DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Interzen]

^ Agreed. Plenty of room up top in the auto right of way for mass transit.

[CharlesCO]

Not only do monorail systems have to be elevated almost all the time, but it's also extremely difficult to build switches for them to create spurs. That's why most monorail systems (not that there are many) are built in loops. And we all know how many people want to travel in circles...

Those are still some really interesting pictures though. I knew about the proposed PRT system for Denver, and I knew about the other plans for monorails in the 60s, such as the Los Angeles one, but I never knew there were discussions (or sketches) for a monorail system in Denver.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The top 10% does not distort the median at all. It distorts the mean.

Admittedly, a decline is going to effectively hut the bottom 10% of society the most. But that is not even remotely similar to what you're constantly preaching about societal decline, nobody being able to afford autos, etc. You're completely changing your argument now. If what you're saying is the "poor will get poorer" then I'll agree. And say there's something we need to do to address that. But it's nigh irrelevant to a transportation discussion, except at the very margins where a few people who can afford a car today might struggle later. But the U.S. is already so wealthy, and the affordability threshold for cars so far below even today's federal poverty level, that what you're saying is simply not accurate. Poverty level for a household of 1 is presently $11,490. That's a South Africa/Brazil level of wealth. And the median Brazilian can afford a car. So you're talking about a small and very disadvantaged segment of U.S. society. Not enough to precipitate the decline you so regularly complain about.

I'm curious where your obsession with fudging the numbers to prove just how terrible and doomed the U.S. is stems from?

I have never said the US is doomed. All I have been saying all along is that the vast bulk of US are going to continue to become poorer. You and I can use different lingo, and, play semantics games, but, I am telling you that the economic adjustments in the next 10 or 20 years are going to be severe. Am I telling you that you will be poorer? No. Am I telling any one of the bloggers that they will be poorer. No. But, I am saying that the odds are high that many of us will not be as rich as we are now.

I base this on changes in the wealth of each percentage slice with respect to time since about 1965. I am also saying that the mean, the median is going to continue to decline, at the very least, in the bottom 90% of the population. I have seen this coming for years- how many of the new jobs are temps? How many people as a percentage of working people are working two jobs? How many young people are being strangled medium term by high college debt loans? How many good paying jobs are being lost to automation and outsourcing? How many trillions are in debt service where a slight rise in real interest rates has a huge impact on the Federal Budget? What about pensions? Medicare financing? Social Security, etc., etc., etc.

My point concerning public transportation is that we ABSOLUTELY have to put more of our efforts into being able to move, what potentially could be a far larger number of people, to work, to entertainment, and, to shop (yes I know we will all get our groceries delivered to us by Amazon, LOL). What would the impact, for example, be if three or four times the people rode public transportation in 2025 or even earlier*, not because they want too but because they must? How do you increase the average speed of the system, both speed up and ease transfer capabilities, improve entry and exit from vehicles, etc.?

Sir, the poorer 90 - 80 -70% etc., will be the people who will increasing need to use public transportation and other options to the car. The idealists will find out soon enough what crowds mean, and, most will be disillusioned. Regardless, the vast amount of the increase will be in the bottom 25 - 50 -75%.

We are not HEDGING OUR BETS!!

*how about 200,000 riders per day riding the light rail as it exists today? How about 300,000? How about the total bus + rail system carrying in 2025 what cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia due today? I am not talking Armageddon, I am talking about 10 to 12% of all travel in the metro area that by 2025 might have 3.5 million people.

The section from Colfax through Auraria West and Mile High Station would sure be a horrid mess (and it did not have to be!!)

****************************

There is an awful lot of great information out there. And, I grant you, I am not as good as many out there in conveying to readers the continuing decline.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_State
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0694.pdf (bottom chart)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42400.pdf

I will provide more as addendums.

[Wizened Variations]

I apologize Bunt for using median incorrectly. Median is the value in terms of Y determined by 50/50 distribution in X. Mean would be the value in Y when all the values of Y are added up, then divided by the number of Xs.

This most accurately is used to define wealth, in particular average wealth. For example, in Bargaineering.com

In 2007 the median net worth was $120,000 (which corresponds to the median income) which the median wealth was $556,300.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones (2007 median data, 2007 dollars):
Current work status of head:
◾Working for someone else: $350,100
◾Self-employed: $1,961,300
◾Retired: $543,100
◾Other not working: $124,100

Race or ethnicity of respondent:
◾White non-Hispanic: $692,200
◾Nonwhite or Hispanic: $228,500

Housing status:
◾Owner: $778,200
◾Renter or other: $70,600

You made me work at my point, which is good. There is a viral YouTube video that is scattered over the internet, called Wealth Inequality in America. I bring this up, because a decrease in the median income (correctly defined) affects those with the least wealth, the most. Discretionary income has more meaning when there is less asset related debt to service, for example, house payments.

To be more correct, sir, the wealth of the lower 90% of the population will be depleted more rapidly than the wealth of the upper 10% of the population (concentrated in the .1% actually). The lower the level of wealth, the higher the percent income that is needed to provide for food, shelter, medicine, transportation, etc.

This is the group - perhaps lower than 90- maybe 80% that feels the affect first when the real median income drops.

We should prepare for a higher percentage of our population to not be able to afford cars in the near future. Do I know the tipping point? No, if I did, I would invest like hell.

[bunt_q]

I guess my question is "so what?" You assume transit is the answer for a poorer population. I think the opposite, I think transit is a luxury of the rich. Poor people get around through informal means. That's what I think will take off when we're poor - jitneys rolling through the suburbs. Because getting poorer isn't going to bring people any closer to a light rail station.

You've gotta stop comparing everything to the top 10%. I don't care about them. In a transportation discussion, they don't matter. The very bottom doesn't either, frankly - there will always be something for them. It's the 80% in the middle that we should focus on. And even with your doomsday scenario, it doesn't sound like they're reaching Iraq level poor. And Iraqis have cars. So your transportation doomsday scenario is still based on incorrect assumptions.

The one piece of infrastructure nobody ever asked me for was a public bus or a train. And they managed. So will we. Transit is an answer to many things, but abject poverty in the future isn't one of them. (At least rail transit. If you want to talk about buses up the wazoo, that's a different discussion.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The one piece of infrastructure nobody ever asked me for was a public bus or a train. And they managed. So will we. Transit is an answer to many things, but abject poverty in the future isn't one of them. (At least rail transit. If you want to talk about buses up the wazoo, that's a different discussion.)

I was asked for a train, trans-mountain range highway tunnel, and an airport in one shurah. The best infrastructure project the area received was a two-lane paved road that didn't reach half of the valley and solar lighting for the bazaar. I think they were a tad bit disappointed.

[bcp]

fascinating debate...but any analysis that lops off the top 10% of the data, regardless of reason, is clearly to skew the outcome...that just goes way beyond removing outliers...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

fascinating debate...but any analysis that lops off the top 10% of the data, regardless of reason, is clearly to skew the outcome...that just goes way beyond removing outliers...

Not necessarily. You have to look at who utilizes certain transportation modes. Take the top-10%, for example. I bet it's safe to say they comprise a negligible proportion of transit ridership. You could even go so far as to say that transportation planning inherently ignores anybody who isn't traveling in the peak hour, since our entire systems are designed to accommodate peak flow.

Same reason water planners ignore the apartment dwellers and pay close attention to golf courses. It's not a judgment call - it's just how the numbers play out.

You're thinking like an education planner. "No child left behind." But most things aren't planned that way, and I'd argue, that's why education blows. Something that's adequate for everybody is great for nobody. If we planned our utilities like we do our schools, we'd inherently have rolling brownouts and more-frequent water restrictions. And some pretty god awful transportation systems. And thankfully (despite Wizened's pessimism), we don't. Most of our infrastructure works pretty well, all things considered. (Just not our transit, but that's more a function of our land use than our investments, I would argue.)

[bcp]

Agreed on "segmentation"...but not for the descriptive stuff going on...anyhoo....

Im fascinated by the assumption that transit is supposedly designed for the poor....everywhere i have lived (dc, nyc and chicago) its just not the case...call it anecdotal, but ditching the car and taking the train to work is a-ok for the well off when a system is well executed.

[Cirrus]

"An advanced city is not a place where the poor move about in cars, rather it’s where even the rich use public transportation."
- Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

"An advanced city is not a place where the poor move about in cars, rather it’s where even the rich use public transportation."
- Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia

Exactly. That was sort of my point in a reply to Wizened that I think got lost/never posted. But it's odd to be that we'd assume the solution to a poor India-like society is more transit, when the best transit in the world seems to be associated with the wealthy. (Although, even then, probably not the top-10%... the uber rich are a different breed altogether.)

I think a lot of that assumption comes from Wizened's view of the Delhi Metro as some sort of gold standard for effectively and comfortably moving the destitute masses. Which is a characterization that still astounds me.

[bcp]

We all win! (unless you are tryingto use and rtd ticket machine)

[wong21fr]

If anyone cares, RTD opted to go with New Flyer 60' articulated buses to replace its existing articulated fleet. These buses will also be used for the DT circulator with a BRT package and three doors instead of two.

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If anyone cares, RTD opted to go with New Flyer 60' articulated buses to replace its existing articulated fleet. These buses will also be used for the DT circulator with a BRT package and three doors instead of two.

Do you have a link?

The buses replacing the regular routes with articulated buses (15L, 120X, etc) will have two doors instead of three now commonplace amongst other systems, while the Downtown Circulator will have three doors?

Are they regular diesel, diesel-electric hybrids, or CNG?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Do you have a link?

The buses replacing the regular routes with articulated buses (15L, 120X, etc) will have two doors instead of three now commonplace amongst other systems, while the Downtown Circulator will have three doors?

Are they regular diesel, diesel-electric hybrids, or CNG?

Here:
http://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1400

Two doors on regular routes, three on circulator.

Clean Diesel.

[Cirrus]

I believe this is New Flyer's current articulated model:


Calvin So on flickr

[Zmapper]

Very sharp bus.

Still wish that RTD would advance into the 21st century and order artics with 3 doors for the regular routes. Even if the extra door is only used for alighting, it sets the stage for an incremental expansion of light rail-like proof-of-payment to the most heavily traveled bus routes.

[Interzen]

Our mountain transportation system search is over. Hyperloop it is.

[Cirrus]

Submitted without comment.

Originally Posted by Boulder Daily Camera

Boulder planners seek ways to get people out of cars
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_23848816/boulder-planners-seek-ways-get-people-out-cars

Transportation planners have spent much of the last year talking to people about how they travel and why. Now, planners are turning that feedback into ideas for new programs and services to meet the city's transportation goals.

It's a long process that won't be complete until late spring 2014, when the Boulder City Council is expected to adopt the update to the Transportation Master Plan.

The City Council meets in a study session Tuesday night to discuss the progress on the plan so far and questions and concerns going forward.

The council will also be discussing regional transportation issues, including the possibility that the state could ask voters to approve an additional sales tax of up to 0.7 percent to pay for transportation improvements.

...

Boulder needs to decide whether it will support such a sales tax if the state puts it on the ballot and what guarantees it should seek that some of that money will go toward the long-delayed extension of commuter rail to the northwest corridor and other transit improvements, like bus-rapid transit, not just along U.S. 36 but other major routes in the region.

"The northwest corridor is in there saying, 'We didn't get any money from FasTracks, so we need to be made relatively whole,'" Appelbaum said. "If there isn't a significant set aside for our corridor, that would be exceptionally difficult for us to support."

Locally, the Boulder City Council has voted to place a six-year, 0.15 percent sales tax for roads on the ballot and to ask that a 0.15 percent sales tax dedicated to open space be shifted to roads for 10 years when it expires in 2019.

That tax will provide roughly $4.2 million a year for pavement maintenance and other transportation needs.

...

[RyanD]

You know how we all say we should utilize streets on our bikes and stay off the sidewalks? Well I was enjoying a pleasant walk down 20th when these idiots blew past me shouting "Coming through". THESE people out of everyone else should be setting the example.. I jogged toward them while launching my camera app just to get a picture to prove the story to be true. They were hauling ass weaving in and out between people..