DENVER | Transportation Thread

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I've gotta disagree with you Ken, I don't think that's silly at all. I think that's exactly what most people think (really, there's a reason that RTD's rather excellent express bus program can't even dream of comparing with rail for attracting commuters). Bus couldn't really be anymore convenient than it is for me, but no thanks, not when I do have a car available. There are a lot of variables that have to come together there in your equation - easy bus commute, work downtown, have to pay for parking, don't need a car - that's getting to be a fairly narrow demographic, when on top of that you have a stigma to combat. No...my bus days ended with my undergrad. It gives me a headache to jerk around in a loud box. RTD has a long ways to go (technologically) to make buses compare favorably.

No, I don't disagree with the rail vs bus or the car vs. bus decision that everyone must make for themselves. I'm saying what's silly is: "I ride the bus." (Translation: "I don't have a car."). Anyone who has spent any time on RTD busses in Denver knows that most of the people who take the bus into Downtown each morning probably have a car.

[alexjon]

People are speaking in anti-rail terms without realizing it; this idea of frugalness and the notion that you can do "just as well with a bus" goes against the proper working models of other cities.

Take Portland, for example. 300,000 fewer people in the metro, but 660 more people board MAX per rail mile each day. That's 250,000 more per year, almost the entire difference. As stated repeatedly before, the much-touted "Portland Model" is proven. So much so, the anti-rail (not "pro-road" or "pro-bus" or "pro-transit" as they say) crowd uses Portland as their whipping boy, going so far as to throw money after bent facts and outright lies.

Portland is denser, however, and has a less car-hungry populace, but I know that Denver could handle a streetcar. And funding these is easy, since they really aren't that expensive.

Visit Portland. Seriously. Fun place.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1. You can see the tracks right there. Tracks are clearly different than the roads on which cars drive. That means it's easy to visually distinguish a rail line from a regular street, which is impossible with a bus line unless you already know where it's going. Even if there are good bus maps, if your route takes even one turn riders have to know about it on their own - they can't just see that it happens. BTW, this effect works on pedestrians too; preference for visual markings are why special pavers are so popular at major crosswalks.

2. Train headways are usually shorter than bus headways, so train lines feel more significant and more reliable. Not needing to consult a schedule is a lot like being able to see the tracks - it means you know with absolute authority that you will get where you need to go in short order. To get that on a bus, you almost have to be a regular rider, which means *new* riders are intimidated.

3. There are so many bus routes criss-crossing any major city that the bus map doesn't have any affect on how people think of their city's geography. On the other hand, in almost every city in the world with rail service, the rail map is one of the most dominant geographic indicators for that city. People look at a rail map once and automatically memorize its basic layout. People then think in terms of where they are on the rail map. For example, I tell people I live on the Orange Line and everyone in DC knows immediately what group of neighborhoods I'm talking about. This is why putting Boston's Silver Line on the rail map is such an important aspect of the Silver Line's success, and why you couldn't just call it the 15J or something. Of course, the catch with this is that though you can put a bus route or two on your rail map, you can't put very many on, or it defeats the purpose.

These are all *real* differences that have a *real* effect on how the majority of people perceive transit. If you don't perceive things that way then more power to you, but virtually everyone else does.

Originally Posted by alexjon

People are speaking in anti-rail terms without realizing it; this idea of frugalness and the notion that you can do "just as well with a bus" goes against the proper working models of other cities.

Take Portland, for example. 300,000 fewer people in the metro, but 660 more people board MAX per rail mile each day. That's 250,000 more per year, almost the entire difference. As stated repeatedly before, the much-touted "Portland Model" is proven. So much so, the anti-rail (not "pro-road" or "pro-bus" or "pro-transit" as they say) crowd uses Portland as their whipping boy, going so far as to throw money after bent facts and outright lies.

Portland is denser, however, and has a less car-hungry populace, but I know that Denver could handle a streetcar. And funding these is easy, since they really aren't that expensive.

Visit Portland. Seriously. Fun place.

Yes, yes, yes...
This is all correct... These two know what they're talking about. Rail lines (including Streetcars) should be used in "key corridors," to "maximize" ridership and then compliment those lines with extensive bus service linking to the rail stops.

You see, it isn't streetcar vs. bus. Only those whom hold a position of anti-rail tend to look at it as one or the other -- just like they do with highways vs. rail. The solution is not to replace all bus routes with streetcars (or even a large percentage of them, for that matter). The solution is to strategically construct rail and streetcar lines in key transit corridors and do so along with timed feeder bus routes into rail stops, street improvements, and pedestrian improvements. Multi-model transportation is the solution for every major transportation corridor.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

No, I don't disagree with the rail vs bus or the car vs. bus decision that everyone must make for themselves. I'm saying what's silly is: "I ride the bus." (Translation: "I don't have a car."). Anyone who has spent any time on RTD busses in Denver knows that most of the people who take the bus into Downtown each morning probably have a car.

I thought he was illustrating the stigma that a lot of people have. I didn't take it to be his perception of the facts. I actually think that for the amount of words that he used it's a pretty accurate reflection of the stigma that even the best run bus lines work against.

[5280]

I moved farther away from my work downtown just so I could ride the sweet, sweet light-rail everyday, instead of the stank bus. I get there faster now. And with less chaos.

But my ex-roommate did the opposite, moved closer to downtown, and located himself on a busline. He gets to and fro in under ten minutes and loves it.

I do know I tried to get some people to head to the Hornet on B'Way from downtown one time, and everyone steadfastly refused to get on the 0. So we stayed downtown. But these people are willing to take a long light-rail ride to the tech center, and walk around that non-pedestrian friendly area just to go to a restaurant. But buses? Helz no.

And DU kids always take the trains downtown to go hang out. I doubt a single one of them would consider taking a bus to that do that.

Everyone's got their own style.

Apparently my style is to not make a point, so I'll be quiet now.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

I thought he was illustrating the stigma that a lot of people have. I didn't take it to be his perception of the facts. I actually think that for the amount of words that he used it's a pretty accurate reflection of the stigma that even the best run bus lines work against.

Yeah, I was simply relating what seems to be most people's thoughts on the matter: That busses are only for people who are too poor to afford cars.
Certainly the perception is different in highly urbanized areas, but most people in the western United States live in suburbia. Most also have a negative perception of 'riding the bus'.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by PlanIt

Would you want to ride the mall bus all the way to Fitzsimmons? I sure wouldn't.

I didn't know we were talking those distances. I agree that the further the line, the better the case for light rail or streetcar.

If we are talking that far. . . what would be more useful, a line down Colfax, or a line down Speer to Alameda from either DUS or off the convention center.

I think a line to Alameda would be more useful. It would get the Golden Triangle, Cherry Creek and if it went down Alameda, Lowry and eventually the Aurora Govt Center.

A line down Colfax (with a kink) could potentially service City Park, the Museum and the Zoo. And it would help Colfax.

Which would you prefer?

EDIT: What are they going with on the extension of the Central Line to 40th/40th? Did they pick lightrail or streetcar?

[denverryan]

Someone probably mentioned this too, but since streetcars and trains are more permanent than buses, it significantly increases the viability of development in the vicinity. Nobody would ever look at a bus stop and say, "Oh man, we've got to develop this land! People would love to live by a bus stop!"

Also, the tourist-friendly idea is definitely true — on my world trip, I almost always avoided local or regional buses for my basic transportation needs. Even with a language barrier, rail is much easier to master and there's less chance of getting lost. Plus, on local rail, if you go a stop too far by accident, you can generally backtrack without buying another ticket or waiting very long.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

"I ride the train" (Translation: "I enjoy the convienence of leaving my car behind and commuting to work using mass transit because it is faster, cheaper and more environmentally responsible.")

"I ride the bus." (Translation: "I don't have a car.")

No, that's called being an elitist prick, arkhitektor...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Octavian]

These stations give me a sense of permanence.

The buses are streetcar and bus. They can get power both from overhead lines and from gas depending on which part of the route they're on.

http://railbus.smugmug.com/gallery/1...52576130_GKRwv

EDIT: This plan for RTD looks at some of the issues we're arguing about. I like the bus alignments they have along colfax and down broadway to Union station.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Octavian

These stations give me a sense of permanence.

The buses are streetcar and bus. They can get power both from overhead lines and from gas depending on which part of the route they're on.

http://railbus.smugmug.com/gallery/1...52576130_GKRwv

EDIT: This plan for RTD looks at some of the issues we're arguing about. I like the bus alignments they have along colfax and down broadway to Union station.

Stations can only do so much-- they don't give a sense of continuation. And if trolleybuses are so fantastic, why is Cherry/Union so awful looking in Seattle?

Trolleybuses can be good for the environment, but they still aren't anything special. Still a bumpy ride, still get crowded, still get caught in traffic.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by glowrock

No, that's called being an elitist prick, arkhitektor...

Aaron (Glowrock)

The elitist pricks have to ride too...

... otherwise why build any line at all into Boulder?

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Stations can only do so much-- they don't give a sense of continuation. And if trolleybuses are so fantastic, why is Cherry/Union so awful looking in Seattle?

Trolleybuses can be good for the environment, but they still aren't anything special. Still a bumpy ride, still get crowded, still get caught in traffic.

Don't streetcars get caught in traffic as well? We're talking, after all, about rail being laid down right in the middle of the street, right?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Yeah, I was simply relating what seems to be most people's thoughts on the matter: That busses are only for people who are too poor to afford cars.
Certainly the perception is different in highly urbanized areas, but most people in the western United States live in suburbia. Most also have a negative perception of 'riding the bus'.

I think what you're getting at is that people who ride the bus typically have, on average, a lower socio-economic standing than people who ride rail. Therefore, since most people prefer (consciously or subconsciously) to not associate themselves with people of a socio-economic standing lower than their own, middle class and upper class folks avoid using the bus and think of most bus-riders as "poor" people. It's an overgeneralization, but I would agree with that. But I don't believe that most people think that people on the bus are too poor to afford a car. That just strikes me as too extreme and not reflective of the attitudes of people in a progressive urban area like Denver (where I've lived for 23 years so it's all I have to go on) where a lot of middle/upper class folks may not take the bus themselves, but they understand that a lot of non-poor people use public transportation for commutting to downtown due to traffic, cost of parking, etc.

I recently learned that 53% of the 115,000 people who work in Downtown Denver get there by some means other than driving a car (bus, light rail, walk, bike, etc.). About a third of the people I work with (planners, engineers, scientists) take the bus to work. At least for the Downtown crowd, there's not much of a stigma to riding the bus to work, particularly when your employer gives you an Ecopass (unlimited access to RTD bus and rail) and parking would cost a minimum of $80-100/month for outlying parking lots.

[bunt_q]

Here's what I'd need for a bus to be competitive on an urban thoroughfare (I don't count the US 36 BRT, which I love in concept... but highway BRT is a whole different animal). Crappy pictures, but what we need if we're too cheap for a streetcar is a good old fashioned Latin American BRT. Dedicated ROW, yes... you can maybe get away without it for a train because you don't want to vomit every time a streetcar stops. For an upgraded bus, it's a must-have:

















Yeah, I'm a dork... riding BRT is my idea of a good vacation. Beaches are over-rated...

[bcp]

is that guatamala city?

yes...the reason 16 st works is because it's 100% dedicated (for now, that is...thanks E/W).

denver will have to give up it's suicide-left lanes, or some parking (gasp) to ever have BRT or streetcar on colfax. Plus, isn't it a state road?

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by alexjon

. As stated repeatedly before, the much-touted "Portland Model" is proven. So much so, the anti-rail (not "pro-road" or "pro-bus" or "pro-transit" as they say) crowd uses Portland as their whipping boy, going so far as to throw money after bent facts and outright.

You mean like this:

'Donald Rolfe, 30, said he cringed at the site of the light rail train. It brought back memories of the nightmare, he said, light rail created in Portland, Ore.., where he lived "There was a devaluation of property, and it increased crime," he said. "It was a mess. It took over a dozen years to fix."'

From a recent article about the light rail in Phoenix being built at: azcentral .com

http://www.azcentral.com/community/t....html#comments

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Don't streetcars get caught in traffic as well? We're talking, after all, about rail being laid down right in the middle of the street, right?

Aaron (Glowrock)

Yes, if planned like a bus. Otherwise, traffic interaction is generally limited in some way, whether it's by using grade separation or by using an alignment down a limited access road.

The Streetcar in Portland rarely (if ever) gets caught in traffic. Because it's well-planned. The planning used for the streetcar is hardly applicable for a bus since a streetcar is meant to go short distances (under 10 miles per line) so it's alright to miniaturize the environment.

And of course, grade separation works too.

But what do I know? Denver doesn't need to focus millions of dollars in this way-- they've got so much land!

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by dktshb

You mean like this:

'Donald Rolfe, 30, said he cringed at the site of the light rail train. It brought back memories of the nightmare, he said, light rail created in Portland, Ore.., where he lived "There was a devaluation of property, and it increased crime," he said. "It was a mess. It took over a dozen years to fix."'

From a recent article about the light rail in Phoenix being built at: azcentral .com

http://www.azcentral.com/community/t....html#comments

He's speaking about Gresham, which speaks volumes. Downtown to Hollywood and even up to 80th is fine, but you go beyond that and it becomes a problem endemic to Gresham.

A lot of the problem is that officials have treated the system like they treat a bus-- the volume is nowhere comparable, however, and as such, you cannot simply hope that people would behave.

Toward the mid-90s, due to a severe price spike within the central city (due to all those fabulous buses probably), a lot of people of lower incomes moved east, causing white flight within east Multnomah county.

There's a lot involved in his comments and it's kinda uplifting to me that his type have left Portland. Isn't it also telling that he moved to Phoenix?

[Giovoni]

.. Denver has very little land actually not to build roads/rail anyway. It's landlocked