DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

And where will the revenue come from? Cars and public transit at least have some means of generating revenue to pay for the infrastructure. How many people do you think will bicycle if we also start charging them for it?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And where will the revenue come from? Cars and public transit at least have some means of generating revenue to pay for the infrastructure. How many people do you think will bicycle if we also start charging them for it?

Agreed.

I also imagine that a legal question would arise concerning the rights of the handicapped, or the "physically disenfranchised." If, by law, handicapped access must be provided at public venues, then the physically disenfranchised should have equal right to use the transportation infrastructure.

Of course, it might sell if battery and/or motorized bikes were also permitted. This could also expand to motorized wheel chairs, etc. Motorized 3 wheel jitneys like are used in Vietnam and India today, too. Maybe 3 wheeled Harleys.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And where will the revenue come from? Cars and public transit at least have some means of generating revenue to pay for the infrastructure. How many people do you think will bicycle if we also start charging them for it?

There was a similar plan proposed for NYC and included a mechanism for funding- http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/...-we-need-cyclistpedestrian-only-bridges/

build three cyclist and pedestrian-only bridges that access Manhattan from Brooklyn, Queens, Hoboken and Jersey City...Schwartz’s plan proposes “fair pricing,” which adds tolls to the East River bridges but also lowers the tolls on the bridges that do not enter Manhattan. He also proposes a 50-cent toll for cyclists both entering and leaving Manhattan. He projects this will bring in $1.2 billion annually

Definitely pie-in-the-sky stuff but it shows what might be possible if we redirect the billions currently being spent on roads and highways.

[DenverRider2]

Is anyone familiar with the DUS/Cherry Creek/Glendale transportation study? According to this white paper they are pushing for branded bus service but streetcar doesn't seem to be on the table- http://www.transolutions.org/wp-content/...reek_Glendale_Corridor_White-Paper-1.pdf

[Cirrus]

The London thing is stupid. Not only needlessly expensive, but also not actually a good cycling path.

[Cirrus]

PS: Bikesharing has a better fare recovery rate than roads or transit.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The London thing is stupid. Not only needlessly expensive, but also not actually a good cycling path.

Oh probably, but let them look at it. We'll vulture off any good idea.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

PS: Bikesharing has a better fare recovery rate than roads or transit.

Bogus metric. They're not paying their own capital costs. If all of the gas tax was going to road O&M only, they'd pay for themselves. B-cycle doesn't pay the full cost of installing their own stations, let alone the cost of the bike lane (and especially the pavement it is using).

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

There was a similar plan proposed for NYC and included a mechanism for funding- http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/...-we-need-cyclistpedestrian-only-bridges/

That is not even a remotely similar, or even arguably comparable, plan. That's for bridges over rivers. Bridges have always had their own built in funding mechanism - there aren't exactly alternatives, so they're easy to toll. Toll a bridge over the East River, I pay it. Toll a bridge flying over 15th street, and I say screw it, and take 14th, or 16th, or 17th, or 18th, or 19th. Probably not 20th, though.

Also why tolling tunnels works so well. Toll a HOT lane on I-70, folks may or may not use it. Toll the Eisenhower Tunnel, and nearly everybody will pay.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bogus metric. They're not paying their own capital costs. If all of the gas tax was going to road O&M only, they'd pay for themselves. B-cycle doesn't pay the full cost of installing their own stations, let alone the cost of the bike lane (and especially the pavement it is using)....

Also why tolling tunnels works so well. Toll a HOT lane on I-70, folks may or may not use it. Toll the Eisenhower Tunnel, and nearly everybody will pay.

Agreed.

The issue with infrastructure built for bicycles is funding. How much money will be provided by users? Must money be provided by tax payers who will not, or cannot use bike lanes, bridges, etc.?

While bicycle lanes provide excellent PR in terms of city government's commitment to a "desirable lifestyle", how does this expense impact the non-bicyclist? How much must auto users who pay their gasoline tax, buy driver's licenses (and therefore are accountable for their driving actions), and pay for insurance provide so that this "desirable lifestyle" can benefit the bicyclist community?

Granted, public transportation users are subsidized, but a key difference is that that users contribute a share towards paying operating costs. Equally important, public transportation provides conveyance for people that are relatively infirm due to medical problems and age, i.e., "public transportation", by definition.

Indirectly, as I inferred, however, a bicyclist friendly infrastructure can raise property values and the resulting property taxes by selling the "desirable lifestyle" package. The idea that a city has healthy, young, educated professionals who ride bikes is great PR.

I suspect that "bridges" and dramatic bike lanes in highly visible spaces can indirectly increase city wealth. Consequently, I suspect, building bicycling related infrastructural improvements should be done in "highly visible areas" if done at all.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Consequently, I suspect, building bicycling related infrastructural improvements should be done in "highly visible areas" if done at all.

Couldn't we just do some big bronze statutes of prominent hipsters on bicycles and move on, if all we're going for is propaganda effect? Maybe some big North Korea-style murals promoting a sustainable rich-white-kid lifestyle, if we need a little more oomph?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Couldn't we just do some big bronze statutes of prominent hipsters on bicycles and move on, if all we're going for is propaganda effect? Maybe some big North Korea-style murals promoting a sustainable rich-white-kid lifestyle, if we need a little more oomph?

LOL!

Naw, build a bridge* or have a few downtown streets with a bright green painted bike lane, preferably close to the Convention Center, DUS, the Art Museum, etc.

At least to this point in the US, we have to "romance" our buyers, rather than use the steel toed boot.

*A small, highly visible bridge.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bogus metric. They're not paying their own capital costs.

Capital costs of bikeshare in NYC (40 million) were provided entirely by JP Morgan Chase (edit- CitiBank). The majority of capital in Denver was also provided by private business. I'm pretty sure no other form of transportation in the united states can claim this.

B-cycle doesn't pay the full cost of installing their own stations, let alone the cost of the bike lane (and especially the pavement it is using).

Maybe we should make pedestrians pay for the cost of building sidewalks. Freeloaders!

[jimluk]

I never thought this would promote much discussion, I just saw it and thought about what a ridiculous proposition it would be for Denver. Who is going to cycle on a bike lane built over our current train infrastructure. If anything it points out the fallacy of transit infrastructure paralleling interstates(but that is a whole other discussion)

In a place like London where streets are generally non contiguous and of various paving quality it might actually make some sense(got to ride those Boris Bikes somewhere) The density and lack of viable open space alternative might necessitate some greater bike infrastructure.

Funding is different depending on how it becomes classified. No one is calling NYC high line a funding failure, but it is viewed as a city amenity(park) vs infrastructure(transit lane). That being said it is hardly a new idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cycleway, which was an unprofitable failure BTW.

I would not be opposed to more investment in dedicated cycle ways though, for example Harvard Gulch south of the DU campus could be straightened and curb cut into a usable cycle path. with a bit more dedication it might be possible to create a continuous cycle track from the Yale station to the river or even up to Federal. Or an underpass at the DU light rail station could have paved the way for a continuous path from Harvard gulch through DU/South High/Wash park and up to Cherry Creek bike path(a nice parallel to the previously debated Broadway bike lane)

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bogus metric. They're not paying their own capital costs. If all of the gas tax was going to road O&M only, they'd pay for themselves. B-cycle doesn't pay the full cost of installing their own stations, let alone the cost of the bike lane (and especially the pavement it is using).

Oh you mean just like buses.

Hey, remember what you said in June when we were talking about this from a transit vs roads perspective? I do.

Originally Posted by bunt_q in June

I have no patience for this garbage, Wizened. That argument was used 50 years ago when buses first started replacing streetcars too. Unless you want to charge buses (and autos, for that matter) for the capital cost of the roads they drive on, you leave capital costs out of the equation. Apples to apples.

[Wizened Variations]

Cirrus, you may be comparing oranges to tangelos yourself.

A) The brief streetcar culture in US was both private enterprise driven and mass transit.

B) Despite GM and cohort companies who bought up street car lines with a lot of local, state and federal tolerance, the bus systems that replaced street cars were, at least on paper, also mass transit mechanisms.

C) Mass transit implies access and usability by large portions of the population.

In this sense, the roads and highways provide the masses transit.

D) Of course, at least in most of the US, public transportation of any kind serves a niche, rather than a mass market. In Denver, for example, perhaps 5% of metro user transportation is provided by buses and the light rail in toto.

E) Mass transit at least partially finances itself, although outside of some scrappy private bus lines is always subsidized. Subways, commuter lines, and streetcars, for whatever combination of reasons, have inevitably become public entities.

The bus lines that the GM combine encouraged to replace streetcars virtually all become city owned entities (as did the few streetcar lines that managed to survive).

F) Bicycling, as a form of primary commuting, is a very small niche in the US, and, is not yet a form of transit for the masses for one very important reason: what percentage of the population can burn the average amount of calories to travel the average commute distance?

While nations like the Netherlands and Japan have more of a bicycle related culture, they have very dense public transit networks en place, and, the average distance bike riders need to get to a station tends to be far less than in the US.* More importantly, cities in both of these countries provide the option- via good public transportation and a road grid for people not to have to use bicycles in their commute (in the US they can use cars and motorcycles).

G) Private enterprise will not foot the bill for bike lane improvements, etc., over any large scale area, as companies have to look at profits and expenses.
While a couple of lanes in a downtown grid might be provided (which I think NEEDS to be done more often), any large scale bike grid will have to be paid for with public money and interact with other forms of transportation on the same street network.

H) Private enterprise profits more through building public transportation systems than bicycle networks. The association of property developers, engineering, and construction consortiums can make large sums of money, both over the short and long term.

This does not yet exist in the US bicycle world with the very prominent exception of the "quality of life" sales pitch, which can bring mega millions into a city via "youth" and "ecological" slants, and hence is worth pursuing.

*the bus/bicycling mix, in Denver for example,is a work in progress: at 2 or so bicycles max on the front of buses or having to put 4 to 6 in baggage storage on commuter buses remains more of publicity gimmick then anything significant. Likewise, having to carry a bike up 4 steps and then have to stand up with one's bike points out that in the light rail system, the bicyclist niche is also a publicity device.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

F) Bicycling, as a form of primary commuting, is a very small niche in the US, and, is not yet a form of transit for the masses for one very important reason: what percentage of the population can burn the average amount of

Biking is like any other form of transportation. If you invest in infrastructure that makes it easy and convenient, people will use it- http://a841-tfpweb.nyc.gov/dotpress/2013/12/new-biking-data/

New Yorkers make an estimated 113,000 trips on personal and bike share bicycles combined daily in the bike share service area alone, the most definitive estimate ever reported on actual bike ridership in New York City. These 113,000 trips are more than the combined daily ridership on Manhattan’s two busiest bus routes and equivalent to 29 percent of the number of yellow taxi trips originating in the service area in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan below 60th Street.

Pretty nice niche.

[bunt_q]

As transit advocates learned a long time ago - New York doesn't count. Can't use it as an example because it plays by a different set of rules. Sure that's a lot of folks on bikes - it's also triple the population of central Denver, which makes it completely irrelevant. It's the equivalent of me citing MTA's 5,300,000 daily riders as a measure of how much RTD could do for Denver.

Also, yeah, 5.3 million. Makes 113,000 look pretty insignificant.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Oh you mean just like buses.

Hey, remember what you said in June when we were talking about this from a transit vs roads perspective? I do.

Buses are sharing a facility - they require nothing extra. (And the extra road damage buses cause - yes, RTD pays for that.) Bikes are taking a lane from it, big difference. When we start taking lanes for buses, we will fully expect that transit (RTD, or whatever other funding source we go with) chips in for those capital costs. And transit has that capability, at least in part. Nobody has presented a funding model that has bikes chip in in a comparable way.

I think Wizened has it right - cycling is a marketing device, a fad even, nothing more. Certainly not in Denver, where the buildout population in central Denver, the only place where cycling is really feasible, is quite low. You could get 100% bicycle mode share for central Denver residents and it'd stil be a niche. We just don't have the population density for cycling to matter.

By the way, it's -6 out again - hope none of the cycling crowd is going to be needing car parking today! Maybe everybody on the forum should post a picture of themselves when they get to work today, we can visualize what "quality of life" looks like. (Hint: frostbite isn't on most bucket lists.)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Maybe we should make pedestrians pay for the cost of building sidewalks. Freeloaders!

Excellent point. Unfortunately for you, we do. In every Colorado city that I'm aware of, adjacent property owners are legally responsible for maintenance and replacement of sidewalks. Presumably that cost gets passed on, and nobody complains about it, I think, because sidewalks are conceptually different. They're not transportation facilities so much as a public easement to access private lots (safely) - a public buffer between the transportation facilities and the private spaces. But the private folks are responsible for it.

(Try getting a similar "bike lane maintenance" mandate for adjacent property owners, see how far that goes in Council.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

By the way, it's -6 out again - hope none of the cycling crowd is going to be needing car parking today! Maybe everybody on the forum should post a picture of themselves when they get to work today, we can visualize what "quality of life" looks like. (Hint: frostbite isn't on most bucket lists.)

I did run into one cyclist bravely trekking his way down Bannock. Though he was woefully unequipped for the conditions and the people walking were outpacing him.

As a motorist would be cited for operating a vehicle that is not properly equipped for the conditions, should a cyclist be held similarly accountable?