DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Those numbers don't surprise me. I think the 63%/37% graphic is probably quite different in Colorado, just because of how tight the general fund is (and how dedicated most of our funding sources are). I doubt Oregon has anything quite like TABOR. But that's just a transportation-specific observation.

Of course, the fatal flaw in the financial argument is that it's based upon "89% of Oregon residents with bikes also own cars." That's an argument for not being hostile to cyclists. It's not so much an argument for bicycles as a viable alternative to the car.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Those numbers don't surprise me. I think the 63%/37% graphic is probably quite different in Colorado, just because of how tight the general fund is (and how dedicated most of our funding sources are). I doubt Oregon has anything quite like TABOR. But that's just a transportation-specific observation.

Of course, the fatal flaw in the financial argument is that it's based upon "89% of Oregon residents with bikes also own cars." That's an argument for not being hostile to cyclists. It's not so much an argument for bicycles as a viable alternative to the car.

I know what you're saying. And I think it's a valid point.

I'd argue, in Denver, a pretty high percentage of transit riders own a car as well. Obviously, not at the levels of 89%, but still quite a majority. I don't have real evidence for that right now, but I'd be willing to bet it's true. Especially, considering our whole rail system (80k riders a day) is built for PnR commuters.

Obviously transit riders pay for infrastructure/operations separately (not what I'm getting at here).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Obviously, not at the levels of 89%, but still quite a majority. I don't have real evidence for that right now, but I'd be willing to bet it's true.

I would have though it'd be just as high. But I guess there's a sizable component of the population that rides transit because they can't drive, and a lot of them probably can't bike either. Probably an easy census search, I'll have to do that when it's not 5pm on a Friday.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There are times when I wonder if RTD's polling is done out of sheer incompetence, or because they have a preconceived preferred outcome.

Obviously, "because they have a preconceived preferred outcome." I suspect, too, that polling is done because RTD has a dedicate staff that designs polls, etc., and, data gathered is selectively mined.

Large bureaucracies hate being corrected and spend considerable energy protecting themselves from criticism.

[Zmapper]

IIRC (I want to say this statistic was in a Denver Post article, but can't say for sure), the percentage of RTD's customers that have reported lacking access to an automobile for bus and light rail are 60% and 40%, respectively.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

IIRC (I want to say this statistic was in a Denver Post article, but can't say for sure), the percentage of RTD's customers that have reported lacking access to an automobile for bus and light rail are 60% and 40%, respectively.

Wow. I wonder what the income break down is of this group that lacks access to an automobile.

If, as I suspect, this lack access is primarily (lack of) income driven, then the positive spin would be that light rail users are 50% more likely to own a car than bus users, and, therefore more CHOOSE to ride light rail.*

As one who occasionally takes local buses, I agree that a high percentage use local bus service because they have no alternative. This percentage includes large numbers working for near minimum wage as well as a surprising number of handicapped people.

I have also observed that local buses often carry patrons that ride only a few stops, i.e., local buses really do provide short distance travel for a large number of people that cannot afford cars.

*Perhaps if the daily commuter downtown were factored out of both bus and light rail user groups, the percentages would be higher. I suspect that if one discounts the downtown commuter from the light rail and bus user groups, the percentage of those that cannot access an automobile might be as high as 80% for both.

[Wizened Variations]

Based upon the recent public release of information about "who pays what" in cost overruns generated by the interface between the DIA line and the DIA terminal, and, today's headline about future pension costs, I suspect preparation for a request for a tax increase for RTD, and/or increased pressure upon RTD's transit union.

Wonder when the transit workers union contract expires?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Based upon the recent public release of information about "who pays what" in cost overruns generated by the interface between the DIA line and the DIA terminal, and, today's headline about future pension costs, I suspect preparation for a request for a tax increase for RTD, and/or increased pressure upon RTD's transit union.

Wonder when the transit workers union contract expires?

3:1 payment disparity between what RTD pays and what the employee pays? Time for the older workers to secure their over-generous pensions by sacrificing the younger workers' futures. Baby boomers: sacrificing the nation's future one unsustainable entitlement at a time.

No tax increase in Colorado to pay for retirement obligations will ever pass. We'd sooner open up voluntary death camps for the old and destitute.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

3:1 payment disparity between what RTD pays and what the employee pays? Time for the older workers to secure their over-generous pensions by sacrificing the younger workers' futures. Baby boomers: sacrificing the nation's future one unsustainable entitlement at a time.

No tax increase in Colorado to pay for retirement obligations will ever pass. We'd sooner open up voluntary death camps for the old and destitute.

Agreed. (Of course we can expect a lot of attempts at "slight of 'accounting hand.' " )

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Baby boomers: sacrificing the nation's future one unsustainable entitlement at a time.

No tax increase in Colorado to pay for retirement obligations will ever pass. We'd sooner open up voluntary death camps for the old and destitute.

Yup, yup, and yup. Unfortunately, also the best possible argument for keeping TABOR in place.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yup, yup, and yup. Unfortunately, also the best possible argument for keeping TABOR in place.

True.

[EngiNerd]

Does anyone know why, even with the completion at the I-25 & Santa-Fe interchange, that NB I-25 still narrows down to 3 lanes for about 1/4 mile between the Santa-Fe exit and the NB Santa-Fe On-Ramp? Seems like there is PLENTY of shoulder to make NB I-25 4 lanes through there with an additional merge lane from NB Santa Fe.

Just seems silly to me to do all that work, and still have the highway pinch down. There must be a reason, future phase maybe?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Does anyone know why, even with the completion at the I-25 & Santa-Fe interchange, that NB I-25 still narrows down to 3 lanes for about 1/4 mile between the Santa-Fe exit and the NB Santa-Fe On-Ramp? Seems like there is PLENTY of shoulder to make NB I-25 4 lanes through there with an additional merge lane from NB Santa Fe.

Just seems silly to me to do all that work, and still have the highway pinch down. There must be a reason, future phase maybe?

The segment extends from Santa Fe through, and, including the 6th Avenue interchange.

I believe there is a future phase which involves having to move a railroad line on the east side. In addition, near 6th the Joint Freight line has a Y where one of the arms goes under I-25 to a coal plant and some light industry.

This is tough, as BNSF-UP own the lines, have very senior property rights on the land, and, run over 40 coal and miscellaneous freight, trains on the line per day. As the line already has a horrible choke point created many years ago to make future room for the DUS build out, even narrowing this line segment by 1 track would be unacceptable to the railroads. The railroads, IMO, correctly would insist that alternate rail lines be built first, before abandoning the right-of-way required for this segment to widen to 10 or 12 lanes.

IMO, this segment will be developed after the tax payer in Denver, and, perhaps the rest of the State, pays part of the cost of moving the lines east of the Front Range Urban Corridor, and, the Joint line through Denver is reduced to 1 or two tracks, and to 1 track to Pueblo.

Of course money talks.

**************

The cheapest solution would be to expand over the South Platte to the West, but, this would affect the bicycle trail and cover up our magnificent river for a mile or so. And who could tolerate that.

[The Dirt]

That doesn't make sense. The segment that you're talking about has 4 lanes plus an extended onramp lane. There is no need to expand anywhere adjacent to the tracks, which veer away south of this area. Engi is talking about the area south of this.

EDIt: Hats off for being able to inject commentary on moneyed interests into every post.

[EngiNerd]

No the segment I am referring to should have nothing to do with 6th Ave, which is much further north.

NB I-25 is 4 lanes south of Santa Fe exit, a lane drops off on the exit from I-25 to Santa Fe so I-25 is now 3 lanes, and stays 3 lanes until the on-ramp from NB Santa Fe merges with NB I-25 when it becomes 4 lanes again. The highway signs are up indicating it as such, so I believe its permanent, at least for the foreseeable future. But there is a huge shoulder area in this section, so it seems like it shouldn't be a big deal to keep it 4 lanes the entire way through, which is what I don't get.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

No the segment I am referring to should have nothing to do with 6th Ave, which is much further north.

NB I-25 is 4 lanes south of Santa Fe exit, a lane drops off on the exit from I-25 to Santa Fe so I-25 is now 3 lanes, and stays 3 lanes until the on-ramp from NB Santa Fe merges with NB I-25 when it becomes 4 lanes again. The highway signs are up indicating it as such, so I believe its permanent, at least for the foreseeable future. But there is a huge shoulder area in this section, so it seems like it shouldn't be a big deal to keep it 4 lanes the entire way through, which is what I don't get.

I hope CDOT widens I-25 North between Santa Fe and 6th to 4 lanes proper. The damn freeway can get backed up to past Colorado, which then means the I-25/225 merging traffic can (and does come into play).

Or make a giant bike path.

[EngiNerd]

North of the Santa Fe onramp to I-25 it is already 4 lanes after the recent construction (5 lanes in some places with the merging lanes), it is just that one short area that isn't. I believe that it is now the only portion of I-25 that is less than 4 lanes between C-470 and the Boulder Turnpike Exit.

[RyanD]

Guys.. Guys... I found the truth today.. A lot of people in Denver just have terrible credit..

[Cirrus]

Reminds me of this:

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Reminds me of this:

You ride the local bus, too, eh?