Bicycle and scooter are two simple non-motorized modes of private transportation. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and in the end it comes down to a trade-off of usability and storage.
It's not surprising that bicycle is by far the more convenient mode to get from point A to point B. It is also better equipped to handle inclines, and has the better stopping mechanism with the brakes. The biggest drawback of bicycle is storage. Point B as a destination may or may not have convenient storage of the bicycle. Despite locks, bikes secured outside are not immune to damages from other people or the weather.
Scooter is the alternative to the storage issue, given that it is relatively easy to pack it in a small unit that can be carried by one hand into facilities like restaurants, which would not be able house a bicycle. However, on average the scooter may go only half as fast as the bike. It is also slowed down much more on upward inclines, and tires the leg (the standing leg in particular, not as much for the kicking leg) much more.
What are the implications of the trade-off of usability versus storage? Bicycles have comparative advantages in longer trips, while scooters have comparative advantages in shorter trips. There is no cutoff distance, as it will vary for each person's strength, the terrain of the path, and the surroundings of potential bike storage locations, but 1-2 miles serve as a reasonable estimate. For those more physically-fit, costs of using scooter is lowered. Smoother terrain will benefit the scooter, while inclines benefit bikes. Finally, of course better storage options benefit bicycles.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Life Lessons from Longboarding
Believe it or not, there may be some lessons from longboarding that can be applied to real life. For background, longboard is just like a skateboard, except that it is bigger and goes faster. Comfortable cruising speed on a flat surface can hover from 8 to 10 mph. As the wheels are larger than those of the skateboard, the ride is much smoother. That said, the wheels are still small compared to those of devices like the bicycle, and as such, the longboard is still anything but immune to cracks on the ground.
Lesson one: focus on the present, with a sight for the future. While longboarding, it is imperative to focus on the current ground terrain and the terrain directly in front. Always be on the lookout for cracks on the ground, for they can and will trap the wheels and cause accidents if the cracks are too big for the wheels. No matter how smooth the ride it currently is, always focus on the present and the immediate future, and be ready to act on it.
Lesson two: uphold moderation. It is so much more fun to go faster on the longboard. However, with speed comes a lack of stability. Upon going down a hill, it may be tempting to accelerate down. But this is not like a bicycle where it comes with brakes. It becomes exponentially harder to stop when the speed is high, so it's always better to keep in moderation by maintaining a steady speed while going down hills. Do this by manually stepping off with one foot to decelerate before the speed is too high.
Lesson one: focus on the present, with a sight for the future. While longboarding, it is imperative to focus on the current ground terrain and the terrain directly in front. Always be on the lookout for cracks on the ground, for they can and will trap the wheels and cause accidents if the cracks are too big for the wheels. No matter how smooth the ride it currently is, always focus on the present and the immediate future, and be ready to act on it.
Lesson two: uphold moderation. It is so much more fun to go faster on the longboard. However, with speed comes a lack of stability. Upon going down a hill, it may be tempting to accelerate down. But this is not like a bicycle where it comes with brakes. It becomes exponentially harder to stop when the speed is high, so it's always better to keep in moderation by maintaining a steady speed while going down hills. Do this by manually stepping off with one foot to decelerate before the speed is too high.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Spurs Fined for a Strategic Move
On Friday, NBA commissioner David Stern announced that the San Antonio Spurs will be fined $250,000 for sending 4 key players home, instead of playing them in a highly-anticipated nationally-televised game against the Miami Heat on Thursday. Stern claimed that the Spurs "did a disservice to the league and [the] fans" by taking its stars out in its only visit to Miami this regular season "without informing the Heat, the media, or the league office in a timely way." Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich's decision called for sending Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Danny Green back to San Antonio to get some ahead of Saturday's home game against Memphis.
Heat star LeBron James summarized the collective disapproval of Stern's decision across the sports realm in very simple words: "it's not in the rules to tell you you can't send your guys home." Certainly some audience of the game may have been disappointed at not seeing the superstars from the two teams battle on Thursday night, but the fact of the matter is that Popovich and the Spurs had a broader goals in mind: best prepare for the entire season, not just this one game, and he had very justified reasons to rest his players. Thursday was the team's 6th road game in 9 days, and the 4th game of the week. On the flip side, Miami Heat was playing its first game since Saturday, and only its 5th game in 2 weeks. Given the severity of how lopsided the teams' schedules were coming into the game, the Spurs knew they were at a disadvantage, and it was strategically in their interest to rest their stars. Popovich said he had made this decision "when the schedule came out in July."
Stern didn't buy any of such, calling the action an "unacceptable decision." Yet, this is vastly different from the badminton scandal during the Olympics this summer, during which several badminton players from China, South Korea and Indonesia were accused of intentionally losing matches, so that "they could face easier opponents in future matches." There was little disagreement that such act of deliberately losing games was in the violation of the Olympic and sports spirit, and the players were expelled from their blatant actions.
What the Spurs did though, was drastically different from the actions of those badminton players. Many playoff-bound teams rest their star players in the final games of the regular season to give them rest. Sure, it's still early in the season in November, but the lopsided nature of the schedules of the two teams heading into Thursday's game was beyond the control of the Spurs, and they had to deal with this disadvantage. The Spurs made a strategic move, not a move that demeaned the spirit of the game. If anything, the short-handed Spurs over-delivered on expectations, as its usual bench players fought neck-to-neck with the defending-champions. It wasn't until 22.3 seconds left in the game that Heat delivered what proved to be the game-winning shot. The Spur took a gamble that nearly exceeded all expectations. Even if the game wasn't close, their decision was highly calculated, and NBA's decision to fine them dispirits its own sports of strategic maneuvers.
Sources:
Heat star LeBron James summarized the collective disapproval of Stern's decision across the sports realm in very simple words: "it's not in the rules to tell you you can't send your guys home." Certainly some audience of the game may have been disappointed at not seeing the superstars from the two teams battle on Thursday night, but the fact of the matter is that Popovich and the Spurs had a broader goals in mind: best prepare for the entire season, not just this one game, and he had very justified reasons to rest his players. Thursday was the team's 6th road game in 9 days, and the 4th game of the week. On the flip side, Miami Heat was playing its first game since Saturday, and only its 5th game in 2 weeks. Given the severity of how lopsided the teams' schedules were coming into the game, the Spurs knew they were at a disadvantage, and it was strategically in their interest to rest their stars. Popovich said he had made this decision "when the schedule came out in July."
Stern didn't buy any of such, calling the action an "unacceptable decision." Yet, this is vastly different from the badminton scandal during the Olympics this summer, during which several badminton players from China, South Korea and Indonesia were accused of intentionally losing matches, so that "they could face easier opponents in future matches." There was little disagreement that such act of deliberately losing games was in the violation of the Olympic and sports spirit, and the players were expelled from their blatant actions.
What the Spurs did though, was drastically different from the actions of those badminton players. Many playoff-bound teams rest their star players in the final games of the regular season to give them rest. Sure, it's still early in the season in November, but the lopsided nature of the schedules of the two teams heading into Thursday's game was beyond the control of the Spurs, and they had to deal with this disadvantage. The Spurs made a strategic move, not a move that demeaned the spirit of the game. If anything, the short-handed Spurs over-delivered on expectations, as its usual bench players fought neck-to-neck with the defending-champions. It wasn't until 22.3 seconds left in the game that Heat delivered what proved to be the game-winning shot. The Spur took a gamble that nearly exceeded all expectations. Even if the game wasn't close, their decision was highly calculated, and NBA's decision to fine them dispirits its own sports of strategic maneuvers.
Sources:
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sandy Aftermath Pictures from Upper Manhattan
Here are some pictures taken today in Manhattan during a quick bike ride, one day after Hurricane Sandy tore through New York City and the Northeast region.
Southbound on Lexington Ave, around E. 79th: hardly looks different
Northbound on Central Park West, around W. 72nd: destruction aftermath in view
Central Park West, around W. 82nd: downed tree
Hudson Greenway: open for a stretch
Hudson Greenway: closed at around 79th
Cherry Walk was anything but cherry-like, rather all muddy
Southbound Henry Hudson Parkway closed due to cleanup
Even McDonald's on W. 125th & Broadway was closed
Most city parks remain closed
Southbound Riverside Drive, around W. 116th St: with southbound Henry Hudson closed, cars jam Riverside Drive
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Frick Collection, Frisk House, Frick Mansion
See previous related post: Alpine, NJ 07620: Nation's Most Expensive Zip Code
The Frick Collection is an art museum located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, at the corner of 5th Avenue and East 70th Street. The Frick House houses the Frick Collection today. The Frick Mansion is the 30,000 square-foot house, listed for $68 million in 2010, across the Hudson River in Alpine, New Jersey, country's most expensive zip code. All of these entities relate to Henry Clay Frick, "the Pittsburgh coke and steel industrialist," who lived from 1849 to 1919.
Frick was an art patron who collected paintings and other art objects. The Frick House was built in 1913 at its present location, and was built with Frick's intention that he would eventually "leave his house and his art collection to the public." The Frick Collection opened to public in 1935, 16 years after the death of Frick himself, and presently contains over 1000 works of art, "from the Renaissance to the late nineteenth century." The Frick Mansion in Alpine traces back to an estate the Frick family built in the 1930s. In 2006, real estate investor Richard Kurtz paid $58 million to acquire the 60-acre estate, and built the 30,000 square-foot mansion on the property. Immediately after completion, Kurtz put it on the market. The Frick Mansion, located on a completely gated drive, contains "12 bathrooms, 19 bedrooms, a library, a ballroom, a main kitchen, a catering kitchen, a basketball court, a movie theater and an 11-car garage," and furthermore can be controlled from anywhere with a smartphone.
Sources:
The Frick Collection is an art museum located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, at the corner of 5th Avenue and East 70th Street. The Frick House houses the Frick Collection today. The Frick Mansion is the 30,000 square-foot house, listed for $68 million in 2010, across the Hudson River in Alpine, New Jersey, country's most expensive zip code. All of these entities relate to Henry Clay Frick, "the Pittsburgh coke and steel industrialist," who lived from 1849 to 1919.
Frick was an art patron who collected paintings and other art objects. The Frick House was built in 1913 at its present location, and was built with Frick's intention that he would eventually "leave his house and his art collection to the public." The Frick Collection opened to public in 1935, 16 years after the death of Frick himself, and presently contains over 1000 works of art, "from the Renaissance to the late nineteenth century." The Frick Mansion in Alpine traces back to an estate the Frick family built in the 1930s. In 2006, real estate investor Richard Kurtz paid $58 million to acquire the 60-acre estate, and built the 30,000 square-foot mansion on the property. Immediately after completion, Kurtz put it on the market. The Frick Mansion, located on a completely gated drive, contains "12 bathrooms, 19 bedrooms, a library, a ballroom, a main kitchen, a catering kitchen, a basketball court, a movie theater and an 11-car garage," and furthermore can be controlled from anywhere with a smartphone.
Sources:
Monday, October 1, 2012
Basic MATLAB Demonstrations of Markov Chain and Limiting Probabilities
Consider the following 3-state Markov chain denoted p:
0.1000 0.4000 0.5000
0.3000 0.6000 0.1000
0.7000 0.2000 0.1000
The limiting probabilities (stationary vector) denoted by π satisfies the equation π = π*p. While the steps aren't shown here, π is calculated to be:
0.3269 0.4423 0.2308
In the long-run, 32.69% of the time will be spent in state 1, 44.23% in state 2, and 23.08% in the rest. In the subsequent codes, the stationary vector is denoted by s, since MATLAB cannot work with the symbol π as a variable name.
s*p
0.3269 0.4423 0.2308
This demonstrates that π*p indeed equals the original π stationary vector.
s*p(:,1)
0.3269
s*p(:,2)
0.4423
s*p(:,3)
0.2308
Each of the operations s*p(:,i) represents multiply the 1x3 π stationary vector by the 3x1 i-th column vector of p. Each of the operations yielded the i-th entry of π. This demonstrates the property that π_j = Σ π_i * p_ij, summed over i, where j represents the column number of the matrix p. That also translates to π * (j-th column of p). The physical interpretation of s*p(:,1) is the long-run proportion of transitions into state 1. That number equals s(1), which is the proportion of times spent in state 1. It makes sense that the proportion of transitions into a certain state is also the proportion of times spent in that same state.
0.1000 0.4000 0.5000
0.3000 0.6000 0.1000
0.7000 0.2000 0.1000
The limiting probabilities (stationary vector) denoted by π satisfies the equation π = π*p. While the steps aren't shown here, π is calculated to be:
0.3269 0.4423 0.2308
In the long-run, 32.69% of the time will be spent in state 1, 44.23% in state 2, and 23.08% in the rest. In the subsequent codes, the stationary vector is denoted by s, since MATLAB cannot work with the symbol π as a variable name.
s*p
0.3269 0.4423 0.2308
This demonstrates that π*p indeed equals the original π stationary vector.
s*p(:,1)
0.3269
s*p(:,2)
0.4423
s*p(:,3)
0.2308
Each of the operations s*p(:,i) represents multiply the 1x3 π stationary vector by the 3x1 i-th column vector of p. Each of the operations yielded the i-th entry of π. This demonstrates the property that π_j = Σ π_i * p_ij, summed over i, where j represents the column number of the matrix p. That also translates to π * (j-th column of p). The physical interpretation of s*p(:,1) is the long-run proportion of transitions into state 1. That number equals s(1), which is the proportion of times spent in state 1. It makes sense that the proportion of transitions into a certain state is also the proportion of times spent in that same state.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Toss Coin Until Head Appears Twice In a Row
Take a fair coin and toss it until a head appears twice in a row. There is no finite sample space for this experience, for it theoretically can go on infinitely. That said, the first few elements are: {H,H}, {T,H,H}, {T,T,H,H}, {H,T,H,H}. To determine the probability of tossing exactly 4 times, we can take the elements in the sample space that corresponds to only 4 tosses. In that case, they are {T,T,H,H}, {H,T,H,H}. The probability of tossing either combination is 1/16, and two such combination gives a total probability of 1/8.
To see the result simulated, the following codes on MATLAB can help to illustrate that with 1 million trials. Documentations are added to clarify the algorithm.
The results vary very little from 0.1250.
To see the result simulated, the following codes on MATLAB can help to illustrate that with 1 million trials. Documentations are added to clarify the algorithm.
probability = 0.5; %prob of tossing head
numTrials = 1000000; %number of simulation trials
trialResults = zeros(1,numTrials);
for trial = 1:numTrials
done = false;
lastHead = false;
toss = 0;
while ~done %this loop controls each trial
roll = rand;
toss = toss + 1;
if roll < probability && lastHead
trialResults(trial) = toss;
done = true; %each trial over when last trial was H, and this trial is also
elseif roll < probability && ~lastHead
lastHead = true; %last trial was not H, but this trial is
else
lastHead = false; %did not toss a H
end
end
end
sum(trialResults == 4) / numTrials
The results vary very little from 0.1250.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Showcase Showdown Analysis: Circular Reasoning and Oscillating Nash Equilibrium
The Showcase Showdown is a portion of the game-show The Price Is Right, in which the contestants spin the Big Wheel that has 20 sections randomly distributed, from 5 cents to $1.00 in 5-cent increments. The objective is to get as close to $1.00 as possible without going over, with one initial spin and an optional second spin. In the game, three contestants play the game to determine who has the highest value. What's the strategy in this game for the first contestant? An intuitive response may be to spin again for 50 or less on the first spin; keep the first spin if it's 55 or greater. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.
One strategy would be to spin the wheel the second time, only if the first spin resulted in less than the expected total outcome from the game, conditional to the outcome from the first spin. We can analyze the extreme discrete cases first to get a better understanding. If the first spin is 100, all second spins will make the total go over, resulting in total score of 0. In that case, the contestant will definitely keep the first spin of 100. On the other extreme, the expected total from the two spins, conditional to the first being 5, is 52.25. In that case, taking the second spin is better off. Here is the complete table, with the higher result reflecting the course of action pursued:
If the first spin were 40 or less, having a second spin will on average produce a better result. The average of the third column gives the expected result from the game: 63. However, there is one hole in this reasoning when applied to the game. This would work perfectly fine if the first contestant played the game for himself or herself, only concerned about maximizing the individual score given the risk-reward offset. Instead, of the three contestants, only the one with the highest result wins. If the first contestant got anything from 45 to 60, inclusive on the first spin, it would've been strategically better to keep it in the aforementioned reasoning. However, since the objective is to beat all other contestants, rather than maximizing individual scores, at that point of the game it may be more reasonable to spin again nevertheless.
This is where the circular reasoning kicks in. If the contestant's decision is to spin the wheel the second time if the first spin were less than 63, then the total expected value drops to 59.95. Essentially, while the contestant tries to base the individual decision given the overall expected result, the overall expected results depend exactly on the individual contestants' decision. It's a circular route of logic, and also illustrates game theory being applied. Having 40 and 45 be the cutoff would the best risk-reward optimization decision on the individual level. However when that is the baseline, the dominant strategy is then to use 63 as the decision's critical point. When players do that, they all incur more risk and distort the overall expected result downward. Would contestant then use 59.95 as the decision's critical point?
If the contestants did, the next critical point would be 61.3. Here, if 61.3 were the next critical point, it forces 59.95 to again be the overall expected value, just like 63 did. Therefore, the "Nash equilibrium" is a perpetual oscillation between 59.95 and 61.3. In the end, the only definitely conclusions are to spin again if the first spin is 40 or lower, and to keep the first spin if it's 65 or greater. Having 45 and 50 as the first spin stands in the grey area, and 60 is dead in no man's land, caught in between the oscillating equilibrium.
One strategy would be to spin the wheel the second time, only if the first spin resulted in less than the expected total outcome from the game, conditional to the outcome from the first spin. We can analyze the extreme discrete cases first to get a better understanding. If the first spin is 100, all second spins will make the total go over, resulting in total score of 0. In that case, the contestant will definitely keep the first spin of 100. On the other extreme, the expected total from the two spins, conditional to the first being 5, is 52.25. In that case, taking the second spin is better off. Here is the complete table, with the higher result reflecting the course of action pursued:
| First Spin | 2 Spins Avg Total | Higher Result |
| 5 | 52.25 | 52.25 |
| 10 | 51.75 | 51.75 |
| 15 | 51 | 51 |
| 20 | 50 | 50 |
| 25 | 48.75 | 48.75 |
| 30 | 47.25 | 47.25 |
| 35 | 45.5 | 45.5 |
| 40 | 43.5 | 43.5 |
| 45 | 41.25 | 45 |
| 50 | 38.75 | 50 |
| 55 | 36 | 55 |
| 60 | 33 | 60 |
| 65 | 29.75 | 65 |
| 70 | 26.25 | 70 |
| 75 | 22.5 | 75 |
| 80 | 18.5 | 80 |
| 85 | 14.25 | 85 |
| 90 | 9.75 | 90 |
| 95 | 5 | 95 |
| 100 | 0 | 100 |
If the first spin were 40 or less, having a second spin will on average produce a better result. The average of the third column gives the expected result from the game: 63. However, there is one hole in this reasoning when applied to the game. This would work perfectly fine if the first contestant played the game for himself or herself, only concerned about maximizing the individual score given the risk-reward offset. Instead, of the three contestants, only the one with the highest result wins. If the first contestant got anything from 45 to 60, inclusive on the first spin, it would've been strategically better to keep it in the aforementioned reasoning. However, since the objective is to beat all other contestants, rather than maximizing individual scores, at that point of the game it may be more reasonable to spin again nevertheless.
This is where the circular reasoning kicks in. If the contestant's decision is to spin the wheel the second time if the first spin were less than 63, then the total expected value drops to 59.95. Essentially, while the contestant tries to base the individual decision given the overall expected result, the overall expected results depend exactly on the individual contestants' decision. It's a circular route of logic, and also illustrates game theory being applied. Having 40 and 45 be the cutoff would the best risk-reward optimization decision on the individual level. However when that is the baseline, the dominant strategy is then to use 63 as the decision's critical point. When players do that, they all incur more risk and distort the overall expected result downward. Would contestant then use 59.95 as the decision's critical point?
If the contestants did, the next critical point would be 61.3. Here, if 61.3 were the next critical point, it forces 59.95 to again be the overall expected value, just like 63 did. Therefore, the "Nash equilibrium" is a perpetual oscillation between 59.95 and 61.3. In the end, the only definitely conclusions are to spin again if the first spin is 40 or lower, and to keep the first spin if it's 65 or greater. Having 45 and 50 as the first spin stands in the grey area, and 60 is dead in no man's land, caught in between the oscillating equilibrium.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Evaluating Cleveland RTA Park-and-Ride Locations
See previous related post: 10PM, Tower City Terminal
Having convenient and pleasant park-and-ride rail stations is the key to developing effective public transportation systems that reach out to those in the suburbs. In Cleveland, many stations come with free parking along the rail lines. Park-and-ride can save two types of costs: a fixed cost of parking, and the variable cost of driving, which includes gasoline and depreciation. Merely accounting for parking, even for two people park-and-ride is a cost-effective alternative ($9 round-trip) to most parking garage rates downtown, particularly on event nights. However, the system doesn't serve all regions of the metropolitan area evenly.
Bypassing Downtown
If one is to stop at downtown but ultimately bypass it on the overall route, East 55th Street Rapid Station strategically has the best location for park-and-ride. It is located right off the junction of I-490 and I-77, offering quick access back onto the highway. Furthermore, all three (Blue, Green, Red) Lines go from E. 55th to Tower City, minimizing the expected wait-time to catch any of the trains. This quick stretch of 7 minutes is particularly unique in that heavy-rail (Red) and light-rail (Blue & Green) lines run side-by-side. Despite these advantages and its recent renovation completed in 2011, E. 55th Station does offer several important challenges. The parking lot is quite small, capable of holding fewer than 50 cars. The bigger challenge is the fact that maybe it's too close to downtown, with its inner-city location potentially deterring suburban riders who prefer stations in areas they may be more familiar with. Adding onto the problem, coming off I-490, the parking lot is not easily accessible. Bower Ave, which has direct access to the main lot on the eastern side of E. 55th, is restricted one-way lane. The easiest lot to get into is located across the street. Crossing the busy street requires a bit of walking to and waiting at the street lights.
From East Side
For those coming from the Southeast, the terminus of either Blue or Green Lines offer that opportunity. While both lines take around the same time getting to Tower City (approx. 30 min), and around the same distance to I-271, Green Line holds a slight advantage. The terminus of Blue Line, Warrensville, does not offer direct parking. Riders have to park at the adjacent Farnsleigh station. This would be fine, except that upon getting out of the lot onto Van Aken Blvd, drivers can only turn westbound. As a result, leaving the station is more burdensome than the terminus at Green Road. From the Northeast, only two stations: Superior and Windermere along the Red Line, both in East Cleveland, offer park-and-ride. Windermere Station, however, is over 2 miles off I-90 through East Cleveland. As a result, options are more sparse for those coming from the Northeast.
From West Side
Despite Red Line being the sole rail system west of Cuyahoga River, the West Side has more convenient choices. Every station from Brookpark to West Blvd has free parking exceeding 100 spaces, and the choice of station depends on whether one is predominantly coming along the direction of I-90 or I-480. Brookpark is conveniently located near the junction I-71 and I-480, offering the best alternative for those coming from the Southwest. From the Northwest, Triskett and W. 117th Stations are convenient due to their proximity to I-90, along the Cleveland-Lakewood border, and these stations are only around 15 min away from Tower City.
South?
With Lake Erie off to the north of the city, the RTA system currently leaves the South devoid of rail connection. For those predominantly coming from the direction of I-77, there is not an effective park-and-ride location. E. 55th would be the natural choice from the map, but given the reasons described above, may not be the ideal choice. Plus, going up to I-490 is almost going into downtown anyways; barely any money is saved on the gas. The RTA does have several Park-N-Ride routes using express buses. They originate from southern suburbs like Parma and Brecksville, but these programs only operate on weekdays, during rush-hours, and only in the rush-hour direction. As a result, they are not viable for night or weekend events. The current system favors West (whether Northwest from I-90 or Southwest from I-480) and Southeast the most, while Northeast and particularly the South don't get nearly as much benefit.
Sources:
Having convenient and pleasant park-and-ride rail stations is the key to developing effective public transportation systems that reach out to those in the suburbs. In Cleveland, many stations come with free parking along the rail lines. Park-and-ride can save two types of costs: a fixed cost of parking, and the variable cost of driving, which includes gasoline and depreciation. Merely accounting for parking, even for two people park-and-ride is a cost-effective alternative ($9 round-trip) to most parking garage rates downtown, particularly on event nights. However, the system doesn't serve all regions of the metropolitan area evenly.
Bypassing Downtown
If one is to stop at downtown but ultimately bypass it on the overall route, East 55th Street Rapid Station strategically has the best location for park-and-ride. It is located right off the junction of I-490 and I-77, offering quick access back onto the highway. Furthermore, all three (Blue, Green, Red) Lines go from E. 55th to Tower City, minimizing the expected wait-time to catch any of the trains. This quick stretch of 7 minutes is particularly unique in that heavy-rail (Red) and light-rail (Blue & Green) lines run side-by-side. Despite these advantages and its recent renovation completed in 2011, E. 55th Station does offer several important challenges. The parking lot is quite small, capable of holding fewer than 50 cars. The bigger challenge is the fact that maybe it's too close to downtown, with its inner-city location potentially deterring suburban riders who prefer stations in areas they may be more familiar with. Adding onto the problem, coming off I-490, the parking lot is not easily accessible. Bower Ave, which has direct access to the main lot on the eastern side of E. 55th, is restricted one-way lane. The easiest lot to get into is located across the street. Crossing the busy street requires a bit of walking to and waiting at the street lights.
From East Side
For those coming from the Southeast, the terminus of either Blue or Green Lines offer that opportunity. While both lines take around the same time getting to Tower City (approx. 30 min), and around the same distance to I-271, Green Line holds a slight advantage. The terminus of Blue Line, Warrensville, does not offer direct parking. Riders have to park at the adjacent Farnsleigh station. This would be fine, except that upon getting out of the lot onto Van Aken Blvd, drivers can only turn westbound. As a result, leaving the station is more burdensome than the terminus at Green Road. From the Northeast, only two stations: Superior and Windermere along the Red Line, both in East Cleveland, offer park-and-ride. Windermere Station, however, is over 2 miles off I-90 through East Cleveland. As a result, options are more sparse for those coming from the Northeast.
From West Side
Despite Red Line being the sole rail system west of Cuyahoga River, the West Side has more convenient choices. Every station from Brookpark to West Blvd has free parking exceeding 100 spaces, and the choice of station depends on whether one is predominantly coming along the direction of I-90 or I-480. Brookpark is conveniently located near the junction I-71 and I-480, offering the best alternative for those coming from the Southwest. From the Northwest, Triskett and W. 117th Stations are convenient due to their proximity to I-90, along the Cleveland-Lakewood border, and these stations are only around 15 min away from Tower City.
South?
With Lake Erie off to the north of the city, the RTA system currently leaves the South devoid of rail connection. For those predominantly coming from the direction of I-77, there is not an effective park-and-ride location. E. 55th would be the natural choice from the map, but given the reasons described above, may not be the ideal choice. Plus, going up to I-490 is almost going into downtown anyways; barely any money is saved on the gas. The RTA does have several Park-N-Ride routes using express buses. They originate from southern suburbs like Parma and Brecksville, but these programs only operate on weekdays, during rush-hours, and only in the rush-hour direction. As a result, they are not viable for night or weekend events. The current system favors West (whether Northwest from I-90 or Southwest from I-480) and Southeast the most, while Northeast and particularly the South don't get nearly as much benefit.
Sources:
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Olympics Basketball Record
Team USA was the heavy favorites to win the Men's Basketball tournament, and today it went onto making records in its Nigeria 156-73 win against Nigeria. What's more impressive about the score, particularly putting it into perspectives for American fans used to the NBA style, is that the Olympics games are only 40 minutes long in regulation, as opposed to the 48 in NBA. Keeping the constant ratio, the 156 points would've translated to 156 / 40 * 48 = 187.2 points over a 48-minute period.
The NBA record for the most number of points in one game is 186, scored by Detroit against Denver in 1983. Furthermore, that game went into the third overtime period. Detroit won 186-184, as the teams combined for 370 points, another NBA record. The margin of victory from today's game (83) also shattered the NBA record of 68. The NBA record for the fewest number of points in a game of the modern era is 49, recorded by Chicago in 1999. That is nearly only a quarter of (specific factor difference of 3.82) the number of points Team USA scored today, by using the projected score over 48 minutes.
Sources:
The NBA record for the most number of points in one game is 186, scored by Detroit against Denver in 1983. Furthermore, that game went into the third overtime period. Detroit won 186-184, as the teams combined for 370 points, another NBA record. The margin of victory from today's game (83) also shattered the NBA record of 68. The NBA record for the fewest number of points in a game of the modern era is 49, recorded by Chicago in 1999. That is nearly only a quarter of (specific factor difference of 3.82) the number of points Team USA scored today, by using the projected score over 48 minutes.
Sources:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)