albeit by a smallamount.)
And, if theyhad argued that, it would indeed be a flaw for them to not havegiven
Quote:
PReciSioN
any information about the ridership ofnon-commuters
But that wasn't their argument... They argued commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
When evaluating a response's vulnerabilities to criticisms, one must stick to what that response WAS, not to what that response COULD havebeen.
Ahh, I see!!avigutman ,
So while stating that commuting trips in the city represent just 20% of urban travel, the officials' logic was "well, commuting trips are just 20% of urban travel, so they probably don't cause much traffic congestion as well" instead of "commuting trips are 20% of urban travel, so even if URS was not effective for them, it was (assumed) effective for
...
Statistics : Posted by PReciSioN • on 22 Apr 2020, 00:24 • Replies 22 • Views 31008
.jpg)
