DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

I'd be ok with the COS approach of having a small fee attached to the purchase of a bike. Seems reasonable. As long as it's dedicated.

The bike registrations in Honolulu worked well too, even better than a fee on new purchases (which might just incentivize people to buy their bikes in Glendale). The city had very easy forms available for registration, and a form bill of sale when you sell it to somebody else, with a smaller transfer/registration fee. Like $15 and $5, I think, all dedicated to the bike fund. Very slick system. Also was tied to the bike's serial number, which at least helps deter the honest bike thieves.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There's a great question, why should a bicycle have free use of roadways if the cyclist isn't paying into it's use (even partially)?

Because bikes are drastically less heavy than cars and therefore put less strain on the pavement, which reduces maintenance needs. If you can get 10% of drivers to switch to bikes, you won't have to repave the road nearly as often. The fact is that if we're going to be building these roads anyway, we save money if we can get more people to bike on them.

Bunt is mainly trolling so I don't see any need to respond to him.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Bunt is mainly trolling so I don't see any need to respond to him.

Because I disagree with you and view bicycles as a child's toy, a fitness/outdoorsey hobby (and/or alternatively, a giant leap backward to third world modes), and not a serious mode of transportation? From my perspective, the bicycle lobby is actively trolling the entire transportation industry. (This is where you tell me, in your best Obiwan voice, "then you are lost!")

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Because bikes are drastically less heavy than cars and therefore put less strain on the pavement, which reduces maintenance needs. If you can get 10% of drivers to switch to bikes, you won't have to repave the road nearly as often. The fact is that if we're going to be building these roads anyway, we save money if we can get more people to bike on them.

Bunt is mainly trolling so I don't see any need to respond to him.

A true two wheel vehicle culture is not just a bicycle culture, but, also a motored cycle culture. Small electric motors as well as small gas fired engines are used all over the 3rd world to handle masses of people.

You need to include this group into any solution set- physically powered bicycles are usable by too small a population set to be used by the masses.

Here is an example of a (largely) 2 wheeled vehicle culture. Notice that it is a mix of human and fossil fueled vehicles. Notice too that the traffic density reflects people movements equal to a 10 to 15 lane highway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JNWucQJGVI

Perhaps a horse power limit- say 5 horsepower could be used. Vehicles, human and non-human powered would be licensed, and, insured. Perhaps human powered bicycle operators could have an exemption to age 18.

Vehicles of this class also do not damage roads significantly (most damage on US roads is actually a combination of truck damage, snow plowing, and, freeze damage).

This is doable, Cirrus, but powered vehicles of some kind must be included in order to encourage the "less physically capable" 90%+ of the population to be able to also use dedicated infrastructure.



There is an interesting physical rule, called the Square Cube Law that was first formally noted by Galileo. Double the size of something and you cube it's mass. This also works in reverse- half the size of something and the cube root the mass. This is a rough rule for building bridges, etc., where if you double the load limit, you cube support weights (this does not include vibrations, etc., and rigidity requirements which increase the relationship between support weight and structure even more).

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Because I disagree with you and view bicycles as a child's toy, a fitness/outdoorsey hobby (and/or alternatively, a giant leap backward to third world modes), and not a serious mode of transportation? From my perspective, the bicycle lobby is actively trolling the entire transportation industry. (This is where you tell me, in your best Obiwan voice, "then you are lost!")

You really don't believe this, do you?

Bicycles are only a child's toy/fitness/outdoorsey hobby and represents a leap backwards to third world modes?

I suppose that "third world" nations like The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc, which have built hugely successful bike infrastructure are the exception to this?

[Cirrus]

lol. Child's toy. Just like when the highway lobby calls light rail cute choo choo twains. Good trolling, if a little derivative.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

A true two wheel vehicle culture is not just a bicycle culture, but, also a motored cycle culture.

Yes. Motorcycles, vespas, and electric-assist bikes all have a place.

[jimluk]

Originally Posted by Scottk

You really don't believe this, do you?

Bicycles are only a child's toy/fitness/outdoorsey hobby and represents a leap backwards to third world modes?

I suppose that "third world" nations like The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc, which have built hugely successful bike infrastructure are the exception to this?

Man all those countries are third world, I should have spent significantly less money when I traveled there.

[Brock Landers]

I see that we are finally starting to wake up and embrace the forward thinking mass transit concepts of our southern neighbors in Colorado Springs.

I wonder though if a tax on bicycles would be enough, or if we could compound the benefits by coupling it with a tax credit for 4x4 trucks (surely winter traffic will improve when everyone's got Cummins diesel power) and maybe an RV park in Arapahoe Square so that workers from the outer suburbs could simply commute into town on Monday and hook up their Winnebagos until they leave town on Friday afternoon.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

From my perspective, the bicycle lobby is actively trolling the entire transportation industry.

Everyone knows the bicycle lobby is all powerful! BWHAHAHAHA
Death by Bicycle

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes. Motorcycles, vespas, and electric-assist bikes all have a place.

In the same Green Lanes. That is my point.

[Cirrus]

Vespas and e-bikes, definitely. Along with skateboards, rollerblades, etc. Motorcycles, maybe, maybe not. Bike lanes necessarily function at low-speed. I don't have a problem with motorcycles using them if they operate at bike-appropriate speeds, but would have a problem with motorcycles skipping through bike lanes at 45 mph.

That problem can be solved easily enough with legislation. It may already have been solved, for all I know. But I do think we need to recognize that difference and protect the more vulnerable users.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Vespas and e-bikes, definitely. Along with skateboards, rollerblades, etc. Motorcycles, maybe, maybe not. Bike lanes necessarily function at low-speed. I don't have a problem with motorcycles using them if they operate at bike-appropriate speeds, but would have a problem with motorcycles skipping through bike lanes at 45 mph.

That problem can be solved easily enough with legislation. It may already have been solved, for all I know. But I do think we need to recognize that difference and protect the more vulnerable users.

IMO, a key question might be axle load- this would expand the users group to include human and electric/fossil fueled powered tricycles. Low powered tricycles have been used for generations to economically move small items short distances very effectively.

Another consideration would be speed limits.

Let's face it, the intent of any lower speed dedicated infrastructure is not to serve the conditioning athlete nor is it to serve commercial interests moving heavy loads. Rather a compromise, which, regrettably, would necessitate speed limit, width, and, weight regulations, enforced by law.

In addition, reasonable compromises between steepness of grade and speed IMO would be required. For example, a non-athlete bicycle user might find a 5 to 8% grade difficult, a power bike user would simply downshift, and an athletic user might regard 100 to 150' vertical elevation at the same grade as no challenge for his or her single speed bike. This, too, keys into 'micro' sized commercial vehicles and weight to power ratios.

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

The more I think about this, the more I think such a secondary transportation
system is inevitable.

A. infrastructural costs per unit distance could be very low. To those of us accustomed to freeway overpasses and steel rail bridges, light weight low speed multi ("bike") lane structures would have an almost gossamer quality as so little mass would be required to support low weights.

B. As internetworking continues to evolve, future bikes and trikes would all be interconnected so users would have intimate knowledge about choke points, accidents (yes you must wear a good helmet and more than spandex), etc.

C. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A WORLD WHERE DRONES CARRY SMALL PACKAGES TO MY DOOR. A secondary infrastructural system might be able to deliver items to consumers via low (and human) powered tricycles with far less airspace congestion and far fewer Orwellian implications.

[seventwenty]

Hamburg, stop trolling Bunt.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Hamburg, stop trolling Bunt.

Imagine a US metro area that would work together to build a unified transportation system (much of which would already be in place).

No US metropolitan area with Hamburg's population of 1.736 million exists with sufficient cooperative government to do anything approaching this.

In addition, compared to US metropolitan areas, the metro area is almost completely one ethnic group- German (91.5 per nationally).

Don't be too hard on Bunt: he tends to view Denver and the rest of the US as an extremely complicated place that is a hodgepodge of governing entities overseeing a seething mix of peoples intent on their own ends. He understands that "common good" too often describes soft toilet paper here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Hamburg, stop trolling Bunt.

Priorities.

Ninety-nine percent of Hamburg residents live within 300 meters (328 yards) of a rail or bus stop

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20121...rban-planning-renewable-energy?page=show

Also, at over 6,000 ppsm, you're talking about a city with about triple Denver's density.

So, you show me:

(1) a population willing to embrace a whole lot more 5-story high-rises than Denver appears willing to do, and
(2) then you put each and every one of us within a stone's throw of quality transit...

Then I will be more than happy to embrace your bicycle vision. Bikes require density. Density requires transit. If you think you're going to get central Denver developers to stop building parking garages based on bike infrastructure, you're crazy. And if you think people are going to stop driving when there are easy parking garages everywhere you're crazy. All I am saying is that you guys are doing things in the wrong order. And that has consequences for how our city is growing/will grow.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

In addition, compared to US metropolitan areas, the metro area is almost completely one ethnic group- German (91.5 per nationally).

Are the Turks and Polish plumbers together still under 10%? Weird.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Priorities.

Quote:
Ninety-nine percent of Hamburg residents live within 300 meters (328 yards) of a rail or bus stop
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20121...rban-planning-renewable-energy?page=show

What percentage of Denver residents live within 300m from a bus stop or light rail or future commuter rail station?

300m equates to about 1.75 blocks North/South and 2.66 or 3 blocks East/West, depending on where you are. To bring everyone on the normal grid within 300m we would have to have North/South routes every 2 to 3 streets with stops every block and/or East/West routes every other street with stops every other block.

I think there are large sections of the city where this is already about the density of RTD bus stops.

I won't continue the trolling regarding converting

--------------this---------------------to---------------------this


other than to point out that particular location look's no more dense than much of Denver. Even the proposed grid illustrated in the lower right looks to be filled with 2 or 3 story town homes.

[bunt_q]

So your argument is that I am wrong, that Denver is every bit as dense and transit-saturated as Hamburg? Ha. Have you ever left the country? Or Denver, for that matter? You guys criticize me for just being difficult at times, but your statement is plain dumb. Either you're just being stubborn, or you've just never seen a European city.

[bunt_q]

Here you go, bicycle denizens. Let's quantify irrelevance:

Denver B-Cycle bikes ridden 913 times daily for 560,424 miles in 2013

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24903071/denver-b-cycle-bikes-ridden-913-times-daily

B-cycle In 2013: 263,110 rides for 560,424 miles.

Sounds great, in a vacuum. Let's look at RTD, shall we?

RTD 2012 data: 99,142,849 boardings on 38,824,067 service miles.

When you consider the total VMT in the metro area (which is about 75,000,000 per day), tell me, which of the two above do you think really stands a chance of making a difference?

913 riders per day is a joke. It's not even worth the 150kb of server space it takes for us to discuss it, let alone print space in the newspaper, private dollars donated, or space occupying the public consciousness.

Every discussion you people have regarding bike share is one discussion that isn't making a difference. You are fighting on the side of the burbs, you just don't realize it.
The average person here, per DRCOG, is driving just over 26 miles per day. To compete with that, you need a mode that can go 26 miles in a day.

I expect somebody will say those figures include the burbs, so they're not apples to apples. But that's part of the problem, isn't it? You folks only care about things that are within 1-mile of Downtown Denver. Meanwhile, regional VMT per capita is trending upward again, and Central Denver, despite the boom, is not increasing its proportionate share of metro population. Reminds me of another place up to the northwest, Boulder, I think it's called. So whatever it is you guys are doing - like your 913 riders per day - it's not enough. Might be time to consider something different.

[bunt_q]

One more:

RTD: 59 buses needed for improved U.S. 36 transit system

The new high-frequency Bus Rapid Transit system along U.S. 36 between Denver and Boulder will require the Regional Transportation District to spend $35 million on a fleet of 59 buses.

The 45-foot heavy-duty intercity buses from Motor Coach Industries — also called MCI — will replace RTD's aging Neoplan intercity coaches.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24904309/rtd-59-buses-needed-improved-u-s-36

My favorite part: The new buses generally fit the preferences voiced by U.S. 36 commuters, who told RTD last year that they wanted a coach-type, smooth-riding vehicle with plenty of room, rather than a bus that is ... easier to board.

So much for BRT, yet again. For all the complaining about what that area is not getting, it sure seems like they're content with what they already have. Still, very exciting to see this moving along. 59 buses is a pretty significant boost to transit in that corridor. The transit on US 36 is already quite good, so maybe not getting transformative BRT isn't the end of the world. I just wonder of more big coaches will help bridge the bus/train psychological gap the way a different, newer vehicle would have.