DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 228

bunt_q · #**4541** Posted **Mar 14, 2013, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I see Hawaii is now located off the coast of Florida. Convenient!

Hawaii... Puerto Rico... Indonesia... Kenya... all the same. Not America.

Cirrus · #**4542** Posted **Mar 14, 2013, 11:57 PM**

Even better, it's in place of Cuba. Take that, commies.

The Dirt · #**4543** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I see Hawaii is now located off the coast of Florida. Convenient!

Yeah, but the only way to get there is to ride your bike from Houston. Seems pretty inconvenient.

DenverInfill · #**4544** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Yeah, but the only way to get there is to ride your bike from Houston. Seems pretty inconvenient.

Apparently it's only an east-west national system!

Scottk · #**4545** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 5:47 AM**

noticed some discussion about giving popular bus routes a "brand"

Hasn't Boulder been doing this for years? The Hop, Skip, Jump, Dash, Bound & Stampede all come to mind. Most of these routes run every 15 minutes or half hour

also when is RTD going to get next bus? The only route I know that currently uses nextbus is The Hop and its so convenient!

PLANSIT · #**4546** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 6:41 AM**

Boulder buys-up service. Denver does not. They get to brand service. Denver does not.

bcp · #**4547** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 4:07 PM**

Can you explain what "buys up" means and it's impact on brand-ability? thanks!

PLANSIT · #**4548** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 5:11 PM**

In a nut shell, Boulder subsidizes premium service routes (i.e. Hop, Skip, Jump, etc.) through its Community Transit Network. RTD maintains and operates these services, but Boulder funds them above and beyond the regional RTD tax. They "buy-up" service. Because they pay for this additional service, they get to brand it. Thus, "Hop, Skip, Jump" were created. They are unique to Boulder.

Denver has not done this so far. And RTD doesn't seem to be too interested in "branding" premium service.

bcp · #**4549** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 7:59 PM**

thanks - so beyond the mall shuttle...denver would need to pony up and help organize a branded network in the city.

PLANSIT · #**4550** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 8:03 PM**

Most likely.

It gets a little sticky as routes just don't end at city boundaries. For instance, if the 15 or 15L were re-branded, Denver, RTD, and Aurora would have to come up with some kind of strategy/funding scheme.

bunt_q · #**4551** Posted **Mar 15, 2013, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

In a nut shell, Boulder subsidizes premium service routes (i.e. Hop, Skip, Jump, etc.) through its Community Transit Network. RTD maintains and operates these services, but Boulder funds them above and beyond the regional RTD tax. They "buy-up" service. Because they pay for this additional service, they get to brand it. Thus, "Hop, Skip, Jump" were created. They are unique to Boulder.

Denver has not done this so far. And RTD doesn't seem to be too interested in "branding" premium service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Most likely.

It gets a little sticky as routes just don't end at city boundaries. For instance, if the 15 or 15L were re-branded, Denver, RTD, and Aurora would have to come up with some kind of strategy/funding scheme.

A couple questions - (1) Are we sure this happens?.. . I know we've always assumed as much, but how much ongoing funding transfer is there, and where is this actually occurring? (I'd like to see the IGA); (2) Are we sure it's Boulder, or is it Boulder County? Many of the Boulder routes also cross jurisdictional lines. Not to mention, I am wading through the Boulder budget right now, and I do not see a single line item that looks like a funding transfer to RTD, only the direct Boulder expenditures - the HOP, I presume; and (3) I would like to know exactly how much money we are talking about. Can anybody help me find the GO Boulder budget?

EDIT: Getting somewhere... still digging... http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Tra...g_report_final_709_small_pdf_version.pdf

Cirrus · #**4552** Posted **Mar 17, 2013, 3:17 AM**

Just for giggles, here are some Silverliner 5 EMUs in service in Philly. Same as RTD will use on the 3 Eagle lines.

from andy joos on flickr

from eastern railz on flickr

from r36 coach on flickr

bunt_q · #**4553** Posted **Mar 17, 2013, 3:47 AM**

Yeah, first sight of those beasts is going to confuse the heck out of the Denver train-going public. That's the beefiest looking "light" rail ever.

BG918 · #**4554** Posted **Mar 17, 2013, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, first sight of those beasts is going to confuse the heck out of the Denver train-going public. That's the beefiest looking "light" rail ever.

IMO outside of Philadelphia, Chicago and a few other northeastern cities Denver has some of the ugliest trains. Minneapolis is my favorite, followed by Austin, Houston, Seattle and Portland's newer cars. Why so big and bulky RTD? Cheaper?

Zmapper · #**4555** Posted **Mar 17, 2013, 4:50 AM**

Cirrus, actually there is a slight difference in the doors of the Silverliner V and the RTD trains. SEPTA installed single/double panels with steps to low platforms; RTD will have two sets of double wide doors with no steps.

Cirrus · #**4556** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 6:24 PM**

Distance isn't the only factor of walkability. Walking anywhere at all from that site would be boring, which matters even more than distance. It would *seem* like an even longer walk than it is.

This is a bad location no matter what. I wouldn't even want an institutional use there, except maybe a prison. It's good for industrial and not much else. It'd be great for a railyard.

Interzen · #**4557** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 6:40 PM**

I guess the .3 miles around the circle to little raven and 20th could be considered boring by some. In the summer there's often several kickball games going on in the park to watch as you walk, then you are by the skate park, and the new development across the street and things just pick up from there.

I suppose it could get old always having to take the same route without many alternatives to spice things up a bit but it wouldn't be enough to force me into a car. I would trade a small amount of boredom for not having to find and pay for parking at my destination.

Cirrus, what is you opinion then of the Taxi complex. Should that site have been a prison too? It seems like a much less desirable location.

Cirrus · #**4558** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 6:47 PM**

Where's the taxi complex? What is it? Just a parking lot for taxies (I'd call that an industrial use)?

Sorry, I'm not local.

bunt_q · #**4559** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

the reason this plan will encourage tons of driving, and the reason it won't have retail, is because it is such an underutilization of the land and low-density (400 sounds big...but this is a massive parcel...this is big enough to support 5x the number of units or more, plus a mini-mainstreet...in that situation, you've got much less car trips happening.

Prospect hasn't managed to spur retail development, and it's much larger, and much less disconnected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interzen

What is your cut-off distance for walkable. By my measurements the site in question is .5 miles or less than 9 minutes walk to the Galvanize 2 site, .6 miles or less than 12 minutes walk to both highlands and 18th street bridges, and .7 miles or less than 15 min walk to the DUS light rail station.

I walk the .7 miles from my house to the 16th street shuttle and back at least twice a week and if I lived there I would definitely be walking almost everywhere, or possibly riding a bike in good weather.

I also find myself passing through Guenavaca Park on foot and bike quite often and it always seemed to me that the area occupied by that building and associated land was large enough for a small community about 1/3 the size of prospect. I had no knowledge of the emergency access issues though.

Half-mile, max. And those destinations you describe are good for what, maybe a couple trips per week? Entertainment, that's about it. Within a half mile you have very few jobs, almost no shopping. You said you walk 0.7 miles twice per week - but how many trips do you make in a week to someplace? Normal people are going to make 4+ forays out of their house - at this location, that'll be in a car. A park, a river... these are good selling points (which is what bcp is thinking of), but they have little impact on car-dependency.

Oh course, people can survive at almost any location without a car... by not going anywhere. People who live their lives, and have some time constraints in them too, aren't going to live here and not drive. Most likely, people who hate cars aren't going to choose to live here - there are better options for that lifestyle.

bunt_q · #**4560** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 6:58 PM**

Taxi is auto-dependent too. Denargo is the real nightmare - that's a whole lot of units, and not a lot of walkability. And there are not any other real options right now.

What you have to realize when you talk transportation is that it's not a question of whether it is POSSIBLE to live without a car. It's also possible to live without grid electricity, but few people make that choice. Most people do what is the most convenient/affordable option for them. Most people do not make inconvenient choices "because it's right." Some do (in economist terms, people who get utility - feel good, basically - out of doing the socially responsible thing), but not most. People who live a few miles outside of downtown in an industrial area, and choose to only commute by bicycle (still, not a pleasant way to travel for 4 months of the year), are a rarity. Most will also own a car (which is why developers keep providing parking!). We don't have to LIKE it, or even AGREE with it. But we ought to recognize it. The word "should" has no place in discussions of planning and transportation (e.g. "people should..."). (Golden Triangle and Curtis Park might be the exceptions - they'll have good bicycle options. But I still wouldn't expect that to capture a huge percentage.)

RyanD and I have had this discussion quite a bit... we need to start seriously investing in transportation alternatives around/near downtown (probably improvements to both cycling AND transit - and I don't mean fastracks), or else the only thing we'll get from 20,000 more people in downtown-adjacent neighborhoods is a whole lot of traffic. Downtown Denver still has a pretty large footprint - and relatively speaking, not a lot of density (at least, not enough density that we can expect a grocery store for every little sub-neighborhood).

Denargo is my favorite example. How are those people going to shop for groceries, realistically (not idealistically)?

A CityTarget at 15th/California might be another fun one to contemplate. What is the realistic mode split for people who shop there? You'll get some workers/commuters, but I'm talking in terms of locals. Uptown, Capitol Hill, Ballpark, Lower Highland (even Union Station), Prospect, Curtis Park, Golden Triangle... sure seems to me like from most of these places, if you have a car, you'll use it most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a bad thing... no judgment at all... I just think given the alternatives we have, that's what people will do, so we need to plan for it.