DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The parking at DIA is way too cheap.

People in other cities use mass transit to get to the airport because of the sheer expense of parking,the traffic getting to the airport (c'mon guys, traffic on I-70 from the mousetrap east is nothing compared to most big cities). When the outlying lots are $25 and up a day you think twice about parking. At that price, you take mass transit, uber, a taxi, etc.

Our garage, at $23/day, is a ridiculous bargain. You can park in a covered spot within a few hundred yards of the entrance. Go there during peak travel times and the garages and economy lots are all filled or nearly filled. They need to raise rates and/or implement demand pricing. If a for-profit enterprise was in charge of parking out there, can you imagine how much revenue they would be generating?

Actually its not too different than $1/hr parking downtown. We have subsidized the crap out of it and are encouraging people to drive everywhere and all the time.

Denver needs to get with the times and raise rates. They'll take in more revenue and ridership will increase on mass transit.

Completely agree, although it still is painful to return from an 8 day trip to the Bahamas and having to pay 100 bucks for uncovered parking...

Oh wait, this isn't the first world problems thread?


Carry on

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The parking at DIA is way too cheap.

People in other cities use mass transit to get to the airport because of the sheer expense of parking,the traffic getting to the airport (c'mon guys, traffic on I-70 from the mousetrap east is nothing compared to most big cities). When the outlying lots are $25 and up a day you think twice about parking. At that price, you take mass transit, uber, a taxi, etc.

Our garage, at $23/day, is a ridiculous bargain. You can park in a covered spot within a few hundred yards of the entrance. Go there during peak travel times and the garages and economy lots are all filled or nearly filled. They need to raise rates and/or implement demand pricing. If a for-profit enterprise was in charge of parking out there, can you imagine how much revenue they would be generating?

Actually its not too different than $1/hr parking downtown. We have subsidized the crap out of it and are encouraging people to drive everywhere and all the time.

Denver needs to get with the times and raise rates. They'll take in more revenue and ridership will increase on mass transit.

I agree. We should be doing everything we can to make our transportation system worse for the vast majority who foolishly choose to travel by car rather than use public transportation simply because it’s more convenient, more economical, and much faster. I say we cut I-70 down to one lane. That’ll get people using public transportation.

[TakeFive]

Being that Denver is in flyover country I'd be curious how the parking rates would compare with cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The parking at DIA is way too cheap...............
Denver needs to get with the times and raise rates. They'll take in more revenue and ridership will increase on mass transit.

DIA is charging exactly what they need to charge to pay off the bonds they sold in the allocated amount of time to build the garages. All other airport fees are also set to pay off the bonds, and pay to staff the airport appropriately.

I assume it has an independent board, therefore that board is only interested keeping the airport solvent. If and when more funding is required for other needs at the airport, its board will look at raising fees. Until then, they would be doing a major miss-service to their customers charging higher fees than needed. They aren't in the business to make a profit, they aren't in the business to increase city finances, they aren't in the business to change city politics, and they aren't in the business to run public transit. They are in the business to build and operate an airport.......

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I agree. We should be doing everything we can to make our transportation system worse for the vast majority who foolishly choose to travel by car rather than use public transportation simply because it’s more convenient, more economical, and much faster. I say we cut I-70 down to one lane. That’ll get people using public transportation.

That would cost millions of dollars. We need to freeze spending on highways and put it toward more transit.. not spend more money on highways to make them less convenient.

Although you're completely spot on that the vast majority of people are foolishly using cars thinking that they are more economical and faster in the long run. Spend half the amount we do on roads every year on transit and there would be no contest between the two. None.. at all.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The parking at DIA is way too cheap.

People in other cities use mass transit to get to the airport because of the sheer expense of parking,the traffic getting to the airport (c'mon guys, traffic on I-70 from the mousetrap east is nothing compared to most big cities). When the outlying lots are $25 and up a day you think twice about parking. At that price, you take mass transit, uber, a taxi, etc.

Our garage, at $23/day, is a ridiculous bargain. You can park in a covered spot within a few hundred yards of the entrance. Go there during peak travel times and the garages and economy lots are all filled or nearly filled. They need to raise rates and/or implement demand pricing. If a for-profit enterprise was in charge of parking out there, can you imagine how much revenue they would be generating?

Actually its not too different than $1/hr parking downtown. We have subsidized the crap out of it and are encouraging people to drive everywhere and all the time.

Denver needs to get with the times and raise rates. They'll take in more revenue and ridership will increase on mass transit.

The garages out there are definitely a for profit enterprise, but its to pay off bonds and improvement. They rake in over $300million just in parking fees each year. Because they will have competition now with the rail, raising rates more than the inflationary increases they add once in a while is probably exactly what they won't do. The airport isn't interested in encouraging mass transit. And DIA's rates are very comparable to all similar cities in "flyover" country...we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to the Chicago's and San Francisco's in that regards.

Same thing with downtown, yes we might be cheaper than other cities, but its also because its what has been determined the market can handle here based on supply and demand. Increasing rates by too much might discourage those coming in from other areas to not come to downtown at all. It's all a balancing act. Just look at the private garages and lots, which are absolutely for profit, if they thought they could get away with charging more than they currently do, then they would.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The parking at DIA is way too cheap.

People in other cities use mass transit to get to the airport because of the sheer expense of parking,the traffic getting to the airport (c'mon guys, traffic on I-70 from the mousetrap east is nothing compared to most big cities). When the outlying lots are $25 and up a day you think twice about parking. At that price, you take mass transit, uber, a taxi, etc.

Our garage, at $23/day, is a ridiculous bargain. You can park in a covered spot within a few hundred yards of the entrance. Go there during peak travel times and the garages and economy lots are all filled or nearly filled. They need to raise rates and/or implement demand pricing. If a for-profit enterprise was in charge of parking out there, can you imagine how much revenue they would be generating?

Actually its not too different than $1/hr parking downtown. We have subsidized the crap out of it and are encouraging people to drive everywhere and all the time.

Denver needs to get with the times and raise rates. They'll take in more revenue and ridership will increase on mass transit.

If your goal is to encourage transportation by raising parking rates at DIA it could easily backfire in this instance. They still have substantial private shuttle lots and plenty of undeveloped land that could be used for more or expanded private shuttle parking. If more people use those shuttle lots as a result of the price increasing it could trigger more private shuttle parking capacity, and turn the 'Airport city' into an even bigger parking lot than it otherwise would have been. I guess in theory they could substantially raise rates and try to restrict private parking lots at the same time but I doubt that's politically feasible even in the CCD.

As far as DIA being cheap if you look at some of the airports TakeFive mentions we seem to be right in line with some (IE MSP, DFW) and more expensive than others (IE PHX, LAS). Comparing us to say MDW, ORD, SFO, JFK, or LGA would not be genuine comparisons -at least at this point in time-.

[EngiNerd]

bobg and I apparently wrote the exact same things within 5 mins. of each other.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

bobg and I apparently wrote the exact same things within 5 mins. of each other.

Yeah when I hit preview I saw your bit about comparing to San Fran and Chicago, I just thought I should still submit due to the private shuttle lot point. You alluded to that with 'it's a balance' I just thought a concrete example for the airport would be helpful.

Either way same page.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by electricron

DIA is charging exactly what they need to charge to pay off the bonds they sold in the allocated amount of time to build the garages. All other airport fees are also set to pay off the bonds, and pay to staff the airport appropriately.

I assume it has an independent board, therefore that board is only interested keeping the airport solvent. If and when more funding is required for other needs at the airport, its board will look at raising fees. Until then, they would be doing a major miss-service to their customers charging higher fees than needed. They aren't in the business to make a profit, they aren't in the business to increase city finances, they aren't in the business to change city politics, and they aren't in the business to run public transit. They are in the business to build and operate an airport.......

DIA does make a profit which it transfers to the city each year. About $30M annually over the last three years on revenues of $800M or so. A well-run facility should always be able to pull in a profit which can either be transferred back to the shareholders, in this case the people of the City of Denver, or back into the company. Especially since DIA cannot by law use taxpayer funds to meet any shortfalls.

Interestingly, DIA's second largest source of revenue is parking fees, so I'm pretty sure that they intend for them to remain as competitive as possible and while they may be a loss-leader, which I doubt, it's an extremely important source of ongoing funding for the facility. I'm pretty sure that DIA isn't going to get any kind of revenue off of the choo-choo.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by denconyny

Raising fares on public transportation travel such as this is essentially a tax hike on those who travel with such..... and since those with lesser incomes are usually a majority of those who use public transportation, fare hikes on public transportation is essentially aiming to be a poor tax.

Economics 101 states that as price increases, demand decreases.... and vice versa. If RTD is somehow in need of more revenue, committing to lower fares (and better service) is a better option to consider since this will increase demand, and at some point more users, even with the lower fare, could easily produce more revenue overall than having higher fares with less users. Commercial air carriers around the world learned this lesson a long time ago.

Yes, there are factors such as price elasticity and scale of economy that play along with this, but still it's a shame to see an RTD bus at a reasonable hour in the middle of the city pass by and inside are only about 3 passengers...... 3 times the $2.25 fare will bring in $6.75.... but maybe charging a $1.00 fare could just as easily bring in 12 passengers..... and revenue gets doubled.

Boo on RTD if they have to resort to any sort of fare increase.

Yes, because static, fixed-price funding sources are such a good idea, i.e. the gas tax. If RTD was mandated to escalate fares based on inflation it would be interesting to see where we would be at. Heck, RTD charged $1.10 in 2002, so that would be $1.49 today. Which shows that RTD fares have grown faster than the rate of inflation. The following question is if we think that the RTD system is better today than it was in 2002 given the increase in fares.

Using the airline industry as a comparison doesn't really work because the airlines had to figure out that offering cheaper fares does drive growth; but when it doesn't cover your operational costs, let alone total costs, it's not a sustaining strategy. Instead, airlines figured out that industry consolidation, slashing routes, frequency, fleets, manpower, and corporate costs go hand-in-hand with discounting prices. That's a sustaining strategy.

How about we kill all the low-performing routes in RTD's system and slash fares in order to remain revenue neutral? It will certainly be more convenient for the 0, 15, 16, and the rail lines and ridership will undoubtedly grow on them (which is kind of what this fare structure will do as the train is going to end up being as cheap as 'da bus), but the feeder routes will suffer.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Because they will have competition now with the rail, raising rates more than the inflationary increases they add once in a while is probably exactly what they won't do. The airport isn't interested in encouraging mass transit. And DIA's rates are very comparable to all similar cities in "flyover" country...we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to the Chicago's and San Francisco's in that regards.

Same thing with downtown, yes we might be cheaper than other cities, but its also because its what has been determined the market can handle here based on supply and demand. Increasing rates by too much might discourage those coming in from other areas to not come to downtown at all. It's all a balancing act. Just look at the private garages and lots, which are absolutely for profit, if they thought they could get away with charging more than they currently do, then they would.

Thanks for all the replies. I honestly didn't consider the other pay lots out there that are out of the city's jurisdiction. Maybe we should toll Pena Blvd. but there's probably some law as to why we cannot do that.

My point is that if the rail and DIA's very reasonable parking are competing, as you rightly suggest, then the parking is going to win hands down, especially when the rail is competing with a $10 fare. The traffic argument just doesn't hold water. People will continue to drive out there despite the traffic. Look at everyone who drives downtown for work instead of using the light rail. they do because they have heavily subsidized parking for office workers. While the airport parking isn't free, it is a relative bargain compared to the time/hassle/expense of using the train, except for the people who live in very close proximity to a station. The people who can afford to live in Lodo and Riverfront realistically have high enough incomes to use uber black and not blink an eye. I hope I am wrong about this but that's the way I see it.

As far as downtown parking, who determines $1/hour and free Sundays is what the market can handle? Has there been a study done? Shouldn't a Friday night cost more than a Monday morning? The garages have different rates for different times because they get it and they are in the business of making money.

Does Denver view all the public on-street parking as a money making venture, or as a public service? Does that money go to the city? If so, why the Sunday free parking? If the rates were doubled, its still super afforable! $2/hour is not bad at all, and that is a 100% increase for example. There is research that supports higher parking rates do not dissuade people from visiting a desirable area at all.

I only ask because these things are directly related to our paltry mass transit ridership (albeit improving I think). They do not exist in vacuums separate from one another.

[TakeFive]

Going in a different direction transportation systems aren't just for commuters. They're a critical component in the efficient movement of goods and services ie Commerce.

Good guess that better transportation along the I-15 corridor has those cities and the state of Utah kicking Colorado's butt when it comes to to VC spending... or at least in attracting the companies that attract venture capital.

I know that transportation was a key in West Metro Phoenix landing the western regional headquarters of IRIS Ohyama of Sendai, Japan for what will be a 280,000 Sq. Ft. manufacturing facility. According to Eric Jay Toll:

IRIS USA will manufacture and distributed consumer plastic storage products from its new headquarters in Surprise. It also is opening a research and development facility for commercial light-emitting diode (LED) products

I would fear the outcome if a roads and bridges versus transit initiative were to be proposed for voters to decide.

They are both important pieces going forward and I trust that over time transit will become more popular. First mile, last mile issues need to be improved over time as well.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

As far as downtown parking, who determines $1/hour and free Sundays is what the market can handle? Has there been a study done? Shouldn't a Friday night cost more than a Monday morning? The garages have different rates for different times because they get it and they are in the business of making money.

Yes there have been studies done. I don't believe their current metering systems allow demand pricing for things like Friday and Monday's, but I know they have considered it. Some jurisdictions do that now, but it's relatively new technology. Its all based on demand. If you have empty meters, then you are probably charging too much...and same goes if you have always full meters then you are probably charging too little or not enough enforcement to get people to leave their spots when they should. There are specialists out there that conduct these types of studies and make recommendations to the parking departments, but I'm not sure of when the last time Denver had one done.

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Does Denver view all the public on-street parking as a money making venture, or as a public service? Does that money go to the city? If so, why the Sunday free parking? If the rates were doubled, its still super afforable! $2/hour is not bad at all, and that is a 100% increase for example. There is research that supports higher parking rates do not dissuade people from visiting a desirable area at all.

Sorta both...It's like the bus system or the RTD garages, while they like to make some money on them, they are charging based on what is needed to not have the meters spots over parked or under parked....but they will likely never break even.[/QUOTE]

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yes, because static, fixed-price funding sources are such a good idea, i.e. the gas tax. If RTD was mandated to escalate fares based on inflation it would be interesting to see where we would be at. Heck, RTD charged $1.10 in 2002, so that would be $1.49 today. Which shows that RTD fares have grown faster than the rate of inflation. The following question is if we think that the RTD system is better today than it was in 2002 given the increase in fares.

How about we kill all the low-performing routes in RTD's system and slash fares in order to remain revenue neutral? It will certainly be more convenient for the 0, 15, 16, and the rail lines and ridership will undoubtedly grow on them (which is kind of what this fare structure will do as the train is going to end up being as cheap as 'da bus), but the feeder routes will suffer.

Originally Posted by Zmapper

RTD's Operations and Customer Service Committee monthly agenda packet is exceptionally full this month: [url]http://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2220&Inline=True[/url

Included are new bus purchases, May 2015 service changes, the US 36 service plan, ridership statistics, and the ADA passup records.

Being very naive on this stuff I recently took advantage of Zmapper's link. It takes some time to read thru 200 or so pages of agenda even at cruising altitude. It did give me a healthy regard for the challenges that RTD has in meeting various and often conflicting needs.

It's tough. Even Cirrus would acknowledge that the DC Metro is having their own budget issues. The challenge will only grow when more commuter rail lines come on-line next year.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of Highways and Byways

Cathy Proctor has a nice update HERE.
"CDOT seeks private partner to sink I-70 in north Denver, put a lid on it"

One significant change:

The project was initially proposed to be larger, running all the way to Tower Road, and cost an estimated $1.8 billion. But CDOT cut it back from Tower Road to I-225 because the agency couldn't afford to repay the private partner to go further, according to CDOT spokeswoman Rebecca White

Yet another change:

CDOT also will remain in control of the tolls that are collected on the new express lanes — not only setting the toll rate but also collecting the money, she said.

That's different from the model CDOT used to help pay for the U.S. 36 expansion, in which the tolls are collected by the private partner.

And the timing?

A draft request for proposals is expected to be issued in June, with a final, formal request for proposals expected in March 2016. Construction is expected to begin either late 2016 or early 2017, White said.

[Scottk]

9 News saying there is a bill requiring winter tires from Nov-May, Golden to Eagle, working its through the legislature this week.

Would certainly help. I think a big part of the problem is idiots with bald tires trying to make it up to the mountains during a snow storm.




Stay tuned.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Scottk

9 News saying there is a bill requiring winter tires from Nov-May, Golden to Eagle, working its through the legislature this week.

Would certainly help. I think a big part of the problem is idiots with bald tires trying to make it up to the mountains during a snow storm.




Stay tuned.

So the solution to weekend traffic jams, which now occur year round, is to change tires. Okay then.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

So the solution to weekend traffic jams, which now occur year round, is to change tires. Okay then.

ok, gaper.


A huge part of the problem in the wintertime is people with bald tires who can't make it up the mountain. I don't know how many times I have been stuck in massive traffic jams heading up to the mountains only to see some asshole in an accord with bald tires stuck in the right lane, backing everything up.

Yesterday I-70 was closed between idaho springs and loveland. I checked the snowstake at loveland and less than 2 inches of snow had fallen before the road closed. If I-70 has to close because 2 inches of snow has fallen I think that is indicative of the fact that bald tires are at least a part of the problem.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Scottk

ok, gaper.


A huge part of the problem in the wintertime is people with bald tires who can't make it up the mountain. I don't know how many times I have been stuck in massive traffic jams heading up to the mountains only to see some asshole in an accord with bald tires stuck in the right lane, backing everything up.

Yesterday I-70 was closed between idaho springs and loveland. I checked the snowstake at loveland and less than 2 inches of snow had fallen before the road closed. If I-70 has to close because 2 inches of snow has fallen I think that is indicative of the fact that bald tires are at least a part of the problem.

Such a part of the problem come June!


Source

And how do you plan on enforcing this law?