DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 68

Eeyore · #**1341** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 10:42 PM**

^

I do know that but they were just talking about the doctors and where they would live.

Cirrus · #**1342** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 10:43 PM**

If transit is good enough for the hospital the serves the President of the United States, then it is good enough for any in Colorado.

Eeyore · #**1343** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 10:57 PM**

^

Once Denver gets a mass transit system like the DC area with subways then I will agree with you. Until then I would bet more people will be driving then taking the mass transit.

Brainpathology · #**1344** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 11:39 PM**

Denverinfill made a great point and I was way too Dr-centric in my post. Mostly because I was recalling a conversation with a colleague at a meeting a couple weeks ago. Our quick impressions of other Dr's was that none of them will take a bus no matter how fast it is, it's just not going to happen, ever. Some of them would take a line which had a stop on the campus like the I225 line, esp ones who live in the south and could start from Lone Tree or Park Meadows or along DTC. If there was ever a line or stop at Stapleton which went to the campus a lot of them would do that as well. Same with downtown. A larger proportion of the support staff would probably be interested in this too.

Denver doesn't need subways.. it needs rail which is faster to a bit slower than autos. As someone here said who actually is a medical professional (I think that might have been ME) there are advantages to having time to study and work instead of watching the road. The advantages are so great in fact that the slow, urine smelling metro buses on Sunset BLVD here in LA are packed with residents, medical and dental students, etc who live in Hollywood and West Hollywood (as well as support staff from the medical campus, UCLA students and house staff for Beverly Hills and Bel Air.. it's a very interesting mix of people). Most, if not all of us are usually spending our time reading or studying - a two hour a day advantage we all have over the people who spend that time stuck in traffic but having to watch the rest of the cars.

I often wonder what ridership might look like if we would bill these lines as opportunities to work and get ahead of your dumb colleagues who spend all their time driving while you sit and read or work on reports etc. Everyone complains about needing more time in the day, these would be a perfect way to get some.

Brainpathology · #**1345** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eeyore

I see your point but if I was a DR I would not want to be any place not by my car including the hospital as I would never know when I would be needed for a emergency at another hospital.

I wrote a long response to this but what's the use - here it is in bullet points.

-large hospitals have most, if not all, services covered 24-7
-docs wouldn't be at one hospital and be on call at another for things that require emergent action. that = easy lawsuit WIN, wouldn't even get to court
-even if the above were true, a system of lines where the schedules are set and you don't have to chance traffic in your beloved car would be better
-no one is going to argue that many (very likely most at first) dr's would still use their cars
-no one would argue that you'll never give up your car

Cirrus · #**1346** Posted **Aug 17, 2010, 11:57 PM**

Quote:

Until then I would bet more people will be driving then taking the mass transit.

That's an entirely different argument than you were making before.

I think you just don't want to admit to being wrong.

pablosan · #**1347** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 1:07 AM**

I find using mass transit to be the most efficient use of my time.

SnyderBock · #**1348** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:47 AM**

So what exactly are the new ridership projections for each line? When will these be made available, or have they already been released?

rds70 · #**1349** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

So what exactly are the new ridership projections for each line? When will these be made available, or have they already been released?

From the Denver Post

Brainpathology · #**1350** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds70

From the Denver Post

looks like time to cut the SE extension, SW extension and the Bus Rapid Transit lines...

Why is the Central Extension so anemic as well? If it wasn't central I'd say ax that too...

wong21fr · #**1351** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:20 AM**

Hmmm, looks like the I-225 line is now eligible for federal funds.

Brainpathology · #**1352** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hmmm, looks like the I-225 line is now eligible for federal funds.

What's the threshold for that?

wong21fr · #**1353** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

looks like time to cut the SE extension, SW extension and the Bus Rapid Transit lines...

Why is the Central Extension so anemic as well? If it wasn't central I'd say ax that too...

Those are additional riders. So the SE extension would add an additional 15K to the 38K current riders driving the corridor ridership past the 50K mark. Not bad for a couple hundred million investment.

Same for the Central and SW lines.

If any line needs to go, it should be the NW line.

Octavian · #**1354** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 6:06 AM**

SW and SE extensions are short and thus relatively cheap, but politically difficult because the northern cities have gotten nothing thus far.

You need a local match for new starts funding. The dollars are already committed.

bunt_q · #**1355** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 11:43 AM**

So the Northwest rail is suddenly, conveniently, showing better than the BRT. I would love to dig into the modeling here. What, pray tell, has changed in the northwest corridor in terms of land use/population projections? Nothing changes up there. It's planned/growth restricted to death. Certainly the change in rail technology didn't do it. The Westy redevelopment isn't enough either. Maybe jobs projections with the recession hitting Broomfield hard? But surely that was taken into account, the tech bust and whatnot hit Broomfield/Boulder in plenty of time for the original modeling to account for those changes. So what changed?

Same question for 225 actually. What changed? Not Fitzsimmons - it's not as if that redevelopment was a surprise. We were talking about a 30,000-job behemoth as far back as the I-225/MIS days. What's new? I suppose the City of Aurora has made some significant planning changes out that way, but double?

taylor23 · #**1356** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So the Northwest rail is suddenly, conveniently, showing better than the BRT. I would love to dig into the modeling here. What, pray tell, has changed in the northwest corridor in terms of land use/population projections? Nothing changes up there. It's planned/growth restricted to death. Certainly the change in rail technology didn't do it. The Westy redevelopment isn't enough either. Maybe jobs projections with the recession hitting Broomfield hard? But surely that was taken into account, the tech bust and whatnot hit Broomfield/Boulder in plenty of time for the original modeling to account for those changes. So what changed?

Same question for 225 actually. What changed? Not Fitzsimmons - it's not as if that redevelopment was a surprise. We were talking about a 30,000-job behemoth as far back as the I-225/MIS days. What's new? I suppose the City of Aurora has made some significant planning changes out that way, but double?

One of the NW Rail stops will be real close to the new Conoco campus witch as far I know is still happening. That will be a lot of jobs. Westminster is also doing a lot of development at their stop.

I would say the Boulder numbers still look low. the B bus always have lot of riders even at odd times when I would expect to be the only person taking it. I guess the BRT and NW line siphon of riders form each other but the number still seem kind of low. Not that I really know any thing about such issues.

Paulopolis · #**1357** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 2:37 PM**

^^The census bureau admitted to undercounting Boulder's population and added about 6,000 people to their count within the past year or so. I don't know if that might also help to account for the difference in numbers.

Additionally, the metro area was actually losing people in the early part of the decade, and is now experience rather rapid growth again. Maybe new population projections are contributing to the new numbers. I'm not really sure about any of this. Just an idea.

EngiNerd · #**1358** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 3:31 PM**

So anyone know, when they do the SE extension down to Ridgegate, will RTD also be petitioning to bring Castle Pines and Castle Rock into the tax district? It seems like those two cities have the most to gain from this extension.

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/BoardOffice/boardDistrictMap.cfm

Brainpathology · #**1359** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

So anyone know, when they do the SE extension down to Ridgegate, will RTD also be petitioning to bring Castle Pines and Castle Rock into the tax district? It seems like those two cities have the most to gain from this extension.

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/elbert/BoardOffice/boardDistrictMap.cfm

Didn't Dougco and/or Castle Rock just vote themselves out of RTD? I thought we had this sort of discussion before when this was planned. I was being a tad (well maybe more than a tad) snarky about cutting extensions before but really if we're building something to benefit a county (mostly) which refuses to do their part I think it should get axed. Or someone should be there checking ID's in the parking garage and charging 10.00 a day or 20 or whatever from people outside of the district.

wong21fr · #**1360** Posted **Aug 18, 2010, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Didn't Dougco and/or Castle Rock just vote themselves out of RTD? I thought we had this sort of discussion before when this was planned. I was being a tad (well maybe more than a tad) snarky about cutting extensions before but really if we're building something to benefit a county (mostly) which refuses to do their part I think it should get axed. Or someone should be there checking ID's in the parking garage and charging 10.00 a day or 20 or whatever from people outside of the district.

Douglas County and/or Castle Rock have voted to stay out of RTD IIRC. But, that is bound to change as Castle Rock's pathetic little attempts at mass transit just ain't cutting it.

Brain, RTD does charge for parking in their lots if you are an out of district resident.