Affidavit in Support of Bus Safety Transportation

Posted by Sheri Harris on Sunday, May 23, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Plaintiff

v.

Defendant

In pursuant to procedure, I herewith attest that the following statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

That on May 13, 2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system in order to inquire about transportation routes and service regarding buses going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
The contents of the e-mail were intended to be of serious measure as the lack of transportation in that area affects the plaintiff resulting from a dangerous walk on to the service ramp of 287.
The contents of the e-mail sent were meant to address the issue of the Beeline Bus service and it's reluctance to stop at buildings where they have bus stops at.
The contents of the e-mail sent discussed the dangers of those who have to walk from designated areas to get to and from work in that vicinity.
The contents of the e-mail sent on May 13, 2010 were not responded to, given that Bee-line failed to respond to transportation concers of the plaintiff another e-mail was sent to the Bee-line service on May 15, 2010.
That on May 15,2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system to furthur initiate a response from them regarding transportation issues for bus service going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
That on May 15, 2010 the Bee-line bus service issued this emailed response stating that "In order to efficiently operate mass transit, there needs to be a mass."
The Plaintiff's response to this is that they have the transit of passengers to do so on the A loop shuttle.
The Bee-line bus service furthur stated that "Ridership on the route #5 north of White Plains lacks the critical mass. As such, morning service on the #5 is hourly."
Plaintiff's response to the Bee-line statement is, there are several busses that do not have many passengers that travel on them during certain times of the day but Beeline does not hesitate and continues to provide ridership to these routes.
Furthurmore, the Bee-line provides service to the Amalgamated Insurance Company although they have a bus service of their own and Bee-line still expects any person who needs to be transported to any of the other office Buildings located adjacent to Amalgamated or on North Street to trespass through Amalgamated in order to access North Street safely in order to avoid walking across the 287 service route to get on to North Street.

The plaintiff maintains that she is not asking for anything extreme or unnecessary. 
The plaintiff questions why Bee-line favors trespassing for its commuters and has placed a limit or rush hour bus operations instead of utilizing and stopping its buses at bus stops during the times in which they travel past by them.

The e-mail that the plaintiff received from Bee-line also included  a statement that "Beeline bus schedules are designed to meet passenger demand, not speculation. We don't waste scarce transit funding on routes that are unproductive and serve a minimal number of passengers. Instead we invest in service that serves as many people, as frequently as necessary at a cost that is reasonable."

Conclusion: With such a schedule of satire beeline makes it's money off its pessimism in value towards its riders. Beeline charges for fares but its passengers are subjected to limited ridership availability in that the beeline bus service ultimately causes riders to walk or pay in expense for a taxi to travel to places that the buses refuse to stop at or because of limits in frequent times of travel to certain bus stops. Therefore, riders are paying roundtrip expenses with transfer for a one way ride and walk. Beeline and its workers in uniform backhandedly assist of their services in harm to those that are subjected to Beelines one-way ridership and walk exploits. Bee-line has not invested in any of their services. Bee-line recieve monies and takes all at the safety and expense in mercy of its riders. Furthurmore, Beeline's comical and hospitable focus on limiting rush hour transportation to appeal to those they cater to along with themselves for entertainment purposes by danger and trespass is simply appalling.

Dated: May 23,2010                           Attest: A. Sadiq                   
                                                                  On Behalf of Pieces





null

Affidavit in Support of Bus Safety Transportation

Posted by Sheri Harris on Sunday, May 23, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Plaintiff

v.

Defendant

In pursuant to procedure, I herewith attest that the following statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

That on May 13, 2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system in order to inquire about transportation routes and service regarding buses going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
The contents of the e-mail were intended to be of serious measure as the lack of transportation in that area affects the plaintiff resulting from a dangerous walk on to the service ramp of 287.
The contents of the e-mail sent were meant to address the issue of the Beeline Bus service and it's reluctance to stop at buildings where they have bus stops at.
The contents of the e-mail sent discussed the dangers of those who have to walk from designated areas to get to and from work in that vicinity.
The contents of the e-mail sent on May 13, 2010 were not responded to, given that Bee-line failed to respond to transportation concers of the plaintiff another e-mail was sent to the Bee-line service on May 15, 2010.
That on May 15,2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system to furthur initiate a response from them regarding transportation issues for bus service going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
That on May 15, 2010 the Bee-line bus service issued this emailed response stating that "In order to efficiently operate mass transit, there needs to be a mass."
The Plaintiff's response to this is that they have the transit of passengers to do so on the A loop shuttle.
The Bee-line bus service furthur stated that "Ridership on the route #5 north of White Plains lacks the critical mass. As such, morning service on the #5 is hourly."
Plaintiff's response to the Bee-line statement is, there are several busses that do not have many passengers that travel on them during certain times of the day but Beeline does not hesitate and continues to provide ridership to these routes.
Furthurmore, the Bee-line provides service to the Amalgamated Insurance Company although they have a bus service of their own and Bee-line still expects any person who needs to be transported to any of the other office Buildings located adjacent to Amalgamated or on North Street to trespass through Amalgamated in order to access North Street safely in order to avoid walking across the 287 service route to get on to North Street.

The plaintiff maintains that she is not asking for anything extreme or unnecessary. 
The plaintiff questions why Bee-line favors trespassing for its commuters and has placed a limit or rush hour bus operations instead of utilizing and stopping its buses at bus stops during the times in which they travel past by them.

The e-mail that the plaintiff received from Bee-line also included  a statement that "Beeline bus schedules are designed to meet passenger demand, not speculation. We don't waste scarce transit funding on routes that are unproductive and serve a minimal number of passengers. Instead we invest in service that serves as many people, as frequently as necessary at a cost that is reasonable."

Conclusion: With such a schedule of satire beeline makes it's money off its pessimism in value towards its riders. Beeline charges for fares but its passengers are subjected to limited ridership availability in that the beeline bus service ultimately causes riders to walk or pay in expense for a taxi to travel to places that the buses refuse to stop at or because of limits in frequent times of travel to certain bus stops. Therefore, riders are paying roundtrip expenses with transfer for a one way ride and walk. Beeline and its workers in uniform backhandedly assist of their services in harm to those that are subjected to Beelines one-way ridership and walk exploits. Bee-line has not invested in any of their services. Bee-line recieve monies and takes all at the safety and expense in mercy of its riders. Furthurmore, Beeline's comical and hospitable focus on limiting rush hour transportation to appeal to those they cater to along with themselves for entertainment purposes by danger and trespass is simply appalling.

Dated: May 23,2010                           Attest: A. Sadiq                   
                                                                  On Behalf of Pieces





null

Affidavit in Support of Bus Safety Transportation

Posted by Sheri Harris on Sunday, May 23, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Plaintiff

v.

Defendant

In pursuant to procedure, I herewith attest that the following statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

That on May 13, 2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system in order to inquire about transportation routes and service regarding buses going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
The contents of the e-mail were intended to be of serious measure as the lack of transportation in that area affects the plaintiff resulting from a dangerous walk on to the service ramp of 287.
The contents of the e-mail sent were meant to address the issue of the Beeline Bus service and it's reluctance to stop at buildings where they have bus stops at.
The contents of the e-mail sent discussed the dangers of those who have to walk from designated areas to get to and from work in that vicinity.
The contents of the e-mail sent on May 13, 2010 were not responded to, given that Bee-line failed to respond to transportation concers of the plaintiff another e-mail was sent to the Bee-line service on May 15, 2010.
That on May 15,2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system to furthur initiate a response from them regarding transportation issues for bus service going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
That on May 15, 2010 the Bee-line bus service issued this emailed response stating that "In order to efficiently operate mass transit, there needs to be a mass."
The Plaintiff's response to this is that they have the transit of passengers to do so on the A loop shuttle.
The Bee-line bus service furthur stated that "Ridership on the route #5 north of White Plains lacks the critical mass. As such, morning service on the #5 is hourly."
Plaintiff's response to the Bee-line statement is, there are several busses that do not have many passengers that travel on them during certain times of the day but Beeline does not hesitate and continues to provide ridership to these routes.
Furthurmore, the Bee-line provides service to the Amalgamated Insurance Company although they have a bus service of their own and Bee-line still expects any person who needs to be transported to any of the other office Buildings located adjacent to Amalgamated or on North Street to trespass through Amalgamated in order to access North Street safely in order to avoid walking across the 287 service route to get on to North Street.

The plaintiff maintains that she is not asking for anything extreme or unnecessary. 
The plaintiff questions why Bee-line favors trespassing for its commuters and has placed a limit or rush hour bus operations instead of utilizing and stopping its buses at bus stops during the times in which they travel past by them.

The e-mail that the plaintiff received from Bee-line also included  a statement that "Beeline bus schedules are designed to meet passenger demand, not speculation. We don't waste scarce transit funding on routes that are unproductive and serve a minimal number of passengers. Instead we invest in service that serves as many people, as frequently as necessary at a cost that is reasonable."

Conclusion: With such a schedule of satire beeline makes it's money off its pessimism in value towards its riders. Beeline charges for fares but its passengers are subjected to limited ridership availability in that the beeline bus service ultimately causes riders to walk or pay in expense for a taxi to travel to places that the buses refuse to stop at or because of limits in frequent times of travel to certain bus stops. Therefore, riders are paying roundtrip expenses with transfer for a one way ride and walk. Beeline and its workers in uniform backhandedly assist of their services in harm to those that are subjected to Beelines one-way ridership and walk exploits. Bee-line has not invested in any of their services. Bee-line recieve monies and takes all at the safety and expense in mercy of its riders. Furthurmore, Beeline's comical and hospitable focus on limiting rush hour transportation to appeal to those they cater to along with themselves for entertainment purposes by danger and trespass is simply appalling.

Dated: May 23,2010                           Attest: A. Sadiq                   
                                                                  On Behalf of Pieces





null

Affidavit in Support of Bus Safety Transportation

Posted by Sheri Harris on Sunday, May 23, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Plaintiff

v.

Defendant

In pursuant to procedure, I herewith attest that the following statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

That on May 13, 2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system in order to inquire about transportation routes and service regarding buses going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
The contents of the e-mail were intended to be of serious measure as the lack of transportation in that area affects the plaintiff resulting from a dangerous walk on to the service ramp of 287.
The contents of the e-mail sent were meant to address the issue of the Beeline Bus service and it's reluctance to stop at buildings where they have bus stops at.
The contents of the e-mail sent discussed the dangers of those who have to walk from designated areas to get to and from work in that vicinity.
The contents of the e-mail sent on May 13, 2010 were not responded to, given that Bee-line failed to respond to transportation concers of the plaintiff another e-mail was sent to the Bee-line service on May 15, 2010.
That on May 15,2010 the plaintiff e-mailed the Bee-line Bus system to furthur initiate a response from them regarding transportation issues for bus service going along North Street in White Plains, New York.
That on May 15, 2010 the Bee-line bus service issued this emailed response stating that "In order to efficiently operate mass transit, there needs to be a mass."
The Plaintiff's response to this is that they have the transit of passengers to do so on the A loop shuttle.
The Bee-line bus service furthur stated that "Ridership on the route #5 north of White Plains lacks the critical mass. As such, morning service on the #5 is hourly."
Plaintiff's response to the Bee-line statement is, there are several busses that do not have many passengers that travel on them during certain times of the day but Beeline does not hesitate and continues to provide ridership to these routes.
Furthurmore, the Bee-line provides service to the Amalgamated Insurance Company although they have a bus service of their own and Bee-line still expects any person who needs to be transported to any of the other office Buildings located adjacent to Amalgamated or on North Street to trespass through Amalgamated in order to access North Street safely in order to avoid walking across the 287 service route to get on to North Street.

The plaintiff maintains that she is not asking for anything extreme or unnecessary. 
The plaintiff questions why Bee-line favors trespassing for its commuters and has placed a limit or rush hour bus operations instead of utilizing and stopping its buses at bus stops during the times in which they travel past by them.

The e-mail that the plaintiff received from Bee-line also included  a statement that "Beeline bus schedules are designed to meet passenger demand, not speculation. We don't waste scarce transit funding on routes that are unproductive and serve a minimal number of passengers. Instead we invest in service that serves as many people, as frequently as necessary at a cost that is reasonable."

Conclusion: With such a schedule of satire beeline makes it's money off its pessimism in value towards its riders. Beeline charges for fares but its passengers are subjected to limited ridership availability in that the beeline bus service ultimately causes riders to walk or pay in expense for a taxi to travel to places that the buses refuse to stop at or because of limits in frequent times of travel to certain bus stops. Therefore, riders are paying roundtrip expenses with transfer for a one way ride and walk. Beeline and its workers in uniform backhandedly assist of their services in harm to those that are subjected to Beelines one-way ridership and walk exploits. Bee-line has not invested in any of their services. Bee-line recieve monies and takes all at the safety and expense in mercy of its riders. Furthurmore, Beeline's comical and hospitable focus on limiting rush hour transportation to appeal to those they cater to along with themselves for entertainment purposes by danger and trespass is simply appalling.

Dated: May 23,2010                           Attest: A. Sadiq                   
                                                                  On Behalf of Pieces





null