HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10921  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 1:22 PM
seventwentyone seventwentyone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 26
ITT: Boulderites complaining about the train that would only help about 800 people a day while ignoring the Hop, Skip, Jump, Flatiron Flyer, NB1, the NAMS study, etc. all of which help thousands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10922  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 1:30 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwentyone View Post
ITT: Boulderites complaining about the train that would only help about 800 people a day while ignoring the Hop, Skip, Jump, Flatiron Flyer, NB1, the NAMS study, etc. all of which help thousands.
Boulder could easily self-fund its local transit. They would likely work better, too.

But RTD needs Boulder’s money, and Boulder is kind enough to stay in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10923  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 1:38 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Wow; So many students
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Boulder has no existence other than as supplier of housing for CU’s ever-increasing ever-more-out-of-state enrollment?
CU Boulder campus has ~35,000 students. Average apartment rent in Boulder is $2,100/mo. Student population is 67% resident; 33% non-resident.

ASU Tempe campus has ~54,000 students. Average apartment rent in Tempe is $1,650/mo (up 15%), a figure that is skewed higher by all the new higher cost "urban" development. Student population is a tad under 50% resident; a tad over 50% non-resident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Boulder could easily self-fund its local transit. They would likely work better, too.

But RTD needs Boulder’s money, and Boulder is kind enough to stay in.
Actually you are very wrong about this. Boulder and RTD have held talks about Boulder going its own way. Apparently Boulder didn't understand the monetary benefits of RTD service to Boulder. They also didn't grasp the full cost of providing such service if they were to go it alone.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10924  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 1:39 PM
seventwentyone seventwentyone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Boulder could easily self-fund its local transit. They would likely work better, too.

But RTD needs Boulder’s money, and Boulder is kind enough to stay in.
Except your service and benefits exceed your RTD contributions by at least $2 million: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/d...tation_Update_-_final-1-201709261450.pdf

And that’s before the train. And the numbers could be just for the City of Boulder. Pretty 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to leave RTD and possible screw over the surrounding smaller cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10925  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 2:02 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwentyone View Post
Except your service and benefits exceed your RTD contributions by at least $2 million: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/d...tation_Update_-_final-1-201709261450.pdf

And that’s before the train. And the numbers could be just for the City of Boulder. Pretty 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to leave RTD and possible screw over the surrounding smaller cities.
It gets complicated. City of Boulder does not speak for the County of Boulder. The County may wish to stay with RTD (probably would).

BTW, nice link and source. Thanks
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10926  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 2:33 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwentyone View Post
Except your service and benefits exceed your RTD contributions by at least $2 million: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/d...tation_Update_-_final-1-201709261450.pdf

And that’s before the train. And the numbers could be just for the City of Boulder. Pretty 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to leave RTD and possible screw over the surrounding smaller cities.
Those data are from 2015. Anything newer?

I thought Boulder was already “screwing over” the surrounding area, thanks to its “wall”.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10927  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 2:35 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Wow; So many students


CU Boulder campus has ~35,000 students. Average apartment rent in Boulder is $2,100/mo. Student population is 67% resident; 33% non-resident.

ASU Tempe campus has ~54,000 students. Average apartment rent in Tempe is $1,650/mo (up 15%), a figure that is skewed higher by all the new higher cost "urban" development. Student population is a tad under 50% resident; a tad over 50% non-resident.
Exactly how is Tempe and ASU relevant to Boulder and CU?

Quote:
Actually you are very wrong about this. Boulder and RTD have held talks about Boulder going its own way. Apparently Boulder didn't understand the monetary benefits of RTD service to Boulder. They also didn't grasp the full cost of providing such service if they were to go it alone.
I’d like information that’s less than six years old.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10928  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 2:42 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Boulder has no existence other than as supplier of housing for CU’s ever-increasing ever-more-out-of-state enrollment?
I've heard that Boulder is also home to other people, i.e. non-students. Maybe some of them could benefit from lower housing prices too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10929  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 3:04 PM
HighRanch HighRanch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 11
So, Boulder’s role in metro transit is to supply the revenue and get nothing in return. And don’t complain.[/QUOTE]

I understood that is how "redistribution" worked with social programs.....isn't this how social equity is created?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10930  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 3:20 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Exactly how is Tempe and ASU relevant to Boulder and CU?
They're both in the PAC 12? ASU attracts a much higher percentage of non-resident students (especially foreign students) likely b/c they're not elitist-expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
I’d like information that’s less than six years old.
Not a problem; simply call up RTD and offer to 'sponsor' an updated study. Feel free to customize however you want and don't forget to ask how big a check you should send them.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10931  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 3:50 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
They're both in the PAC 12? ASU attracts a much higher percentage of non-resident students (especially foreign students) likely b/c they're not elitist-expensive.
How much does AZ fund ASU compared to CO's funding of CU?

Quote:
Not a problem; simply call up RTD and offer to 'sponsor' an updated study. Feel free to customize however you want and don't forget to ask how big a check you should send them.
The information should be readily available since I don't doubt they keep careful track of such things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10932  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 4:06 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
This would also disproportionately harm blue places, and given that many localities would simply do nothing, likely result in a flow of dollars from blue places to red places (some of those blue places would also be happy to forgo the new infrastructure in the process).

I disagree this is something the feds need to address. There is nothing other than political will preventing, say, the State of California, from accomplishing the same thing, and tying infrastructure investment to zoning reform. They don't because they won't. The notion that we should, therefore, distort a national infrastructure spending bill - spending that will still largely be steered by states and MPOs - to address very localized problems is the wrong answer.
California ALREADY does this, only state in the nation that does and passed laws in 2017, 2018, and 2019 to accomplish this very thing. That said, local municipalities simply don't adhere and are happy to lose the state dollars. This will have an impact over time however and the State is in court with multiple municipalities (many of whom are eerily reminiscent of our friends in Boulder).

Transportation dollars the single greatest resource states receive. California is a great example of why, if folks want zoning reform and housing production, the feds need to get involved. Personally, I'm all for states determining their own destiny and love that red and blue can choose their respective strategies (and live with the consequences of those strategies). I am simply pointing out that federal transportation dollars are the most potent tool the feds could use to move the housing needle (over time) for cities/states that continuously dig their heels in and perpetuate housing inequity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10933  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 4:47 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Since wong raised the topic

What we have here is yet one more example of too-liberal interests and their lawyers blocking a critical piece of infrastructure. Believe it or not, the Colorado Front Range is more "water constrained" than Phoenix which has been planning and investing for over a 100 years.

Boulder County Cancels Gross Reservoir Expansion Hearings Citing Denver Water Lawsuit
Now that cuts are in place on the Colorado River, what water will be going into the expanded Gross?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10934  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 4:52 PM
ams5280 ams5280 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 18
I thinks it’s time to stop focusing Old Al. He won’t be swayed by any arguments that don’t support his anecdotal experience unless you can back it up with n+1 examples of data that is newer than the last RTD study but older than the most recent census data.

Anyone have some nice renderings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10935  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 5:33 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Just another liberal rant day so nothing out of the ordinary

I'll admit I have my own biases. I love infrastructure projects ie long-term investments. I'm a Big Fan of the Denver Zoo, for example, but although I care less about other cultural facilities I've always supported them b/c cultural facilities are important for many reasons.

Proposed $450M bond ordinance passes key Denver City Council vote over objections
Aug 17, 2021 By Ed Sealover – Senior Reporter, Denver Business Journal
Quote:
Despite objections from a number of the members of the community around it, the bond initiative to fund a proposed 10,000-seat arena at the National Western Center campus — as well as four companion questions — appears firmly on its way to the 2021 Denver ballot.
It turns out there's a Full-On campaign to defeat the $160 million arena for the National Western Center. Representing the opposition from the Elyria Swansea neighborhood is a gentleman named Alfonso Espino aka Poncho Espino. Whether he has an MBA is immaterial I suppose but if you read his opinion piece in the Denver Post it reads like an MBA level recitation of talking points that badly miss the mark IMO.

This campaign doesn't pass the smell test; it's pretty stinky. There are various ways how building the arena would benefit the Elyria Swansea neighborhood which have been pointed out to them but they're not buying. BTW, $160 million is not half of $450 million (one of the talking points) it's only 35%. What gives? To copy my own quote elsewhere:
Quote:
Hmm, I had wondered why the residents of Elyria Swansea would be against the new arena that would directly and indirectly benefit them? Now I know. It's the myopic, short-sighted and selfish urban liberal elites.
Hmm, never heard this before....
Quote:
But Hancock and his council supporters since then have battled a chorus of complaints from neighborhood residents that they don’t want the arena and would prefer investment in housing, parks and grocery stores instead — a call several repeated Monday. CdeBaca accused city staffers and fellow council members of refusing to listen to residents who showed up to ask for rejection of the ballot proposal, and Swansea resident Carol Briggs went so far as to call the plan “a pattern of white supremacy in the city’s process” because the largely minority community is being told by powerful developers how it will be improved economically.
I don't think these people understand how government works. This bond issue doesn't target $160 million to each of Denver's 78 neighborhoods; that would be a whopping $12+ billion. This bond proposal is for $450 million. If the arena isn't built there is no substitutes and no benefits. To again copy what I've stated elsewhere:
Quote:
Building a new arena is exactly the type of investment that governments do. 1st of all, it does happen to be a critical piece for the new National Western Center. 2nd, it would be a boon to all schools throughout the city. It could accommodate not only concerts but all manner of events that residents throughout the city as well as those that live in the city center could enjoy.
One good idea is that once the new arena is built to then use the (renovated) Denver Coliseum for Public/Farmer's Markets. But the city can't just hand those benefits to only one neighborhood exclusively although in all likelihood Elyria Swansea would be ideally positioned to hold and benefit from such events.

Summary
While a new arena could be enjoyed by residents throughout the city, there's only one neighborhood, Elyria Swansea, that is likely to see direct and indirect economic benefits. But somehow or perhaps someone has convinced them otherwise and it makes NO sense.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10936  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 5:38 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Now that cuts are in place on the Colorado River, what water will be going into the expanded Gross?
Gross reservoir is an eastern slope thingy as apposed to western slope water flows. But it is specified that they would (only) capture water in years of EXCESS runoff.

One position I suppose is that it's not needed. All I have to say is it's never a problem until it is and you just gave a prime example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ams5280 View Post
Anyone have some nice renderings?
Development news coming soon.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10937  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 5:40 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Summary
While a new arena could be enjoyed by residents throughout the city, there's only one neighborhood, Elyria Swansea, that is likely to see direct and indirect economic benefits. But somehow or perhaps someone has convinced them otherwise and it makes NO sense.
Shouldn't the residents of the neighborhood in which this arena is going to be plopped have a say?

Would you want a new 10,000 seat arena in your neighborhood?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10938  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 5:45 PM
AlSmithee AlSmithee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Gross reservoir is an eastern slope thingy as apposed to western slope water flows. But it is specifically specified that they would (only) capture water in years of EXCESS runoff.
Gross is fed via the Moffatt Tunnel. It's very much Western Slope water, which is now in extremely short supply - no "EXCESS" runoff available.

Quote:
One position I suppose is that it's not needed. All I have to say is it's never a problem until it is and you just gave a prime example.
Why assume it's needed? Given the current drought and the expectation that the Colorado Basin will be drier still over coming decades, it's not clear that Gross needs to be expanded at all. Sure, the population projections say it could be expanded, but that's not how precipitation works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10939  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 6:06 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlSmithee View Post
Gross is fed via the Moffatt Tunnel. It's very much Western Slope water, which is now in extremely short supply - no "EXCESS" runoff available.
I understand and water rights are very complicated as is the Colorado River Compact including updates; in fact wong is more of an expert than me. Just curious have you bothered to read any of the supporting documents for the project or are you just spit-balling?
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10940  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2021, 6:09 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by ams5280 View Post
I thinks it’s time to stop focusing Old Al. He won’t be swayed by any arguments that don’t support his anecdotal experience unless you can back it up with n+1 examples of data that is newer than the last RTD study but older than the most recent census data.

Anyone have some nice renderings?
Agreed. Everyone needs to provide proof for their arguments except for him. His anecdotal experience is fact and Boulder can do no wrong.

Last edited by The Dirt; Aug 17, 2021 at 7:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.