HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7401  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:09 AM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,352
Regarding the 5280 story, all I can say is, "wow."
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7402  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 6:32 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Why do we need transit at all, then? If we have robot taxis, why wouldn't we all just have robot cars? Why force me to transfer to/from a different mode for the middle of my trip, what does that gain?
Cost and/or speed. Under circumstances when trips can be combined at some advantage people will do that.

You want to travel to summit county. So does everyone else. But people are bidding on trips on their phones back in town and the new dynamic tolling is starting to gradually rise. Getting on the train is cheaper and faster.

Or imagine a day in downtown Denver. During most of the day, the wait times and meter cost of a robot taxi is very minimal. So you will take a private vehicle. Now it's peak hour. It's going to be a while until the next taxi comes, and with demand based pricing it may also be more expensive to get a ride. However, the system notices you and 14 other people want to travel from 15th and Lawrence to a cluster of destinations around Stapleton, and have opted for a shared vehicle instead. A minibus is dispatched instead.

It does raise the question, honestly despite the stellar investments Denver has made in transit, in a few decades does the city have the kind of demand to warrant rail capacity in an automated vehicle future? I can totally see Shanghai or New York needing their subways to handle rush hour because a swarm of robot cars that has to go into town full and come out empty and find a place to queue in the meantime seems inefficient. But Denver?

I know you are probably saying, why don't you have a private car that you own and sits in a parking spot? Well most people won't find that necessary and would like more disposable income for other things in life instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7403  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 11:48 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
last mile solution...wild new invention - feet.

one of the greatest thing about chicago is that the density leads to great main streets, that make a one-mile walk to transit feel like nothing. denver can get there
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7404  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 11:55 AM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty View Post
Urban Planners: How the Union Station Renovation Almost Didn’t Happen

K. How much of this 5280 story is true, and how much is revisionist history?
We almost didn't get a $350-500 a night hotel really? That would have been tragic.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7405  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 12:27 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
last mile solution...wild new invention - feet.

one of the greatest thing about chicago is that the density leads to great main streets, that make a one-mile walk to transit feel like nothing. denver can get there
No we can't. Because it's illegal. And where it's legal, you're still likely to get sued over it. We don't want density that would enable real transit. It's why we're stuck fantasizing about trolleys, while most of us continue to drive every day. Chicago isn't walkable because it has density in isolated pockets and disjointed industrial corridors. Chicago is walkable because you can put a five story building on the popular corner, without somebody screaming bloody manhattan.

And our core neighborhoods where you can build aren't going to be enough to support much more than a trolley at best. Nobody's going to build heavy rail from the golden triangle to rino, which is about the farthest extent of our real density.

The thing to remember about (urban running) light rail and streetcars (and I love both) is that they're generally quite slow. so it's really a last quarter mile problem. Nobody is going to walk a mile to/from a streetcar. You might as well use a different mode, any mode, at that point. I suppose that's all surmountable if you're willing to give up a bunch of right of way. But we're not. We needed to start the system before central Denver got full of people again if we were serious about taking lanes. That was ten years ago - it's too late now, now those lanes are needed. But hey, we have a pretty train hall. Shame Denver's finest didn't have the same foresight on other fronts.

Last edited by bunt_q; Jul 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7406  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 2:10 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,987
I fear the day 12,533 units come online in the core alone and we still provide zero real transit alternatives (I'm guessing if we extended the 1.5 mile radius to say 5 miles it would be around 17,000-20,000 units). It'll be kind of fun to watch though. Mass chaos and what not.
__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7407  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:32 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
No we can't. Because it's illegal. And where it's legal, you're still likely to get sued over it. We don't want density that would enable real transit. It's why we're stuck fantasizing about trolleys, while most of us continue to drive every day. Chicago isn't walkable because it has density in isolated pockets and disjointed industrial corridors. Chicago is walkable because you can put a five story building on the popular corner, without somebody screaming bloody manhattan.
You know, asides from the Highlands' crowd rather high-profile lawsuit, what other development related lawsuits have gained any real traction in Denver? The folks who opposed the University upzoning seem to have rolled over and submitted and it seems that most developers aren't all that serious about going above six stories due to the cost. There was the project in the Welton Corridor, but does anyone truly think that the developer wanted to go eight stories considering the escalation in construction pricing that would have incurred.

As for the Highlands, let's just sit back and watch the traffic nightmare slowly increase because if there's one place where the geography and layout are unfriendly to an expansion of transit, it's NW Denver.

Quote:
And our core neighborhoods where you can build aren't going to be enough to support much more than a trolley at best. Nobody's going to build heavy rail from the golden triangle to rino, which is about the farthest extent of our real density.
Heavy rail? No. A combination of surface and subsurface (aka Seattle's bus tunnel) transit elements that can provide service for both locals and commuters? I think that will happen in our lifetimes as the City pivots to address the transit question that it knows that RTD is unwilling to.

Quote:
The thing to remember about (urban running) light rail and streetcars (and I love both) is that they're generally quite slow. so it's really a last quarter mile problem. Nobody is going to walk a mile to/from a streetcar. You might as well use a different mode, any mode, at that point. I suppose that's all surmountable if you're willing to give up a bunch of right of way. But we're not. We needed to start the system before central Denver got full of people again if we were serious about taking lanes. That was ten years ago - it's too late now, now those lanes are needed. But hey, we have a pretty train hall. Shame Denver's finest didn't have the same foresight on other fronts.
Okay Wizened I don't think it's as dire as you like to paint it. At least I hope it's not as dire as you like to paint it. But it's not like it effects me that much as I'm forced to drive pratically everywhere right now. plus, I'm already priced out of my neighborhood and will end up selling, realize a large ROI, and moving out to the burbs. Hey, Stapleton or Lowry look nice.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7408  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:46 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
You know, asides from the Highlands' crowd rather high-profile lawsuit, what other development related lawsuits have gained any real traction in Denver? The folks who opposed the University upzoning seem to have rolled over and submitted and it seems that most developers aren't all that serious about going above six stories due to the cost. There was the project in the Welton Corridor, but does anyone truly think that the developer wanted to go eight stories considering the escalation in construction pricing that would have incurred.

As for the Highlands, let's just sit back and watch the traffic nightmare slowly increase because if there's one place where the geography and layout are unfriendly to an expansion of transit, it's NW Denver.
That doesn't make condos legal though... though I suppose saying condos are now "illegal" is a slight exaggeration, and I never do that.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7409  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:47 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
That was ten years ago - it's too late now, now those lanes are needed.
People always say that. They said it 10 years ago on this very forum, and they'll say it 10 years from now.

I agree with your basic argument, that Denver doesn't have the density for transit beyond about the light rail / streetcar level right now. But I don't agree that it never will. Denver has had such limited success adding density outside downtown because downtown still has so much undeveloped land that there's not a lot of pressure for high-density elsewhere. A non-downtown location has to have a really strong pull of its own to get much energy (Cherry Creek qualifies, Gates rubberland doesn't). But eventually downtown will fill out to the point where it can no longer accommodate all the demand for urban infill, and that growth will start to spill over into less obvious destinations.

Really, we're already seeing the first stages of that, as industrial areas like Denargo develop. Next it'll be the obvious corridors. Colfax, Broadway, Colorado, and Federal (though Federal's on the wrong side of town so it might be slower). We know that's how it'll work because that's what we see in cities with urbanizing areas outside downtown. Denver just isn't there yet. But when Denver inevitably gets there, that'll be an opportunity for serious transit and real high density non-downtown TOD.

Not to say it's definitely inevitable, I suppose. The zoning has to change. NIMBYs could stop that, or the city could put more focus on developing out at DIA instead. But zoning changes when the development pressure changes, at least for non-residential properties. it happens enough in suburban areas around North America that we know it's possible. Nothing about Denver is unique. It'll be hard, but if we want it to happen then we should advocate for it, instead of accept defeat without a fight.

Personally, I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen in Glendale and along Colorado Blvd, at least. It already is. They have the tall buildings, just not the urban design yet. The pressure to develop that corridor is inevitable, so it's on planners to come up with the right mix of urban design standards and transit infrastructure.

Here are some examples, all from previously lower-density suburban areas not too unlike Colorado Blvd. All from cities that are admittedly larger than Denver, but Denver will be big enough soon enough.


LA's Wilshire corridor. Photo from Kurt Preissler on flickr


Toronto's North York corridor. Photo from Dave Jones on flickr


DC's Bethesda corridor. Photo from me
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7410  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:58 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Well rumor is that the Colfax study will *not* be recommending streetcar. Presumably because there is no real gain in transit capacity, unless you take a lane, which is not on the table. Or unless you grade separate, which we cannot afford.

If it's not the solution for Colfax, is not going to be the solution anywhere. I am willing to bet all of you that in 20 years there will still not be any non-RTD rail transit running in the City and County of Denver. And if that is the case, I do not want the type of density that Cirrus is showing in those photos. I will be that NIMBY I opposing upzoning if there's no transportation plan in place - at least a plan. The final recommendations for Colfax will be telling.

EDIT: I am sympathetic to the not on that if we do not have the money or desire to construct the transportation facilities necessary to support the densities we want, then perhaps we need less density, not more. Colfax, for example. We know travel demand in that corridor is going to nearly double. If we can't build to accommodate that, then maybe we shouldn't have 5-story zoning along there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7411  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:04 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Ballston, Virginia

1976:


1990s:


2012:

Denis Dimick on flickr

.
.
.

Colorado Boulevard, Denver, 2006:
Doesn't look that different from what Ballston must've looked like in the 80s. I think, if we ran a subway under Colorado Boulevard, it would look a lot like Ballston a generation later. Obviously a subway isn't practical today for a variety of reasons, but after FasTracks is done and after higher near-term priorities like Colfax are done, we'll be talking about a big transit project here.


Martin Rottler on flickr
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7412  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:10 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
People always say that. They said it 10 years ago on this very forum, and they'll say it 10 years from now.

I agree with your basic argument, that Denver doesn't have the density for transit beyond about the light rail / streetcar level right now. But I don't agree that it never will. Denver has had such limited success adding density outside downtown because downtown still has so much undeveloped land that there's not a lot of pressure for high-density elsewhere. A non-downtown location has to have a really strong pull of its own to get much energy (Cherry Creek qualifies, Gates rubberland doesn't). But eventually downtown will fill out to the point where it can no longer accommodate all the demand for urban infill, and that growth will start to spill over into less obvious destinations.

Really, we're already seeing the first stages of that, as industrial areas like Denargo develop. Next it'll be the obvious corridors. Colfax, Broadway, Colorado, and Federal (though Federal's on the wrong side of town so it might be slower). We know that's how it'll work because that's what we see in cities with urbanizing areas outside downtown. Denver just isn't there yet. But when Denver inevitably gets there, that'll be an opportunity for serious transit and real high density non-downtown TOD.

Not to say it's definitely inevitable, I suppose. The zoning has to change. NIMBYs could stop that, or the city could put more focus on developing out at DIA instead. But zoning changes when the development pressure changes, at least for non-residential properties. it happens enough in suburban areas around North America that we know it's possible. Nothing about Denver is unique. It'll be hard, but if we want it to happen then we should advocate for it, instead of accept defeat without a fight.

Personally, I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen in Glendale and along Colorado Blvd, at least. It already is. They have the tall buildings, just not the urban design yet.

Here are some examples, all from previously lower-density suburban areas not too unlike Colorado Blvd. All from cities that are admittedly larger than Denver, but Denver will be big enough soon enough.
The question always seems to be that when the demand hits a certain level X, that an improved transit system will be built.

My argument always has been that a dollar spent now for future expansion is an appreciating investment.

The mistakes in Denver's RTD steel rail system were not made because points like this were not repeatedly, and, heatedly made. The mistakes occurred with full knowledge of very accurate criticism.

What was built reflects a mix of power, money, and, politics, as much as engineering, urban planning, and construction.

The huge problem generated by how the DUS Station complex was laid out will remain until it is remedied. If the problems with separate terminated lines is not remedied by, say 2035, the problem will likely exist in 2050.

This applies to our not planning for a transit ring line which every decent subway, subway/commuter line, subway/light rail, subway/commuter rail/light rail system in the world has. Continuous loops in the world's great public (and public/private hybrid) transit systems carry the greatest passenger load, as you saw in Moscow, and, I spent years experiencing in Tokyo.

We all know what makes steel rail transit systems work. Now, the question is will Denver fix it's transit mistakes or will the Denver Metro never have a great public transit system?

*********

Incidentally, the TTC subway system produced huge development along the Yonge-University-Spadina, and, the Bloor-Danforth lines. This occurred primarily because the Yonge-University-Spadina line provides a "U" through downtown, and, and crosses the Bloor-Danforth lines, forming a upside down "A". Between the two lines, Toronto has experienced a continuous building boom for about 50 years.

There is same seat boarding through the financial district, and single transfer at two stations to a very long east-west line.

The best way to see the outcome is to go to the observation deck on CN tower.

Until DUS is a through station, we will not see this type of development for at least a generation, due solely to layout.

I am not saying that the ridership will not grow. I am saying that ridership will grow, and, paralleling high rises will be built at a far lower rate than had the DUS Station system been well designed. The difference in resulting density metro wide, will be reflected in "planned" suburban sprawl.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Cirrus; Jul 23, 2014 at 5:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7413  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:12 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Presumably because there is no real gain in transit capacity, unless you take a lane
That's entirely incorrect. I mean, mathematically wrong. Streetcars have higher capacity than buses. Capacity is probably the biggest technical benefit to a mixed-traffic streetcar over a mixed-traffic bus, aside from less technical things like economic development and perception.

Not saying *you're* wrong. Just that if Denver opts for buses because mixed traffic streetcars "have no gain in capacity," then that is demonstrably incorrect.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7414  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:16 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations View Post
The question always seems to be that when the demand hits a certain level X, that an improved transit system will be built.

My argument always has been that a dollar spent now for future expansion is an appreciating investment.
You're right, but the realities of limited resources make that impractical, usually. We only have X money, so we spend it on our highest current priority. Our highest current priority is always something we need today. Getting ahead of the game on Colorado Blvd with a big project now would mean we'd have to accept falling further behind on Colfax and Broadway.

If we decide Colorado Blvd is a more important corridor, then fine. And it may well be, in the long term. But you have to prioritize.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7415  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:24 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
We know travel demand in that corridor is going to nearly double. If we can't build to accommodate that, then maybe we shouldn't have 5-story zoning along there.
Weren't you just saying the "don't build it and they won't come" model has been a dismal failure for highways? Certainly you agree Boulder's slow-growth model is not good. Why advocate for that now on Colfax? Downzoning Colfax doesn't take development pressure away, at most it merely moves it somewhere else, where we'll have to build infrastructure instead.

These are the fights that we've always known we'd have to fight. What's changed to make you consider giving up? It seems to me we've made a lot of progress over the last 10 years.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7416  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:29 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Well rumor is that the Colfax study will *not* be recommending streetcar. Presumably because there is no real gain in transit capacity, unless you take a lane, which is not on the table. Or unless you grade separate, which we cannot afford.
commodate that, then maybe we shouldn't have 5-story zoning along there.
So BRT it is, or are we talking about merely enhanced bus service? Neither of which are exciting enough that you could get the City to vote for additional funding for transit unless it was part of a much larger plan. Whelp, looks like the planners have done a fine job of making a plan that will go nowhere.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7417  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:45 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Okay Wizened I don't think it's as dire as you like to paint it. At least I hope it's not as dire as you like to paint it. But it's not like it effects me that much as I'm forced to drive pratically everywhere right now. plus, I'm already priced out of my neighborhood and will end up selling, realize a large ROI, and moving out to the burbs. Hey, Stapleton or Lowry look nice.
If I were a young parent living in a part of the city where real estate is appreciating faster than in other parts of the city, I would consider selling the house before the 2016 elections. Ideally, I would not get a mortgage on a replacement house, unless the equity from selling house #1 covered much of the total cost of house #2.

In such a transaction, IMO, the most important aspect is to remember that you likely will lose a portion of your purchase price on the 2nd house when the inevitable downturn occurs. Don't be frightened by this, and, concentrate on how much more economical your new house will be, bottom line.

The question, as always, is timing: no matter what you do, you are going to have to gamble.

My wife and I pay under $1000 for taxes, payment on principal, and insurance. That, IMO, is a good target for you and yours to consider.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Jul 23, 2014 at 4:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7418  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:53 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Well rumor is that the Colfax study will *not* be recommending streetcar. Presumably because there is no real gain in transit capacity, unless you take a lane, which is not on the table. Or unless you grade separate, which we cannot afford.

If it's not the solution for Colfax, is not going to be the solution anywhere. I am willing to bet all of you that in 20 years there will still not be any non-RTD rail transit running in the City and County of Denver. And if that is the case, I do not want the type of density that Cirrus is showing in those photos. I will be that NIMBY I opposing upzoning if there's no transportation plan in place - at least a plan. The final recommendations for Colfax will be telling.

EDIT: I am sympathetic to the not on that if we do not have the money or desire to construct the transportation facilities necessary to support the densities we want, then perhaps we need less density, not more. Colfax, for example. We know travel demand in that corridor is going to nearly double. If we can't build to accommodate that, then maybe we shouldn't have 5-story zoning along there.
This is, in fact, completely false. Exclusive Lane scenarios are most definitely on the table. And further illustrates your false assumption that taking a lane is impossible now. There's a lot more capacity (AM/PM peak) than you think in many of Denver's travel sheds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
So BRT it is, or are we talking about merely enhanced bus service? Neither of which are exciting enough that you could get the City to vote for additional funding for transit unless it was part of a much larger plan. Whelp, looks like the planners have done a fine job of making a plan that will go nowhere.
In either scenario (BRT or EB), asking for tax increase (property or sales) isn't necessarily required at this point. How do you know that they can't fund the capital and operational without such a tax? You don't. You wouldn't believe how much RTD currently spends on 15/15L operations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7419  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:59 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT View Post
In either scenario (BRT or EB), asking for tax increase (property or sales) isn't necessarily required at this point. How do you know that they can't fund the capital and operational without such a tax? You don't. You wouldn't believe how much RTD currently spends on 15/15L operations.
Any number you give I'd believe if it were the amount they spend on studies. RTD studies things more than a dyslexic with OCD study's spelling.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7420  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 5:04 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT View Post
In either scenario (BRT or EB), asking for tax increase (property or sales) isn't necessarily required at this point. How do you know that they can't fund the capital and operational without such a tax? You don't. You wouldn't believe how much RTD currently spends on 15/15L operations.
I would think that operational could be covered w/o additional funding. But capital and the servicing of the debt? That has to require additional funding from somewhere. If federal funding could be secured, local funding would still have to be part of the mix. But, if I'm going to seek additional funding, I'd it rather be for the streetcar rather than a bus option.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Jul 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.