tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post7913061345925603689..comments2023-11-03T02:41:15.906-07:00Comments on Real Estate comments: Auto Sales Plungewannabuyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04297458705683991405noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-88003172182621508462008-08-03T22:56:00.000-07:002008-08-03T22:56:00.000-07:00can guess. The traffic in the last 10 years got a ...<I> can guess. The traffic in the last 10 years got a lot worse but by adding<BR/>light rail and subways and more ramp metering and HOV lanes the score was<BR/>adjusted far out of proportion to their actual impacts.</I><BR/>Yep. "pander to clients" sounds accurate. Interesting read.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Got Popcorn?<BR/>Neilwannabuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297458705683991405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-66652267321319215232008-08-03T10:13:00.000-07:002008-08-03T10:13:00.000-07:00cannot confirm miles driven being average, but I d...<I> cannot confirm miles driven being average, but I did a quick google search and LA drivers spend more time driving than any other city (due to congestion and hours sitting in traffic). </I><BR/><BR/>That's not really true either. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) calcualtes something they call Roadway Congestion Index (RCI) but that doesn't say what they want it to say so they invented the Travel Time Index. For but one instance of the silliness, transit riders have zero travel time. Pisarski has been modifying his model for years to AVOID my criticisms. The worst was 2004 when the TTI RCI was changed and the formula hidden to conceal the truth. LA is one of the victims of that manipulation. Prior to him was Little timmy Lomax. But not really. The RCI has been replaced by the TTI (Travel Time Index) no<BR/>doubt because of all the problems with the RCI. Well look at the results,<BR/>LA has an index of 1.77 in 2002. NEARLY THE SAME AS IN 1992. Anybody who<BR/>puts that out in public has little credibility. It doesn't even pass the<BR/>sniff test. <BR/><BR/>I can guess. The traffic in the last 10 years got a lot worse but by adding<BR/>light rail and subways and more ramp metering and HOV lanes the score was<BR/>adjusted far out of proportion to their actual impacts.<BR/><BR/>Lomax set it up so that he could propose "solutions." His formula says<BR/>that rail relieves congestion.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the APTA connection. They cannot be trusted any longer. Ever<BR/>since their reports showed transit buses getting lower passenger mile fuel<BR/>efficiency their data has reversed a 19 year trend and suddenly transit<BR/>buses have started getting 24% better fuel economy than three years ago.<BR/>That's replacing half the fleet with twice as efficient technology. Yeah<BR/>right. It's the same with Lomax.<BR/><BR/>Every year I critique the TTI RCI and every year they "correct" for<BR/>my observations by hiding the identified issue. The RCI formula was found<BR/>to be flawed and the formula is no longer available. The APTA funding was<BR/>found to be suspect and the sources of funding are no longer listed. The<BR/>issue of "adding" lane miles was disproven and is no longer calculated. The<BR/>baseline unmet demand was exploded as myth and the baseline was sent back to<BR/>a theoretical 1982 to avoid the issue.<BR/>Gross urban area size is highly correlated with congestion. Rather than<BR/>incorporate TTI breaks the study areas into 3 or 4 groups based on size to<BR/>mask the phenomena.<BR/><BR/>Peak capacity (approx 45mph) is already 15mph below the TTIs start of<BR/>congestion at 60mph. They just redefine their higher speed lower capacity<BR/>number as "free-flow travel speed capacity." Change the wording just enough<BR/>that that issue is rendered moot rather than reveal that congestion is not<BR/>as bad as they claim with an index.<BR/><BR/>TTI claims there isn't enough data to calibrate their index to actual<BR/>measured congestion. The real reason is because where there is data, they<BR/>don't agree. <BR/><BR/>2004 TTI added; "...travel and roadways that previously existed in<BR/>rural areas are added to the urban area statistics. It is important to<BR/>recognize that newly constructed roads are only a portion of the “added”<BR/>roads." This in response to my pointing out the error of their added roads,<BR/>no new roads congestion comparison was bogus.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I've been doing this for a while. I've stopped because they no longer do anything useful except pander to their paying clients.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-26680389139720078762008-08-03T09:31:00.000-07:002008-08-03T09:31:00.000-07:00I've tried to get around LA via Mass transit. Its...I've tried to get around LA via Mass transit. Its tough going point to point unless its into/out of downtown or LAX with the flow of the rush hour traffic.<BR/><BR/>I've done the same in NYC, Boston, and DC; it was far easier and faster in those cities. (Out to the exurbs too.) <BR/><BR/>Do we lack roads? Yea... But we also lack rail, dedicated busways, bus hubs (a la the 'Port Authority bus terminal' in mid-town NYC), etc. <BR/><BR/>I cannot confirm miles driven being average, but I did a quick google search and LA drivers spend more time driving than any other city (due to congestion and hours sitting in traffic). <BR/><BR/>Got Popcorn?<BR/>Neilwannabuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297458705683991405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-58706281774078022762008-08-02T21:40:00.000-07:002008-08-02T21:40:00.000-07:00LA has one of the best transit systems in the nati...LA has one of the best transit systems in the nation with much higher than average transit usage. OYOH LA is dead last with a bullet for roads per capita. Miles driven exactly average. That LA is car centric is a myth that won't die.Rob Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042154106850545479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-50156470648565756692008-08-02T18:31:00.000-07:002008-08-02T18:31:00.000-07:00LA is the most car dependent city and thus is bein...LA is the most car dependent city and thus is being whacked to the extreme by the jump in gas prices. Its typical for a teen to receive a car as a gift. But 'due to the economy,' now the parents are only making the payments and making their kids pay insurance and gas. <BR/><BR/>But this isn't just LA. BMW is lowering guidance. Oh wait, it seems like they sell half their US product to LA. ;) <BR/><BR/>I agree with Blondie, LA mass transit is non-functional. My wife takes mass transit, but there is no functional line (bus or train) for my work. :( <BR/><BR/>Those lower car sales mean quite a few car salesmen/dealers won't be consuming like they were. <BR/><BR/>This is another bit of proof, we're in a national recession.<BR/><BR/>Got Popcorn?<BR/>Neilwannabuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04297458705683991405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27885619.post-90037253266831492362008-08-02T15:43:00.000-07:002008-08-02T15:43:00.000-07:00LA is car-dependent because mass transit is so lim...LA is car-dependent because mass transit is so limited. Try getting from home to work without having to walk five miles to get to the bus or train. I know I can't.<BR/><BR/>Bodrie<BR/><A HREF="http://www.flipthathousewebsite.com/flipping-property.php" REL="nofollow">FlipThatHouseWebsite.com</A>bodriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865406115733938522noreply@blogger.com