Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think some pretty sound statistical analysis was put into this report. The projections I've referenced are not low growth or high growth scenario's so the conclusion has been made that medium growth - or reference scenario is most likely and what I have been referring to.
Me neither. They provide a range. They state this is what they can extrapolate from current data and how they did so. Already with just the high and low end estimate range is high given nothing too unexpected happens within 25 years. They don't claim to be able to predict the unexpected, because they can't. So, no they didn't do anything wrong. Just don't have any great expectations of these projections. Comb through some archives of these sorts of things some time. Try playing around with R or get some modules for Python and see just how off these things get. It's fun and it can even get you hired for stuff.
LOL ok - I will use historical archives from the Government of Ontario from a few decades ago and see how things panned out, but only when i'm REALLY bored or get fired from my current place of employment
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Me neither. They provide a range. They state this is what they can extrapolate from current data and how they did so. Already with just the high and low end estimate range is high given nothing too unexpected happens within 25 years. They don't claim to be able to predict the unexpected, because they can't. So, no they didn't do anything wrong. Just don't have any great expectations of these projections. Comb through some archives of these sorts of things some time. Try playing around with R or get some modules for Python and see just how off these things get. It's fun and it can even get you hired for stuff.
Maybe I haven't said it in this thread yet, so I'll say it now. LA has a lot of sprawl. It's mostly sprawl. It's a MSA of 12 million and a CSA of 19 million--most of that is suburban development. So in absolute amounts of suburban development and in percentage terms, LA does have much more sprawl. In terms of the total area of LA that is actually urban, it's pretty comparable.
I'm not saying LA is 100% suburban. I will give LA benefit of the doubt as there are some areas I find walkable.
It's a bit of a stretch to call the Purple Line and Regional Connector "under construction", but they are in the utility relocation phase.
It's starting look pretty filled out and for the first time maybe hitting more spots than missing spots, but there is clearly a pretty big need for more North / South lines, especially considering how multi-nodal the city is. I'm guessing the next big project will be the Sepulveda Pass / East San Fernando Valley Corridor, which I hope are built as one project from Sylmar to the Westside (connecting with UCLA and Expo / Sepulveda).
That's a lot of train stations with their own parking; I'm amazed at how many of them are free. A lot of the LIRR/Metro North don't have that.
Yeah well... It's LA.
I think some of them say there is parking when it is at an adjacent complex - i.e. Hollywood / Highland must be referring to the mall complex's underground garage, and the Hollywood / Vine is the W Hotel garage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
