DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The only affordable way for a civilized person to get across this town is by car. This sprawling, low-density metropolis isn’t likely to densify enough to make public transportation viable for the majority, in any of our lifetimes.

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better? I think I recently mentioned that Olde Town Arvada has better access to the city center than many urban Denver neighborhoods do. I feel like this actually shouldn't be the case. My best personal example is that about two years ago I decided to catch a bus on 15th street around 4pm to meet my husband for dinner at 32nd and Lowell where we could then drive home to Arvada together afterward. The route I had to take - I believe it was the 32 - felt PAINFULLY slow. Between the wait and the slow route, I think it took almost 40 minutes to get to West Highland. I can't help but think that it shouldn't take that long to get to an "up and coming" urban neighborhood that is only 2 miles from Downtown. Again - I could have gotten home to Olde Town Arvada faster than that, and it is almost twice as far away. There are no doubt countless other examples of this just within 2-4 miles of downtown.

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better?

…

…

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin.

To be clear, I’m arguing against stopping freeway expansion for the sake of preventing “induced demand” or forcing people onto our inadequate transit system.

We should be focusing on good transit where it’s viable, but unfortunately it does feel like a pipe dream right now because of how our transit agencies and their revenue streams are set up.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

We do have a pretty large rail system. I think adding BRT as a compliment will be nice but I think it is more important that we develop around the stations that we have than invest in much more rail infrastructure. Alameda Station is being heavily developed, 38th and Blake is being heavily developed, Belleview Station is being heavily developed, and the Ball Arena and Empower Field stations will be heavily developed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

Different pot of money for the roadway versus additional transit question which makes it a hard comparison. But what you mention with Boulder is what Denver should be looking at "buying up" additional service because, despite my rant, Denver would be a net loser should RTD be broken up. I would like to see Denver put down some serious money (~$75M/annually( via a mill levy to do two things: 1) upgrade the service levels of probably the 10-15 of the busiest intra-city routes and 2) establish a fund for capital improvements on bus routes such as shelters, real time information, bus bulbs, and traffic signal priority (basically the 15L project that RTD took forever to get done). By doing this we could have a dozen or more routes that have at least 10 minute frequency (preferably 5 minute), real-time bus status information, and the built environment that makes bus movements easier and the transit use experience better.

Ideally it would be great to have a transit pass for every single Denver resident, but that would be way outside of the revenues for the above idea.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Different pot of money for the roadway versus additional transit question which makes it a hard comparison. But what you mention with Boulder is what Denver should be looking at "buying up" additional service because, despite my rant, Denver would be a net loser should RTD be broken up. I would like to see Denver put down some serious money (~$75M/annually( via a mill levy to do two things: 1) upgrade the service levels of probably the 10-15 of the busiest intra-city routes and 2) establish a fund for capital improvements on bus routes such as shelters, real time information, bus bulbs, and traffic signal priority (basically the 15L project that RTD took forever to get done). By doing this we could have a dozen or more routes that have at least 10 minute frequency (preferably 5 minute), real-time bus status information, and the built environment that makes bus movements easier and the transit use experience better.

Ideally it would be great to have a transit pass for every single Denver resident, but that would be way outside of the revenues for the above idea.

Agreed on all counts. I realized as I was typing that I'm opening a whole can of worms by suggesting that highway money be re-routed towards transit. All of your suggestions for improvements are absolutely good ones, and these kinds of things can't necessarily come out of highway budgets. But they are all things that they city should theoretically be able to afford if it puts its mind to it, and if there isn't some expectation that the fringes of the metro area all need the same level of investment as the center of town.

Sometimes though, I think there are examples of where roadway projects could factor in a transit component. CDOT's upcoming I-25 project that is looking at re-building railroad infrastructure is an obvious example. My pet project for that one would be to close the "Mile High" station and replace it with a new station in the Baker gap between Alameda and 10th and Osage stations (since the south end of Santa Fe is another example of where Denver's transit system falls short within less than 2 miles of downtown). In other cases, maybe roadway projects (like Brighton) should cast a wider net and consider transit improvements for the whole area. I mean sure, 38th and Blake is great, but how is an Arvada resident like myself supposed to get to somewhere like 29th and Larimer on transit? Trying to transfer to the 44 from Union Station doesn't exactly make sense when I could just drive my car and be there in 15 minutes. And could a small portion of something like the I-70 project be used to double-track or grade-separate portions of the A-line to allow for express service or faster travel times? Just a few examples I can think of.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

To be clear, I’m arguing against stopping freeway expansion for the sake of preventing “induced demand” or forcing people onto our inadequate transit system.

We should be focusing on good transit where it’s viable, but unfortunately it does feel like a pipe dream right now because of how our transit agencies and their revenue streams are set up.

I hear ya. It's easy to get caught up in dogmatic arguments when it isn't always that easy. Something like replacing the I-70 viaduct obviously needed to happen. I actually think CDOT's approach of adding managed lanes, making safety improvements, and fixing things like drainage is perfectly reasonable without massively widening highways. I-25 between Alameda and Speer, for example, often feels like you're taking your life in your hands when you drive on it. It absolutely makes sense to continue to fix our freeways while also acknowledging that induced demand is real and there are things we could be doing to make our transit system viable for more people - particularly in the city center.

Edit: I'll add that what doesn't seem to make sense is to continue the practice of massively over-sized city streets. It absolutely makes sense to remove lanes of travel, or to shrink their dimensions, in order to make BRT projects viable. Colfax and Speer both seem like really low-hanging fruit to me. The timeline on Colfax is frustrating enough, much less seeing streets like Speer on the Denver Moves: Transit vision map with no real commitment to such a project ever happening.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better? I think I recently mentioned that Olde Town Arvada has better access to the city center than many urban Denver neighborhoods do. I feel like this actually shouldn't be the case. My best personal example is that about two years ago I decided to catch a bus on 15th street around 4pm to meet my husband for dinner at 32nd and Lowell where we could then drive home to Arvada together afterward. The route I had to take - I believe it was the 32 - felt PAINFULLY slow. Between the wait and the slow route, I think it took almost 40 minutes to get to West Highland. I can't help but think that it shouldn't take that long to get to an "up and coming" urban neighborhood that is only 2 miles from Downtown. Again - I could have gotten home to Olde Town Arvada faster than that, and it is almost twice as far away. There are no doubt countless other examples of this just within 2-4 miles of downtown.

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

The entire problem with the ride from Central Park to Lone Tree is the A line, specifically, the north end of it. I drive over to the station at the north end of the A line and then it takes over a half hour to get to about the Florida station, south of the mall. From there on south, it goes fast and works as expected. I just don't know what they were thinking when they routed the train around the mall with all those stops. I assume to get Aurora gov't workers over to the civic building, but there is rarely anyone at the stop since it's still not near the building.

OTOH, taking the A line downtown or to the airport is actually a faster, cheaper way to go for me. The A line works great!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

The entire problem with the ride from Central Park to Lone Tree is the A line, specifically, the north end of it. I drive over to the station at the north end of the A line and then it takes over a half hour to get to about the Florida station, south of the mall. From there on south, it goes fast and works as expected. I just don't know what they were thinking when they routed the train around the mall with all those stops. I assume to get Aurora gov't workers over to the civic building, but there is rarely anyone at the stop since it's still not near the building.

OTOH, taking the A line downtown or to the airport is actually a faster, cheaper way to go for me. The A line works great!

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions and also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

Yes, sorry. R Line 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!

[mr1138]

Yep - you're absolutely right wong. That's pretty much what I would have said (and more concisely). I don't think anyone on this forum will argue that the R-line isn't deeply flawed!

To return to the San Francisco example - I bet if one needed to travel from Palo Alto to Berkeley on transit they'd find themselves equally frustrated. That doesn't mean that SF proper can't provide decent bus service.

[TakeFive]

You are too, too much

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

But if you keep complaining, I'll keep explaining.

There was nothing wrong when the second largest number of taxpayers in the RTD district wants their share of the action, especially since Aurora is much bigger than Denver and will eventually surpass Denver in population.

I'll concede the route design was flawed

The I-225 light rail from Florida down and around through the tech center but especially into downtown Denver has some of the best ridership numbers outside of downtown - often by a country mile.

Had they kept the route along I-225 it would have been much better. It's the ~5 miles through the Aurora City Center that was a mistake. Aurora should have been responsible for 50% of the cost for what should have been a spur route.

[TakeFive]

That was one fun read; great comment

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

When I lived in SF I didn’t own a car and liked it that way. My first couple apartments were near the Financial District so I used the subway a lot. When I lived in The Haight I used the N a lot, and of course, buses. I have to say, the N was unreliable.

Denver is different.

You're my 'bellwether' dude.

You're not some stuffed shirt; you're not generally a crusader but you do like the urban environment and you're just living out your life like all of us.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You are too, too much

But if you keep complaining, I'll keep explaining.

There was nothing wrong when the second largest number of taxpayers in the RTD district wants their share of the action, especially since Aurora is much bigger than Denver and will eventually surpass Denver in population.

I'll concede the route design was flawed

The I-225 light rail from Florida down and around through the tech center but especially into downtown Denver has some of the best ridership numbers outside of downtown - often by a country mile.

Had they kept the route along I-225 it would have been much better. It's the ~5 miles through the Aurora City Center that was a mistake. Aurora should have been responsible for 50% of the cost for what should have been a spur route.

The H Line goes into the Auraria Campus and downtown (your mention of the Tech Center is laughable, you might want to check Google Maps), so I fail to see how your subtle assertion that it's an example of a suburb-to-suburb connection that works is valid. If the R Line was an extension of the H Line it would probably be different in ridership terms, but than it's not a suburb-to-suburb connection, is it?

I never once said that Aurora shouldn't get a choo-choo, but that how the choo-choo was laid out due to political interference (going through the Aurora "City Center", not going through the middle of Anschutz) is what is wrong with RTD. They screwed up a line that was already going to be a middling performer not due to value engineering (which RTD tends to be good at), but because they feel too much pressure to cow to special interests whether that be the City of Aurora or disability advocates that force parents to pull their kids out of strollers and fold them up before boarding RTD vehicles.

But please, keep on pontificating from Phoenix using your extensive knowledge of Google and Google Maps.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But please, keep on pontificating from Phoenix using your extensive knowledge of Google and Google Maps.

I miss Eeyore. At least his nonsense was entertaining and funny.

[TakeFive]

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results
(Author unknown)


Source

What about doing what America does best; seek out the ingenuity of Free Markets. Yes, I understand that sometimes government has to be tasked with meeting the collective needs of the community - but shouldn't that include both common sense and the collective wisdom of the community?

"Brother, can you spare a dime?"

A lot of things have changed since Grandpa's days.

Whether you go to McD's, to Starbucks, to Einstein Bros. Bagels or Sam's No. 3, count on pulling out at least $10.

Originally Posted by mr1138

My best personal example is that about two years ago I decided to catch a bus on 15th street around 4pm to meet my husband for dinner at 32nd and Lowell where we could then drive home to Arvada together afterward. The route I had to take - I believe it was the 32 - felt PAINFULLY slow. Between the wait and the slow route, I think it took almost 40 minutes to get to West Highland. I can't help but think that it shouldn't take that long to get to an "up and coming" urban neighborhood that is only 2 miles from Downtown. Again - I could have gotten home to Olde Town Arvada faster than that, and it is almost twice as far away. There are no doubt countless other examples of this just within 2-4 miles of downtown.

Would you pay $10 to have gone from point to point?

There's lots of reasons why people prefer Uber/Lyft. Why not a city sponsored van-shuttle service that cost $10 per ride? But it needs to be on-demand service.

Exceptions noted but generally fixed routes only work for certain corridors and during peak periods. There's lots of people who would much prefer the convenience and security of point to point service, especially during off-peak hours, especially after dark - even for 'poor' people.

[Ndj]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

In the meantime, our freeways need to be expanded so our lack of mobility doesn’t continue to hurt our economy.

Alternative forms of transit will never overtake SOVs if we continue to pour massive amounts of resources into making driving in SOVs the most convenient form of transportation. It's as simple as that.

There is no "in the meantime" with this. You reap what you sow when it comes to how cities are built. Expanding highway capacity will result in more development that relies on driving. This comes at the expensive of viability for other methods of transportation.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's lots of people who would much prefer the convenience and security of point to point service, especially during off-peak hours, especially after dark - even for 'poor' people.

This is a false dichotomy. The idea that we should de-prioritize unsustainable and detrimental methods of transportation (cars) is not exclusive of people's ability to continue to have point-to-point transit. No one is talking about outlawing cars and demolishing roads here. The point is that we should not be expanding highway capacity if we truly want alternative forms of transit to succeed. At the risk of repeating myself: expanding highway capacity will result in more development that is incompatible with alternative forms of transportation.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's lots of reasons why people prefer Uber/Lyft. Why not a city sponsored van-shuttle service that cost $10 per ride? But it needs to be on-demand service.[

Exceptions noted but generally fixed routes only work for certain corridors and during peak periods. There's lots of people who would much prefer the convenience and security of point to point service, especially during off-peak hours, especially after dark - even for 'poor' people.

I know you have put this idea out before (I think you spent about a week and twenty posts to do so) and I do find merit in it as a means of providing service in the suburbs for point to point and RTD should contract out for such a thing in a good chunk of it's service are geography wise. I do say that RTD should lop off the bottom third of it's routes by performance and replace it with such. As long as you provide this plus commuter routes RTD can then put effort (as originally promised by FasTracks) into providing additional fixed-route service where it works which is not just Denver, but also large portions of the first-ring suburbs.




(In addition: RTD should be looking at contracting out it's entire operator and maintenance workforce but maintain the capital assets. To expand frequency, and service the FasTrack's debt, O&M needs to be reduced per operational hour. There's also their retirement funding issue that's another source of efficiencies)

[TakeFive]

Why are you being so obtuse?

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The H Line goes into the Auraria Campus and downtown (your mention of the Tech Center is laughable, you might want to check Google Maps), so I fail to see how your subtle assertion that it's an example of a suburb-to-suburb connection that works is valid. If the R Line was an extension of the H Line it would probably be different in ridership terms, but than it's not a suburb-to-suburb connection, is it?

I never once said that Aurora shouldn't get a choo-choo, but that how the choo-choo was laid out due to political interference (going through the Aurora "City Center", not going through the middle of Anschutz) is what is wrong with RTD. They screwed up a line that was already going to be a middling performer not due to value engineering (which RTD tends to be good at), but because they feel too much pressure to cow to special interests whether that be the City of Aurora or disability advocates that force parents to pull their kids out of strollers and fold them up before boarding RTD vehicles.

But please, keep on pontificating from Phoenix using your extensive knowledge of Google and Google Maps.

I specifically mentioned the I-225 portion of light rail; that was a 'copy' of some very good analysis that was done by Cirrus some time ago.

Since I highlighted "especially downtown" I'm totally familiar with the ridership statistics going into downtown via the H Line. In fact, I've ridden the H Line from downtown to Florida.

Even before the R Line, Aurora residents had good access to the tech center via the H Line Southmoor Station. Were you unaware of this option?

I specifically conceded the design flaw; it was even in highlighted print. But that's not totally on Aurora; it's never wrong to ask for the moon but the agency responsible for making decisions has to make those final decisions. I specifically stated above that light rail should have run along I-225 (up to the Colfax and Peoria Stations).

You want to have a contest about knowledge of SE Denver and Aurora? Bring it on.



Source

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I miss Eeyore. At least his nonsense was entertaining and funny.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Even before the R Line, Aurora residents had good access to the tech center via the H Line Southmoor Station. Were you unaware of this option?

Wait so we're talking about commutes involving transfers versus one-seat rides? Well 🞵🞵🞵🞵, everything in the Denver Metro Area and beyond is reachable via the R Line in that case.

You want to have a contest about knowledge of SE Denver and Aurora? Bring it on.

If I want to have a lesson about what it looked like 25 years ago, I'll be sure to reach out to you. But that's about as helpful as asking a Gulf War vet to call for fire using modern comm systems. Your subject matter knowledge is just a bit antiquated.

[TakeFive]

Source

I think I was speaking to mr1138
But I guess he does live in an inner-ring suburb

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I know you have put this idea out before (I think you spent about a week and twenty posts to do so) and I do find merit in it as a means of providing service in the suburbs for point to point and RTD should contract out for such a thing in a good chunk of it's service are geography wise. I do say that RTD should lop off the bottom third of it's routes by performance and replace it with such. As long as you provide this plus commuter routes RTD can then put effort (as originally promised by FasTracks) into providing additional fixed-route service where it works which is not just Denver, but also large portions of the first-ring suburbs.

There are lots and lots of peeps out there (like Sam Hill) that have no interest in riding Big Bertha buses. But give them the option of taking a shuttle-van, many, many would opt in. During Rush you'd want a subscription service for say $15 a ride as it would be impractical to service everyone. But if you don't give consumers what they want then consumers will make their own decisions and find their own way.

Outside of peak hours it is horribly inefficient and costly to run Big Bertha buses with 3 or 4 riders up and down most routes. During off-peak hours there would be more than sufficient demand for on-demand shuttle service in the urban area as much as anywhere else.

It is feasible that many urban shuttle routes could be fixed, say down Brighton Blvd and up Market street; maybe along Downing St etc but I'd guess even during off peak hours shuttle-vans would be the better option.

Easy to Agree; not likely to happen.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

(In addition: RTD should be looking at contracting out it's entire operator and maintenance workforce but maintain the capital assets. To expand frequency, and service the FasTrack's debt, O&M needs to be reduced per operational hour. There's also their retirement funding issue that's another source of efficiencies)

I'm happy to give you the last word.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Wait so we're talking about commutes involving transfers versus one-seat rides? Well 🞵🞵🞵🞵, everything in the Denver Metro Area and beyond is reachable via the R Line in that case.

[B]
If I want to have a lesson about what it looked like 25 years ago, I'll be sure to reach out to you. But that's about as helpful as asking a Gulf War vet to call for fire using modern comm systems. Your subject matter knowledge is just a bit antiquated.

[TakeFive]

Some hyperbole but generally well said

Originally Posted by Ndj

Alternative forms of transit will never overtake SOVs if we continue to pour massive amounts of resources into making driving in SOVs the most convenient form of transportation. It's as simple as that.

Who's talking about "massive" amounts of resources and it's important to be specific as to where you're talking about. Within Denver other than the critical Central 70 project there won't be much freeway expansion going forward.

The planned rebuild/expansion of '270' nobody should care about unless you're just against all expansion ideologically. Also the planned expansion along E 56th street out east is just needed; sufficient transit service does not exist and/or would be cost-inefficient. North Washington Street is more of a multi-modal rebuild. What specific expansion bothers You?

Originally Posted by Ndj

There is no "in the meantime" with this. You reap what you sow when it comes to how cities are built. Expanding highway capacity will result in more development that relies on driving. This comes at the expensive of viability for other methods of transportation.

That's a reliable talking point that I've read thousands of times but is misleading, rarely accurate.

Freeway expansion almost always follows development that has already happened (or in some cases is already planned, is inevitable).

BTW, much of today's suburban development is mixed-use and mixed density and often is planned along transit routes where available - like Lone Tree.

Reality Check

Originally Posted by Ndj

This is a false dichotomy. The idea that we should de-prioritize unsustainable and detrimental methods of transportation (cars) is not exclusive of people's ability to continue to have point-to-point transit. No one is talking about outlawing cars and demolishing roads here. The point is that we should not be expanding highway capacity if we truly want alternative forms of transit to succeed. At the risk of repeating myself: expanding highway capacity will result in more development that is incompatible with alternative forms of transportation.

Another believe it or not but I'm a huge fanboy of transit; I'm especially infatuated with trains.

But reality is that solving the 'first and last mile' ain't going to be easy but I wouldn't say it's impossible. Generally, trying to service the suburbs with transit is uneconomical.

Maybe, get up, close and personal with RTD's budget; come up with a priority list and we can go from there.

We can't just stop providing road access to a growing population. Chances are that people who live outside of the city or outside of inner-ring suburbs don't care about or want transit so there's jurisdictional/political problems.