Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
Welcome bob, if I didn't welcome you before.
I think bob's post reinforces exactly what I was saying. I don't disagree with Cirrus' explanation of why bicycles dominate the discussion at all. But bob wrote an entire post about multimodal cities without mentioning the word transit. Not once. Multimodal in bob's post means a very narrow spectrum from bicycles (good) to cars (bad). But bob's not to blame, because like I mentioned before, that's the discussion I hear everywhere - that is how today's public discussion is framed.
Which I think is peculiar for a couple of reasons. First off, no matter what rational people knew to be true, transit has always had a hard enough time winning the modal argument when it's framed as a war against cars. Why are cyclists even going there?
And secondly, Denver is still a high-density low-density city. A city of neighborhoods, a city of streetcar suburbs, etc. Bicycling is good for many trips, yes. But Denver's most central neighborhoods are still not a huge portion of the city's population. There is a huge gap between what bicycles can serve, and what we should need cars for. A huge gap between what Fastracks does and what bicycles can do.
The vast majority of Denver's population lives in neighborhoods that are probably still too far for most cyclists, but too close to be auto-dependent in a good multi-modal city. It is foolish of us to ignore that. Cherry Creek is an obvious example. I think that's too far for most casual cyclists. So should we relegate Cherry Creek to forever be an auto destination?
|
When I said we need to pay greater attention to modes of transit that have been de-emphasized for a century such as the bicycle I implied transit in there as well. I did not mention it specifically because I was more in the "I have to defend the bike" mood as cycling in my experience gets picked on more than most modes of travel.
Why I think cycling may be getting more attention than transit:
1) Theirs a lot of room for improvement in American infrastructure (even more than in Public Transit)
2) The east coast finally realized what a bicycle is and that coast tends to influence where the attention is in all aspects of American society
3) Most infrastructure is cheap to implement and we are in a recession so more of it is being implemented over transit
4) Cycling types of infrastructure are cheaper to experiment with so new ways are being experimented with more often
Additionally, not much new transit infrastructure is being proposed so we do not have much to talk about. Transit is not being proposed because their are certain political realities that are stopping transit improvements from coming:
1)RTD is a regional entity and any funding increases have had to be regional which requires regional approval
2)IMO most of the transportation improvements need to occur where public transit makes the most sense which is in Denver.
3)Trying to get regional taxes for something solely in Denver is a non-starter especially considering a lot of the anti-Denver sentiment lately.
4) Fastracks needs a funding increase and the mayor is likely to put any other funding for transit improvements on the back-burner until the tax is passed out of fear it might risk the tax being approved.
The initial Colfax streetcar feasibility study alludes to this regional funding dilemma and proposes things such as grants, special mill levies etc. IMO we need a consistent dedicated citywide mill levy for mass transit infrastructure improvements in Denver which would include the building of that streetcar among other things (I also think we need one for bike sharing and lanes but I will try to stay on transit). Public works could then coordinate with RTD on those transit needs and how they could be cost neutral to RTD and improve transit in Denver. The political realities of getting something like that passed right now with the economic climate, pending 2012 fastracks vote, and a Green Valley Ranch based mayor seems unrealistic.
As far as cycling being impractical in some parts of the city I would agree that it may be true for some daily commutes like a Stapleton to CBD (living in the CBD I believe a Cherry Creek to CBD is practical as I bike that every time I go to CC North or the mall).
However, let's say someone from Stapleton worked at CU Hospital and wanted to bike there but did not have a safe route, or that same person wanted to do something at Northfield where their currently is no safe cycling route. By not having the cycling infrastructure in place we are not enabling that form of transit for that person living in Stapleton. If I remember my stats correctly nationwide 60% of all automobile trips are less than 5 miles (my personal biking cut off) and 40% of all trips are less than 3 miles. More people biking when they could up to that 5 miles or even just that 3 miles would make a dramatic difference throughout the city.
Also just because biking on it's own from a destination to a destination may not be practical it does not exclude using cycling as part of the solution to the last mile(s) transit problem. I would think accommodating this would be especially helpful in the DTC due to the spread out nature of that place.
Prev
Linear Mode
