Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive
IName one city where you think rail transit has solved all their problems? That's not even a realistic goal.
Did you take note that Denver's ten rail transit lines with 50 stations currently carries 55% of the ridership of the whole bus route network of 9,000 bus stops? At what ridership point would you consider rail a success?
|
Woah, take it easy! That wasn’t me; that was Average Joe Anti-transit Voter Guy! He was told back when he voted for it, it would end the gridlock by taking cars off the road and give us all a better way to get around. Average Joe Anti-transit Voter Guy tends to have hyperbolic opinions that aren’t very nuanced.
I personally would consider rail a success when it changes Denver into a place where people can live without relying on a car - when we get a system that takes people where they actually need to go instead of this freeway-hugging park-n-ride crap. It cost us a massive fortune. We could have gotten so much more with those dollars but now we’re going to have to wait forever for what we really need because we’re still paying out the ass for this misguided, “get people from a massive concrete slab in the suburbs to their office building downtown,” antiquated, 90’s ideal of a transit system - which won’t even be complete (without coming up with even more billions) for decades. We bet the farm on this thing.
One great thing we did get out of it though - probably the only truly successful part - is a train to the airport. And coincidentally, that train to the airport happens to be the only line that spawned substantial, city-changing TOD. Man did that line work out. But the rest of it? Probably wasn’t worth blowing our wad.