DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Elrod

Get the phone app....

Every time I open it, before it can zoom to my location, it starts with a global google map view. And there are always bikes available in Antarctica, haha. In fact, there are 4 available right now on the peninsula. (yes, I admit, I am easily humored)

[Cirrus]

The phone app is nice, but it's a band aid to an undesirable situation, especially since not everybody has a smartphone.

Phone apps for bikesharing are like NextBus for buses. Nice to have, but hardly a substitute for frequent service.

[Elrod]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The phone app is nice, but it's a band aid to an undesirable situation, especially since not everybody has a smartphone.

Phone apps for bikesharing are like NextBus for buses. Nice to have, but hardly a substitute for frequent service.

I'm confused, what exactly do you want?
The phone app shows nearest station and bikes available. Plus you can check your destination and make sure there are open docks which can be a problem going to a popular event. If you don't have a smart phone you take your chances but what can you expect?


They're rapidly expanding to more locations.

I think it's the best thing ever....

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Every time I open it, before it can zoom to my location, it starts with a global google map view. And there are always bikes available in Antarctica, haha. In fact, there are 4 available right now on the peninsula. (yes, I admit, I am easily humored)

the official b-cycle app is crap. anyone who wants to give my app a try, pm me for a free download code- http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/denverbike/id411286130

also available for other cities- http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bike-...er/id457288250
(sorry for the spam, but seems relevant here)

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Huh? We're talking about a 50% expansion of the Denver system in its 3rd year of existence. How does that indicate failure of the Denver business community to support B-Cycle?

And remember, last season they opted to expand into Boulder, instead of Denver. In a few years, you could live downtown Denver or surrounding neighborhoods, bike share to Union Station, take the US-36 BRT to Boulder and then bike share to your Boulder destination (or Vise Versa).

The Denver expansion, I notice will center around Highlands, Washington Park and Lincoln Park. This will effectively connect some solid population centers around Central Denver, into the Bike Share system.

[Pizzuti]

Hmm... I think I'd rather have bicyclists be an intermediate between drivers and pedestrians; it's more intuitive.

Bikes should have to stop at red lights and stop signs when there's traffic or pedestrians within, say, 50 feet, and not when there is no traffic or pedestrian around. That's what you'd do automatically if you got on a bike thinking there were no bike laws, right? I understand some idiots go farther than that but you can actually blame them for being reckless rather than just not knowing the law.

I hate when bicyclists are riding in a traffic lane. There are cars piling up behind them most of the time, and trying to pass them can be dangerous. When I was a kid I was taught that a bicycle should ride on the street off of the curb - basically in the gutter if it's available, and just inside of the parked cars if the gutter is full of cars. But not in the traffic lane - just where a bicycle lane would be if one were there.

What's wrong with that?

(Also, I jaywalk all the time when there is no traffic. I don't think it is a problem. I've never forced a car to slow down for me. Two weeks ago a guy yelled out out of his truck at me, though, because I jogged across a 1-lane street when the hand was flashing.)

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Don't you know, the customer is never wrong.

I do not understand why a business model as flexible as bike-sharing would want to keep its customers slavishly tied to a 30-minute radius around its (still somewhat sparse) stations. No thanks. The hallmark of successful alternative transportation - and the number one criticism of transit by "fair" would-be commuters - is flexibility, and b-cycle still fails in my book. I do not want my day's lunch to depend on my ability to hustle to the next station - which I may not even know exactly where it is - in time. Great for commuters, useless for the rest.

I actually think this is very persuasive.

On the other hand, I think the costs/"fines" of extended bicycle use might be helping support the program, and if you cut the fees, you have to get the money elsewhere. It also ensures there are more bikes available because new-adopters will be more annoyed by the inconvenience of not finding a bike.

I would hope that as the program expands, users will be able to rent bikes for longer and fees would decrease across the board.

Also, maybe you could pay an increased fee upfront for an expected longer use, eventually, when the system is big enough to handle extended use.

(I'd EXPECT this to be happening already... but if business owners are smart, some private bike rental places for longer-term rentals would be hosting bcycle stations right outside their establishments. And b-cycle should be making money selling ads to those stores letting riders know where they can rent a long-term bike. They're not b-cycle's competition because the program can't meet that demand anyway.)

(You can just check a bike into the stand and pull it right back out again to re-set your time, right?)

(Also... random question... I see they extended the $1,000 replacement fee to 3 days instead of 24hrs, that is a good call. I also read that each bike has an internal GPS device. Does somebody go out to to track and try to fetch the bike when 3 days is coming up?)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Or do do what they do, and likely die in the attempt. Those fools have crazy skills.

EDIT: Aaron, are you here? Are we going to cobble together a forum meet or something? I vote Amato's, to remind you of what it's like to live in a place with good beer, and lots of options. Sorry, Yuengling's not on the menu. No Shiner products, either.

Not in Denver yet, Brent. I fly in tomorrow (Sunday)... Yeah, I could go for a meet-up at Amato's! And hey, let me tell you, I've had plenty of GOOD beer out here. It might not be BREWED here, but it's still damn good beer!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yes, because that little plastic card in your wallet that says "Drivers License" is just like that other card you have that says "Cyclists License". Both of which mean that you passed both a written and practical test to show your knowledge of the laws, procedures, and operation of differing forms of vehicular transportation.

Oh wait....

Quoted for truth...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Huh? We're talking about a 50% expansion of the Denver system in its 3rd year of existence. How does that indicate failure of the Denver business community to support B-Cycle?

actually, they have only added 9 stations since they launched with 42 stations 2 years ago. compare this with minneapolis which has doubled to 116 stations since its launch last year.
this is what true business and community support look like- http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...expansion.html

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I hate when bicyclists are riding in a traffic lane. There are cars piling up behind them most of the time, and trying to pass them can be dangerous. When I was a kid I was taught that a bicycle should ride on the street off of the curb - basically in the gutter if it's available, and just inside of the parked cars if the gutter is full of cars. But not in the traffic lane - just where a bicycle lane would be if one were there.

What's wrong with that?

Ummm....it's incredibly dangerous for cyclists?! Sorry, but whoever taught you about how bikes should be ridden with traffic....well, they didn't know what they were talking about. The only time it's dangerous for a car to pass a cyclist is when the driver of that car is being unreasonably impatient and decides to do something dangerous.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by dmintz

this is what true business and community support look like- http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...expansion.html

Looks to me like about 56% federal largesse that triggered a matching gift. Yep, that's REAL local support.

[CPVLIVE]

^^^^^

Yeah - In addtion - of Nice Rides initial 3.2 million start-up cost more than half was federal largesse. Blue Cross Blue Shield kicked in 1 million and the rest came from the City of Minneapolis and some local businesses. Seems without the feds Nice Ride wouldn't exist.

[bunt_q]

Is this where I'm supposed to point out that without the feds, the (fill in the blank with any transportation infrastructure ever, basically) wouldn't exist? That includes, just off the top of my head, the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, the 16th street mall shuttle, and Fastracks. Oh, and GM and Chrysler.

Number of users matters. Funding source, not so much.

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Looks to me like about 56% federal largesse that triggered a matching gift. Yep, that's REAL local support.

some of the money is federal, but the state chose to spend it on biking rather than yet another highway exchange. that says a lot about the community's priorities.

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Yeah - In addtion - of Nice Rides initial 3.2 million start-up cost more than half was federal largesse. Blue Cross Blue Shield kicked in 1 million and the rest came from the City of Minneapolis and some local businesses. Seems without the feds Nice Ride wouldn't exist.

what's your point? without the feds, fastracks wouldn't exist. neither would the interstate highway system for that matter. in our current system any form of transportation relies heavily on federal investment. 3 million for a city wide bike program is peanuts compared to the 1 billion for our airport line.

[bunt_q]

Does anybody (Cirrus?) have handy any data on transportation expenditure returns by state per dollar of tax the state sends to Washington? You see that sort of info out there for overall taxes/federal expenditures, but I've never seen it specific to transportation. I'd include the highway trust fund, plus other funds DOT funnels to state/local governments.

I've always wondered what would happen (by state) if the Feds got out of the transportation business altogether. Let states maintain current gas tax rates (or not) as a state tax. Let states raise general fund monies to replace federal money however they want (income taxes, sales/use taxes, heck, even a VAT.) (I understand federal receipts would never actually go down, no matter how much transportation was pulled out, so it's all a hypothetical exercise).

As an aside, I think liberal reliance on the federal government to advance progressive issues is fairly ridiculous and outdated in a lot of areas. We're not talking civil rights here. Some transportation expenditure is truly "interstate," so I'm not saying we should abolish the DOT or any such nonsense. But transportation is one area where I think a little more local control of the money that's out there would do more good than harm.

[Cirrus]

I think I've seen that info at some point, but don't have it handy. I could go googling, but... so could you.

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by dmintz

what's your point? without the feds, fastracks wouldn't exist. neither would the interstate highway system for that matter. in our current system any form of transportation relies heavily on federal investment. 3 million for a city wide bike program is peanuts compared to the 1 billion for our airport line.

My point is that your post inferred that Minneapolis expanded to 116 stations and Denver to only 51 because Minneapolis had 'true business and community support'.

Originally Posted by dmintz

actually, they have only added 9 stations since they launched with 42 stations 2 years ago. compare this with minneapolis which has doubled to 116 stations since its launch last year.
this is what true business and community support look like- http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...expansion.html

I simply pointed out not so much.

Originally Posted by dmintz

some of the money is federal, but the state chose to spend it on biking rather than yet another highway exchange. that says a lot about the community's priorities.

Actually the money came from Transit for Livable Communities. TLC was designated by Congress to distribute $21.5 million in federal funding for the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Project, a 2005 program designed to increase biking and walking and decrease driving.

[Wizened Variations]

In terms of bicycle, electric bicycle, bus, and, other forms of non-private vehcile transportation, IMO public planners should get off their **s and seriously consider the following scenario:

The trend line of a price of gasoline doubles in inflated dollars over a one or two year period, and, does not drop significantly for X additional years.

Joblessness does not go down, and, the buying power of those employed drops signficantly.

How are satellite cities and Denver going to deal with immense numbers of people not been able to afford their cars?

Bicycling in Denver and this scenario

Far more people sooner or later will dust off bicycles stored in their garage, basement, or storage shed, and, ride them (cursing the feds and the oil companies for letting this happen).

How is a suburban town like Lakewood going to deal with hundreds of people going to City Council meetings and complaining about access problems to the Taj light rail line? How is RTD going to deal with hundreds- maybe even low thousands- demanding to be able to bring their bicycles on buses? How is Lodo going to deal with large numbers of bicyclists on sidewalks, going against red lights, becoming involved in traffic accidents, etc.? What could- at a reasonable price- employers do to help bicycling commuters, and, how would those funds be provided?

I am talking about smart planning, where a little thought and a little willingness to reach solutions would pay off hugely. As I have said many times here, we, nationwide, need to spend at least some time and money looking at various decline of auto use scenarios. Not doing so greatly limits the public transportation systems that we build, the infrastructure flexibility of what is built, and, limits our options if, and, when, the 'change hits.'

Simple example: In Denver, 2025, how would we deal with the scenario of doubling the current percentage of possible drivers not using their cars? The public transit system enplace, and, the transportation system being built is NOT designed for this heavy a usage.

Say the change from 5% (or less) now to 10% or even 12% METRO wide? (not talking only about commuting which in Denver city is around 8.8% http://www.statjump.com/lists/commut...-dp3c34tc.html ) How do we handle driving our cars or riding our bikes in a mixed environment of cars, trucks, buses, motocycles, and, bikes? How can our transportation system handle thousands of bikes on the road, day and night, during all but the worst weather?

The $21.5 million provided by the feds is a pittance, and, purely political token money. The issue, as I see it, is far more serious and immediate.