Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
The compelling reason is that it's politically impossible.
This is America... we don't live in the realm of what's rational, or even what makes sense... we live in the universe of the politically acceptable. Which is why we do a lot of dumb stuff that costs a lot more than it needs to.
Health care is something like 17% of GDP (51% higher than the next closest OECD nation on a per capita basis). 'Nuff said. Why? Because we like it that way, damnit.
And this is Colorado. And we don't like things that are ugly. We do like sunshine. And elevated trains are ugly. And they block sunshine. Period. Cost be damned, we'll build anything-but-elevated.  |
(I do agree with the reality of real politik, 
but, anyway....)
All depends on future demand.
There are (at least) two ways to plan future scenarios:
1st) that the future will be very much like the present, with incremental changes
2nd) that trends visible in the present will accelerate and produce rapid change and/or catastropic change.
I am of the second school.
If, for example, by 2030 or 2040, personal transportation costs per capita have grown far faster than real income, then public transportation (and private transportation companies) will (should) expand to fill that need.Combine an increased percentage of total person movement in the metro area not being done with POVs and, a significant increase in population in the metro area*, and, Denver will experience crushing demands for 'alternate' means of personal transport over the next 20 to 30 years.
Denver public transportation planning unfortunately has used the first alternative.
If one looks at a metro area where 10-15% of transportation rides are NOT car centered, and, Denver City running 20-25%, then getting people to and from job centers quickly and efficiently become far more important than most scenarios project (based upon what we are seeing being built out).
If downtown becomes a more preeminent job center (which Denver civic boosters are trying their best to do, as "All Rails lead to downtown Denver") than now, we might have 300,000 or more additional people working in an expanded future downtown. Combine that with expanded high density housing in a 5-10 km radius of Market Street Station and, IMO, an additional 500,000 rides/day (250 k users) could well impact Denver's core within 20 or 30 years.
The RTD build out of Commuter lines, light rail, and, bus interfaces will not handle loads near this future level, and, easy expansion solutions have been removed by the build out that has, and, is being done. Significant future improvements will have to be made by placing transportation lines THROUGH increasingly built up real estate.
Consequently, elevated light rail, or preferably heavier rail access through the Market Street/DUS axis at right angles or paralell to 16th Street, sooner, or later, will have to be built.
Elevated is cheaper than underground, and, the ratio in favor of elevated lines (elevated/underground) increases as a log function of how already developed the area that ROW of the future line is, over and above fixed costs.
*Denver, IMO, will have 850,000 or more people by 2040.
Prev
). Is the capacity too small? Can't get that kind of construction approved here? Bad model? It looked WAY less imposing than Hawaii or Chicago and had a certain grace that I think could complement downtown Denver. We could suspend it by masts that look like the Millennium bridge or some such....
Linear Mode
