Friday, September 12, 2008
Adjustment to Polls
As of today, we feel that we now have enough polls that have been published in September to drop our older polls from August. This will allow us to drop the polls which did not account for all 5 parties (thereby making our poll projections add up to more than 100%). We will be adopting a new methodology where we do not accept polls that do not show the result for all 5 parties. It appears as though Environics, Ekos, the Strategic Council, and Nanos (former SES) will be taking regular polls throughout the election, so we do not expect the missing of one or two polls to be a problem as we fully expect 40-60 polls during the election.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tories close in on majority
As news that the Greens will be in the debate after all hits the airwaves, our newest projection shows the Tories closing in on majority territory.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Commentary
First, I want to point out that over on our forum, the Information Bin there are riding-by-riding projections in map form. I'll be adding more information here within the week, so check it out for the latest news!
Now on to the Greens. Why do I have them at 1, and the NDP at 2 in Quebec? First, the Greens. Check the major news websites, CTV, CBC, and so on. They are all considering the Greens a major party, and all have Elizabeth May as one of "The Party Leaders" This makes for a powerful argument that only she can defeat Peter MacKay (Remember, the Liberals are not running here). Although math would tell us the NDP has the best chance (and we think they would - MacKay could finish third) the argument that a party leader can knock off MacKay is much stronger. For this reason, we project a May victory in Central Nova.
Why the NDP in Quebec? One of the key assumptions we are making here is that the Liberals will not be able to hold on to current polling levels in La belle province. The party is very short on cash, its lacking organization, and Dion, who is just disliked in the rest of the country, is hated by some in Quebec. If the Liberals do drop in Quebec, and we think they will, the NDP will be able to edge them out in ridings in urban Montreal. We project them winning Outremont and Westmount.
Here are the polling averages we are working with
More details are on our forum!
Now on to the Greens. Why do I have them at 1, and the NDP at 2 in Quebec? First, the Greens. Check the major news websites, CTV, CBC, and so on. They are all considering the Greens a major party, and all have Elizabeth May as one of "The Party Leaders" This makes for a powerful argument that only she can defeat Peter MacKay (Remember, the Liberals are not running here). Although math would tell us the NDP has the best chance (and we think they would - MacKay could finish third) the argument that a party leader can knock off MacKay is much stronger. For this reason, we project a May victory in Central Nova.
Why the NDP in Quebec? One of the key assumptions we are making here is that the Liberals will not be able to hold on to current polling levels in La belle province. The party is very short on cash, its lacking organization, and Dion, who is just disliked in the rest of the country, is hated by some in Quebec. If the Liberals do drop in Quebec, and we think they will, the NDP will be able to edge them out in ridings in urban Montreal. We project them winning Outremont and Westmount.
Here are the polling averages we are working with
More details are on our forum!
More information
Note that I've added a link in the list to the right of the page to the Information Bin
http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Information_Bin/index/
This forum is tied to our blog, and will be used to host information that cannot really fit here. For example, the poll-by-poll results that we use to determine our calculations; and shortly, riding-by-riding predictions and maps.
http://s3.zetaboards.com/The_Information_Bin/index/
This forum is tied to our blog, and will be used to host information that cannot really fit here. For example, the poll-by-poll results that we use to determine our calculations; and shortly, riding-by-riding predictions and maps.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Methodology
Unfortunately, what kind of polling atmosphere we will have this election is as of yet unknown. I have an ideal methodology, however weather or not I can use it will depend on how many polls come out and from whom. In short, our methodology is as follows.
All the polls from the past three days are averaged, with no one pollster being allowed to carry more then half of that average. Polls from four to seven days ago are also averaged, and given a weight of half. The success of this, of course will depend on how many polls come out every week. If two pollsters do daily rolling polls, this is super, however if we are limited to just one, then our methodology will be difficult to do. Currently, while the polls are sparse, we are using a modified methodology that weights polls from the further past more then we otherwise would.
We take these polling numbers and put them into UBC’s 2008 election forecaster. Using a special method that allows us to increase the vote of each party without swinging it from another party, we then raise or lower the vote of that party so it matches our poll average. We will also take into account the projections offered by democratic space blog, and may give this it’s own weight in our calculations.
Lastly, we then take into account each riding. We will check election prediction blog and look at the “swing” ridings, seat by seat. We then make a judgment call (a human one) based on the information available, and the margin of victory in the simulation. I feel this addition of a human element to be critical to the success of any simulation.
In the end, what we end up with is a prediction that takes into account all the elements needed to properly “see into the future”.
All the polls from the past three days are averaged, with no one pollster being allowed to carry more then half of that average. Polls from four to seven days ago are also averaged, and given a weight of half. The success of this, of course will depend on how many polls come out every week. If two pollsters do daily rolling polls, this is super, however if we are limited to just one, then our methodology will be difficult to do. Currently, while the polls are sparse, we are using a modified methodology that weights polls from the further past more then we otherwise would.
We take these polling numbers and put them into UBC’s 2008 election forecaster. Using a special method that allows us to increase the vote of each party without swinging it from another party, we then raise or lower the vote of that party so it matches our poll average. We will also take into account the projections offered by democratic space blog, and may give this it’s own weight in our calculations.
Lastly, we then take into account each riding. We will check election prediction blog and look at the “swing” ridings, seat by seat. We then make a judgment call (a human one) based on the information available, and the margin of victory in the simulation. I feel this addition of a human element to be critical to the success of any simulation.
In the end, what we end up with is a prediction that takes into account all the elements needed to properly “see into the future”.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Current Projection - Sep 4
On the eve of the election, we have our first projection here at niXtuff. Please bear with us while we get used to the formatting needed to make this work properly.
Our first projection is two days old, but still valid, despite new polls showing the Tories winning potentially two dozen seats in Quebec.
Our methodology will be posted soon!
We encourage our readers to also keep track of other projection websites such as
Election Prediction and Democratic Space
Our first projection is two days old, but still valid, despite new polls showing the Tories winning potentially two dozen seats in Quebec.
Our methodology will be posted soon!
We encourage our readers to also keep track of other projection websites such as
Election Prediction and Democratic Space
Friday, September 5, 2008
Re-Launch
Note that Nixtuff is being re-launched. Following the federal election we will return to our focus on Public Transit issues in the GTA,
All the older posts on the blog (which are currently mostly part of a series either explaining why I believe the things I do, or explain things) will be saved. Any that are about 'current events' of that time will be saved in place, whereas the more "Educational" entries will be removed, reworked, and re-posted at a later date.
Happy reading!
~Nick
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Allergies
I want to apologize to my regular readers (if I have any yet!) for my continuing absences. I've recently moved to a new address and this place aggravates my allergies. I’m working on this, however, and hope to be back to full speed shortly.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Does Dan McTeague want to be Prime Minister?
I click onto the 680 news webpage to find, yet again, another headline mentioning Dan McTeague. As if it was not enough that he’s taken the lead for the Liberals on the Brenda Martin affair, or that he always seems to ‘know’ what the price of gas will be tomorrow morning (insider information anyone?) but now he’s at the forefront attacking the oil companies for huge profits.
Not that there is anything particularly wrong with what he is saying, he raises good points and has good information, but the fact that he seems to always be in the spotlight comes across to me as very strange for someone who is not considered within the top brass of the Liberal Party. While people know about the rocky reception that Dion has received since election, we know less about the internal party politics. If Dion were to go who would follow? Iggy? Rae? That’s possible, but remember that these were the two people who could not beat Dion. Liberals might be looking for a real winner, add to that someone who does not carry the baggage that Iggy and Rae do. Someone from Ontario who still has (relative) youth, who can keep the Liberal lock on Toronto while also having a real shot at winning.
I for one think that McTeague could definitely be a huge threat in the next Liberal leadership race, whenever it comes. Weather or not he desires any position of power, however, remains to be seen.
Not that there is anything particularly wrong with what he is saying, he raises good points and has good information, but the fact that he seems to always be in the spotlight comes across to me as very strange for someone who is not considered within the top brass of the Liberal Party. While people know about the rocky reception that Dion has received since election, we know less about the internal party politics. If Dion were to go who would follow? Iggy? Rae? That’s possible, but remember that these were the two people who could not beat Dion. Liberals might be looking for a real winner, add to that someone who does not carry the baggage that Iggy and Rae do. Someone from Ontario who still has (relative) youth, who can keep the Liberal lock on Toronto while also having a real shot at winning.
I for one think that McTeague could definitely be a huge threat in the next Liberal leadership race, whenever it comes. Weather or not he desires any position of power, however, remains to be seen.
Monday, April 28, 2008
TTC Strike over
The TTC strike has ended. Buses, Streetcars, and Subway trains are once again rolling in Toronto.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
TTC on strike
It's happened yet again. The TTC has walked out without warning; well almost. This time they gave us an hour's warning (literally) as compared to last time when the only warning was the lack of buses. So a big thanks, to all in the union, who care about us enough to give us that 48 hour notice they promiced. And some people have yet to clue in why I became a Conservative...
Friday, April 25, 2008
GO Double Deckers
According to a posting on Transit Toronto, GO's double decker buses will be entering service on monday morning, running from York U to Oakville.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
TTC – Essential?
I’d like to touch on the idea that the TTC is an essential service. If you pick up a dictionary you might think it is, but if you look at history, you might say no. I for one think it’s odd that all of a sudden after 5 years as Premier, Dalton has come to the conclusion that the TTC is important. I am no fan of Dalton; he grumbles that Harris cut funding to things like Transit, then does nothing to restore that funding. Regardless, that’s another battle for another time. First of all lets examine what it means to be an essential service.
The so-called “Essential services act” (more of a name then a real act, at least in Ontario) defines that certain services are “essential” and that employees providing that service therefore cannot strike. Fire, Police, and Medical services are covered by this. Anyone who’s ever had to be rushed to the hospital would understand why – who’d want the doctor to say “sorry, on strike”. Despite this, certain locales allow some medical professionals to take part in labour action. While I’m not certain of the numbers, I believe that somewhere on the order of 15% of paramedics are allowed to be “on strike” at any time. This means the service is still provided, and it does its job, but not at 100%. It is from this idea that I have my possible solution to the entire problem.
Europe is not faced with the same system-wide strikes that we are, at least not London. Anyone who is aware will know that London is not run by one company, rather different bus lines can be run by different companies, and even the tube is divided amongst two companies. This means that any “Transit Strike” only takes down part of the network. Those who cannot take their usual north-south bus, can hop on the local east-west bus and find another way. This is one of the two options that I see for the TTC – having only part of the network go down at any time.
This could be done in one of two ways. First would be to divide the TTC, and second would be to make certain routes “Essential”. In the first example, we could split the TTC into Bus and Rail services. Perhaps on Monday all rail (streetcar and subway) services will not operate, while all of the regular bus services will. On Tuesday this could be reversed. This would allow the union to call the shots (decide which half of the network goes down) but also allow for people to get where they are going, although with great difficulty. The second method using this option is to declare parts of the network “Essential”. For example, all rapid transit lines plus bus routes on Eglinton, Finch, Dufferin, and so on. This would allow the union to take down a part of the network while leaving a skeleton network operating.
Although these two options have their good points, I favour a third option. Part of the rationale behind any Labour action in any service industry is to make a point – that is to say “we are on strike and here is why”. Having a limit of 50% might do that. This would mean that only 50% of the buses run, and only 50% of the subways. This would mean that each transit vehicle would be very crowded – point made – but that people would still be able to get to their destinations via transit. This would not be without it’s problems, it would have to be decided how 50% would work, especially on routes that are normally serviced by, for example, 3 buses. In general each route would have half as many buses
While neither of these are attractive options, I point out that either a system-wide strike or taking away the right to strike is even less so.
The so-called “Essential services act” (more of a name then a real act, at least in Ontario) defines that certain services are “essential” and that employees providing that service therefore cannot strike. Fire, Police, and Medical services are covered by this. Anyone who’s ever had to be rushed to the hospital would understand why – who’d want the doctor to say “sorry, on strike”. Despite this, certain locales allow some medical professionals to take part in labour action. While I’m not certain of the numbers, I believe that somewhere on the order of 15% of paramedics are allowed to be “on strike” at any time. This means the service is still provided, and it does its job, but not at 100%. It is from this idea that I have my possible solution to the entire problem.
Europe is not faced with the same system-wide strikes that we are, at least not London. Anyone who is aware will know that London is not run by one company, rather different bus lines can be run by different companies, and even the tube is divided amongst two companies. This means that any “Transit Strike” only takes down part of the network. Those who cannot take their usual north-south bus, can hop on the local east-west bus and find another way. This is one of the two options that I see for the TTC – having only part of the network go down at any time.
This could be done in one of two ways. First would be to divide the TTC, and second would be to make certain routes “Essential”. In the first example, we could split the TTC into Bus and Rail services. Perhaps on Monday all rail (streetcar and subway) services will not operate, while all of the regular bus services will. On Tuesday this could be reversed. This would allow the union to call the shots (decide which half of the network goes down) but also allow for people to get where they are going, although with great difficulty. The second method using this option is to declare parts of the network “Essential”. For example, all rapid transit lines plus bus routes on Eglinton, Finch, Dufferin, and so on. This would allow the union to take down a part of the network while leaving a skeleton network operating.
Although these two options have their good points, I favour a third option. Part of the rationale behind any Labour action in any service industry is to make a point – that is to say “we are on strike and here is why”. Having a limit of 50% might do that. This would mean that only 50% of the buses run, and only 50% of the subways. This would mean that each transit vehicle would be very crowded – point made – but that people would still be able to get to their destinations via transit. This would not be without it’s problems, it would have to be decided how 50% would work, especially on routes that are normally serviced by, for example, 3 buses. In general each route would have half as many buses
While neither of these are attractive options, I point out that either a system-wide strike or taking away the right to strike is even less so.
Going back online.
This is a notice that this blog is going back online effective today. Following the completion of my argument and central point that Transit, while useful, is not the be-all-end-all, I intend to turn this into a blog for the discussion of transit, and transit related issues. I will begin that discussion shortly, with a topic on the coming possible strike.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Why I don't take Transit Part 2
A few more answers:
"The bus does not go where most of my work is... much of my work is in mostly rural areas."
"It would require 3 buses ($9/day) [including a transfer stopover] lasting about 2 1/2 hours"
"in my field of work, you need your own truck. Can you imagine getting on a bus with toolboxes, construction gear, a few ladders, etc etc?? "
"Simply put, public transportation is inconvenient ...if I work past 6, I have to wait almost an hour before I can leave...I have to wait 20 minutes then it will take another 45-50 minutes to get there providing that traffic is light and there are no delays with other riders...Once I...woke up late...the next [bus] arrives 40 minutes later."
One of the more interesting I’ve found while asking people I know is that many of them need their car for work. For example, my boss’ wife does. My boss’ boss needs a car for work too. Others need a car because while they might live and work in areas served by public transport, they don’t work in the same place all the time, and they may live far from their workplace on that particular day.
One of the favoruite arguments for transit is that it’s more efficient. I thought about this as I sat in a cab trailing a streetcar on dundas this morning. Sure, there’s 1 passenger in the cab, and perhaps 50 on the streetcar, but is it really more efficient? Well that depends on in what regard. Lets take this example
100 people need to get from Spadina and Dundas to Dufferin and Lawrence. 50 of them take taxicabs and 50 take transit. The 50 that pile into taxicabs use 50 cars. This, if my math is correct, uses 800 feet of roadspace. The other 50 pile into one streetcar and use 54 feet of roadspace. At Dundas and Dufferin the taxicabs turn, while the transit riders transfer into one bus, and now use 40 feet of roadspace! Wow amazing, that’s quite a bit more efficient right? Imagine the petroleum saved too! Of course, none of that takes into account that the cab ride will take you 15 minutes, and the transit ride could take as long as 45. In fact your average transit ride VS your average car ride, within city limits, could take you two to three times as long.
Taking the subway in rush can lower that and at times can be competitive even, which is great if your working at king and bay from 9-5, but what if you work at Warden and Ellesmere from 9-5, or at King and Bay overnight? I’ve done both and trust me, transit is not convenient in these cases. Even during winter storms, I can get home faster by calling a taxicab (including the time it takes for the cab to arrive after placing the call) from my current workplace near Yonge and Finch to my house at Christie and Dupont. If I take a cab I get to sit there and, if I want to, start a conversation. If I don’t, just relax. If I take the subway I get the pleasure of standing for 30 minutes after already working all day, or if I wish to sacrifice 10-15 minutes, get to North York Centre and head north. Of course that is all dependant on the train not going out of service. Even if I do manage to get a seat, people older then me or with children love to single me out (due to my youth) and ask me to get the hell out of my seat so they can sit down. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve offered my seat to many a person, but after a hard days work I just want to be left alone. To be honest, the transit trip home is killing me mentally to the point that I am going to either quit or move because I cannot stand it anymore.
It takes me two hours to get to and from work, whereas driving would do the same for me in one hour. It’s $100 for a metropass, but I’m sure that gas and insurance would run me quite a bit more, even upward of $500 a month. Remember though, that each month I get to spend an extra 20 hours in transit, either riding on crowded morning trains, or on late night trains where teenagers literally jump off the seats and the operators do nothing because they fear for their safety just as much as I’m fearing for mine. This leads us back to a math. I’d need to spend $20 each day to eliminate that extra hour in transit (by driving) For me, that’s not worth it, however there are those for whom it is worth it. Transit is, for them, not efficient because of the time it takes up. Transit might be more efficient in many ways, but when it comes to time, it is not, and for those for whom time is important, the argument that a streetcar can fit more people then a Toyota is not going to go far in convincing them.
"The bus does not go where most of my work is... much of my work is in mostly rural areas."
"It would require 3 buses ($9/day) [including a transfer stopover] lasting about 2 1/2 hours"
"in my field of work, you need your own truck. Can you imagine getting on a bus with toolboxes, construction gear, a few ladders, etc etc?? "
"Simply put, public transportation is inconvenient ...if I work past 6, I have to wait almost an hour before I can leave...I have to wait 20 minutes then it will take another 45-50 minutes to get there providing that traffic is light and there are no delays with other riders...Once I...woke up late...the next [bus] arrives 40 minutes later."
One of the more interesting I’ve found while asking people I know is that many of them need their car for work. For example, my boss’ wife does. My boss’ boss needs a car for work too. Others need a car because while they might live and work in areas served by public transport, they don’t work in the same place all the time, and they may live far from their workplace on that particular day.
One of the favoruite arguments for transit is that it’s more efficient. I thought about this as I sat in a cab trailing a streetcar on dundas this morning. Sure, there’s 1 passenger in the cab, and perhaps 50 on the streetcar, but is it really more efficient? Well that depends on in what regard. Lets take this example
100 people need to get from Spadina and Dundas to Dufferin and Lawrence. 50 of them take taxicabs and 50 take transit. The 50 that pile into taxicabs use 50 cars. This, if my math is correct, uses 800 feet of roadspace. The other 50 pile into one streetcar and use 54 feet of roadspace. At Dundas and Dufferin the taxicabs turn, while the transit riders transfer into one bus, and now use 40 feet of roadspace! Wow amazing, that’s quite a bit more efficient right? Imagine the petroleum saved too! Of course, none of that takes into account that the cab ride will take you 15 minutes, and the transit ride could take as long as 45. In fact your average transit ride VS your average car ride, within city limits, could take you two to three times as long.
Taking the subway in rush can lower that and at times can be competitive even, which is great if your working at king and bay from 9-5, but what if you work at Warden and Ellesmere from 9-5, or at King and Bay overnight? I’ve done both and trust me, transit is not convenient in these cases. Even during winter storms, I can get home faster by calling a taxicab (including the time it takes for the cab to arrive after placing the call) from my current workplace near Yonge and Finch to my house at Christie and Dupont. If I take a cab I get to sit there and, if I want to, start a conversation. If I don’t, just relax. If I take the subway I get the pleasure of standing for 30 minutes after already working all day, or if I wish to sacrifice 10-15 minutes, get to North York Centre and head north. Of course that is all dependant on the train not going out of service. Even if I do manage to get a seat, people older then me or with children love to single me out (due to my youth) and ask me to get the hell out of my seat so they can sit down. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve offered my seat to many a person, but after a hard days work I just want to be left alone. To be honest, the transit trip home is killing me mentally to the point that I am going to either quit or move because I cannot stand it anymore.
It takes me two hours to get to and from work, whereas driving would do the same for me in one hour. It’s $100 for a metropass, but I’m sure that gas and insurance would run me quite a bit more, even upward of $500 a month. Remember though, that each month I get to spend an extra 20 hours in transit, either riding on crowded morning trains, or on late night trains where teenagers literally jump off the seats and the operators do nothing because they fear for their safety just as much as I’m fearing for mine. This leads us back to a math. I’d need to spend $20 each day to eliminate that extra hour in transit (by driving) For me, that’s not worth it, however there are those for whom it is worth it. Transit is, for them, not efficient because of the time it takes up. Transit might be more efficient in many ways, but when it comes to time, it is not, and for those for whom time is important, the argument that a streetcar can fit more people then a Toyota is not going to go far in convincing them.
Expressways and Traffic
To answer the question presented earlier, I present a question of my own – What is “Traffic”? Depending on how you define traffic, you may or may not find an answer. If Traffic is the number of vehicles, then expressways wont do a thing about that unless they have portholes to another universe at the end of them. If traffic is slow-moving vehicles, then expressways will do much to solve this. The reality is that traffic is somewhere in between the two, and that brings me to my point.
Expressways will not eliminate ‘Traffic’, but rather, they will move it around better. Building a highway from the burbs to the downtown core will not eliminate traffic in the burbs or the core, but will eliminate traffic between the two. This is the main objective of expressways, and in that it succeeds. This question comes in response to the proposals by the Toronto Party to expand our existing highway grid. Current proposals are to extend the Allen to Bathurst, however I personally think that, if done right, it can be extended to Davenport and Dupont. Doing either of those will not eliminate traffic in the core, but will reduce it between Eglinton West subway station and wherever the end point is. Take a bus ride on the 63 Ossington bus route and tell me that the traffic on Eglinton West and Oakwood is normal. No, it’s not, because the Allen as it stands is unnatural.
One of the problems with supporting highways in the modern era is that people assume you are talking about highways of the past. They assume that you want to demolish random rows of houses. The Allen could be extended from Eglinton to the park just to the south with a short tunnel. Sure the highway will have to run though the park, but we can find ways to mitigate those effects. People assume any extension of the Allen would destroy Spadina, but the current proposals by the Toronto Party would NOT see the Allen end at Spadina. I personally support a one-lane each direction exit onto Spadina, this is far from the huge neighbourhood destroying freeway that was proposed in the 1970’s.
One of the problems with NIMBY comes to light with highways like the Allen. More well-off residents, such as those in Forrest Hill, have chosen to live between where most residents live, and where most residents work. This means that they either have to go through forest hill, or around it. Currently most people go around, and hence the traffic. Extending the Allen, if done in a smart way, using Tolls even, is the right way to go.
Bringing us back to the original question, the answer is the same as in the first sentence. Either all highways reduce traffic or none do depending on your definition. This extension will not eliminate traffic in the core, but it will reduce traffic on the way.
Expressways will not eliminate ‘Traffic’, but rather, they will move it around better. Building a highway from the burbs to the downtown core will not eliminate traffic in the burbs or the core, but will eliminate traffic between the two. This is the main objective of expressways, and in that it succeeds. This question comes in response to the proposals by the Toronto Party to expand our existing highway grid. Current proposals are to extend the Allen to Bathurst, however I personally think that, if done right, it can be extended to Davenport and Dupont. Doing either of those will not eliminate traffic in the core, but will reduce it between Eglinton West subway station and wherever the end point is. Take a bus ride on the 63 Ossington bus route and tell me that the traffic on Eglinton West and Oakwood is normal. No, it’s not, because the Allen as it stands is unnatural.
One of the problems with supporting highways in the modern era is that people assume you are talking about highways of the past. They assume that you want to demolish random rows of houses. The Allen could be extended from Eglinton to the park just to the south with a short tunnel. Sure the highway will have to run though the park, but we can find ways to mitigate those effects. People assume any extension of the Allen would destroy Spadina, but the current proposals by the Toronto Party would NOT see the Allen end at Spadina. I personally support a one-lane each direction exit onto Spadina, this is far from the huge neighbourhood destroying freeway that was proposed in the 1970’s.
One of the problems with NIMBY comes to light with highways like the Allen. More well-off residents, such as those in Forrest Hill, have chosen to live between where most residents live, and where most residents work. This means that they either have to go through forest hill, or around it. Currently most people go around, and hence the traffic. Extending the Allen, if done in a smart way, using Tolls even, is the right way to go.
Bringing us back to the original question, the answer is the same as in the first sentence. Either all highways reduce traffic or none do depending on your definition. This extension will not eliminate traffic in the core, but it will reduce traffic on the way.
Sorry for the absence.
Sorry for my recent absence, major troubles at work have kept me more then occupied for a few weeks. I’m back to full force, however, and you should expect at least two major posts tonight.
Friday, February 1, 2008
A question
Someone, on another blog, asked me "find me an expressway system that has reduced traffic problems".
I will respond to this question in full right here later, however am rather busy today with other things.
I will respond to this question in full right here later, however am rather busy today with other things.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
"Why I don't take transit"
More comments on this front:
I would have to take 3 buses... If I had a train option I'd take it... My spouse does... His commute is about 30 minutes and he loves taking the train
I drive... to work... it is a 12 to 15 minute ride. If I were to (take public transit) it would take me 45 to 50 minutes
We don't have (public transit)
I did (take transit) for 15 years... It took me 40 minutes. But we live in Georgia now and (it would take too long)
Because I have to walk to the bus stop and its cold in the winter.
I'd have to wait 50 mins after leaving work for the bus
safety issues...
(inclduing)
I'd have to take 3 or 4 buses and walk a half mile through a dicey neighborhood
(and)
a grandmother who was raped after being kidnapped from a parking garage at the MARTA (Atlanta) Lindbergh station in ... June 2002
I would have to take 3 buses... If I had a train option I'd take it... My spouse does... His commute is about 30 minutes and he loves taking the train
I drive... to work... it is a 12 to 15 minute ride. If I were to (take public transit) it would take me 45 to 50 minutes
We don't have (public transit)
I did (take transit) for 15 years... It took me 40 minutes. But we live in Georgia now and (it would take too long)
Because I have to walk to the bus stop and its cold in the winter.
I'd have to wait 50 mins after leaving work for the bus
safety issues...
(inclduing)
I'd have to take 3 or 4 buses and walk a half mile through a dicey neighborhood
(and)
a grandmother who was raped after being kidnapped from a parking garage at the MARTA (Atlanta) Lindbergh station in ... June 2002
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Racession
I was reading wikipedia, and about how Japan’s economy took a nose dive in the 90’s thanks to the bursting of their housing bubble. This created a domino effect on the economy and cause a decade of stagnation in Japan.
I was also reading that the current US sub-prime crisis was triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble…
I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
I was also reading that the current US sub-prime crisis was triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble…
I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
More "Bus VS Car"
A certain CTV news report tells us that a panel has recommended taking cars out of downtown. According to the news story:
One of the ideas proposed by Dr. David Pearson was to ban private cars on busy downtown roadways. "We need to very quickly begin thinking about banning cars downtown
Personally my favorite part of the article is where they quote dear Dr.David as saying “You have an excellent subway system”. LOL! I wish. I’d rate our current subway system though the downtown as “adequate”, far from excellent. Regardless, this brings up the important point; is it even possible to get all the cars off the road? And if not why not? I’ll leave this one (for now) open ended, but will add three anecdotes regarding this very issue.
Quote:
My job is 17 miles away...I have to drive - either that or take 6 buses and hope none are late!
Quote:
My commute by car... usually takes between 10 & 15 minutes to get to work. Public transit would greatly increase my short commute... My commute would go to about 45-60 minutes
Quote:
Even if I had a choice (which I don't) I would still drive. Many times, on my way home I run errands and have to be able to go somewhere or change plans on a moment's notice. Going from suburb to suburb does not lend itself to mass transit.
One of the ideas proposed by Dr. David Pearson was to ban private cars on busy downtown roadways. "We need to very quickly begin thinking about banning cars downtown
Personally my favorite part of the article is where they quote dear Dr.David as saying “You have an excellent subway system”. LOL! I wish. I’d rate our current subway system though the downtown as “adequate”, far from excellent. Regardless, this brings up the important point; is it even possible to get all the cars off the road? And if not why not? I’ll leave this one (for now) open ended, but will add three anecdotes regarding this very issue.
Quote:
My job is 17 miles away...I have to drive - either that or take 6 buses and hope none are late!
Quote:
My commute by car... usually takes between 10 & 15 minutes to get to work. Public transit would greatly increase my short commute... My commute would go to about 45-60 minutes
Quote:
Even if I had a choice (which I don't) I would still drive. Many times, on my way home I run errands and have to be able to go somewhere or change plans on a moment's notice. Going from suburb to suburb does not lend itself to mass transit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)