DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am not going to go searching out those stations every 20 minutes, then walk to where I need to be and back. Call me a hog, whatever, it seems damned inconvenient. Whereas bike racks are on every street corner, and it'd be easy to bounce around that way, apparently that doesn't fit the model of usage.

No, stations on every corner is EXACTLY the model of usage. Bikesharing is designed so that within the coverage area you're supposed to be able to bike anywhere and not have to walk more than 1 (or 2 at most) blocks to your final destination. Heavy station coverage also solves the problem of what you do when you bike to your preferred station and find it full or empty - you bike 1 block over to the next station.

The problem is that b-cycle (and all American bikesharing systems to date) are not comprehensive enough. Denver exacerbated the problem by spreading a relatively small number of stations over a really large area. Those stations down by the university and Cherry Creek shouldn't be there.

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I take the bus into Downtown. We moved our office to 11th/Broadway... so instead of waiting for a transfer I just grab a bike.

gotcha. that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Those stations down by the university and Cherry Creek shouldn't be there.

i agree with the university stations not making any sense, but the cherry creek ones are fine. you can easily make the ride in 30 minutes, and once in cherry creek, you can pretty easily walk to most of the desirable things.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

i agree with the university stations not making any sense, but the cherry creek ones are fine. you can easily make the ride in 30 minutes, and once in cherry creek, you can pretty easily walk to most of the desirable things.

Would sure suck if you got done with your cup of coffee, though, and the last bike at the station was gone. Sort of like missing the last bus/train, except in this case, it wouldn't be your fault.

[BG918]

I wish it was easier to take your bike on the light rail. There is no way you even do it when the trains are full. They need a rack on the outside similar to the ski area buses that have racks for your skis. Either that or something where you don't have to lug the bike into the car and annoy everyone.

[awholeparade]

yeah, i've had to skip getting on a train, just because i couldn't find a cleared spot at the front/back of a train.

[bunt_q]

Low floor cars would help... sigh...

[PlattParker]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

gotcha. that makes sense.



i agree with the university stations not making any sense, but the cherry creek ones are fine. you can easily make the ride in 30 minutes, and once in cherry creek, you can pretty easily walk to most of the desirable things.

I think it makes sense to have DU/S. Pearl as the southern termimus of the Bcycle bike system, the problem is just that there are no stations between there and South Capitol Hill/Cherry Creek.

It actually wouldn't take too many to connect them. New stations at S. Gaylord, Wash park, at Alameda along the little restaurant row there and maybe a couple along S Broadway would integrate the existing southern stations into the rest of the system nicely.

But as you can tell by my user name I might be a little biased

[Cirrus]

Would sure suck if you got done with your cup of coffee, though, and the last bike at the station was gone. Sort of like missing the last bus/train, except in this case, it wouldn't be your fault.

There are a few mitigating factors here.

1. In a more properly designed system this wouldn't be a problem because there would be several other stations within a 2 block radius. Also, the larger your system, the more users you have coming and going all the time; it's no big deal to wait 2 minutes until someone pulls up in another bike.

2. You can use online/smartphone apps to track bike availability. Here's a real-time map of availability in Denver. If you have a smartphone, you can look up where the closest available bike is located.

3. It is standard operating procedure for vendor contracts to include a clause with financial penalties that increase the longer stations remain totally full or empty, so the redistribution van will generally be out operating all day. If it isn't rush hour, odds are the redistribution van will arrive at any full or empty station within a few minutes.

Overall, the real point is that b-cycle needs to be a lot bigger.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

No, stations on every corner is EXACTLY the model of usage. Bikesharing is designed so that within the coverage area you're supposed to be able to bike anywhere and not have to walk more than 1 (or 2 at most) blocks to your final destination. Heavy station coverage also solves the problem of what you do when you bike to your preferred station and find it full or empty - you bike 1 block over to the next station.

I believe the rule of thumb in Paris is that all stations should have another station visible from it. Hopefully our program will grow to that. I'm damn thrilled that we have it, however.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I'm damn thrilled that we have it, however.

Agreed. At this point any city in North America that has bikesharing at all is doing very well, and anyone with a system larger than 10 or so stations is absolutely kicking butt.

But that won't be the case much longer. These things are going to become ubiquitous. The cost effectiveness ratios for bikesharing are through the roof. It's a whole city-wide transit system for approximately the cost of one bus route. In 5 years there will be a dozen American cities with systems as large as b-cycle, and in 10 every city in the country worth beans will have one.

[bunt_q]

Anybody else listening to NPR in the background? The discussion about the Cambodians, and their word for "foreigner on a bike," and how humorous they find it that somebody who could afford a car would indulge in such a "sweaty" activity... haha.

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Overall, the real point is that b-cycle needs to be a lot bigger.

This system could be built out city wide for about $5 million to make it truly viable. Compared with the $40 million being spent on the stapleton I70 exchange or the alameda I25 overpass this seems like a steal. But since the city and state seem unwilling to make the small investment needed, maybe the private sector should step up. Given the millions developers spend on parking garages to satisfy parking minimums, $30,000 for a bike share station doesn't seem too bad. Maybe we need biking minimums for new development as well as parking minimums. Certainly spire has used their nearby bike share station to promote "green living".

[taylor23]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Would sure suck if you got done with your cup of coffee, though, and the last bike at the station was gone. Sort of like missing the last bus/train, except in this case, it wouldn't be your fault.

I had the opposite problem one night at Market Street Station. There was no open slot available to check the bike in and I had to figure out where the next closest station was. Luckily I got back in to time to still catch my bus.

[enjo13]

I do wish they would be more transparent in their expansion plans. That the highlands STILL does not have a single station (while Cherry f*ing Creek does) is just nuts

[bunt_q]

We shouldn't dismiss the need for more hard infrastructure to support this massive bicycle expansion. We need more bike lanes (when combined with widened sidewalks, it's a win-win for everybody but drivers). Operating in mixed traffic annoys everybody - drivers, bicyclists, RTD, etc. We need more streetscape/bikescape projects, and those unfortunately are not as cheap.

[Cirrus]

^
This is true, but it would have been a huge mistake to wait to implement bikesharing until the street infrastructure is ready. How would you define "ready"? That would be a little like refusing to spend money on transit until the problem of highway congestion is solved, or like saying we shouldn't spend money on space exploration until all of Earth's problems are solved; it's code for "never".

Bikesharing and infrastructure improvements complement each other. They both encourage more biking, and thus increase demand for each other. It's not an either/or situation.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I do wish they would be more transparent in their expansion plans. That the highlands STILL does not have a single station (while Cherry f*ing Creek does) is just nuts

Wait, what? There's a station at 16th and Boulder, next to Hirshorn Park. There's a station next to the Highland bridge on the downtown side, too, which is technically still Highland. I think there's one by REI, too. I don't know of any station west of Lower Highland, though.

[Okayyou]

There is a dearth of stations over by city park too. The two closest stations, St Joes and the Botanic Gardens. No Zoo, no Museum of Sci, no East High, no City Park. Seems like a big area that has no service at all.


Also the article concerning the old CU Hospital is now online, read it here.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We shouldn't dismiss the need for more hard infrastructure to support this massive bicycle expansion. We need more bike lanes (when combined with widened sidewalks, it's a win-win for everybody but drivers). Operating in mixed traffic annoys everybody - drivers, bicyclists, RTD, etc. We need more streetscape/bikescape projects, and those unfortunately are not as cheap.

DenverMoves

Existing/Planned Facilities Map

Ease of Use Map

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

DenverMoves

Existing/Planned Facilities Map

Ease of Use Map

Yup. Good stuff.

I guess what I was saying there... less directly (because I know I am in the extreme minority here and will get smashed, by people who I agree with 99% of the time )... is that I don't want b-cycle to get too far ahead of the hard infrastructure improvements. The system is grossly inadequate today, but I also don't want them expanding (or succeeding) too much (yet). Because I personally - as a pedestrian and a driver - often find bicycles in Denver to be a terrible nuisance. Either we're a city full of morons, or the infrastructure just isn't there yet. I'll go with the latter. Because too many folks on their bikes can't decide if they're peds or not, should act like a car or not, should follow traffic signals or not (and should follow the car signals, the ped signals, or no signals). And the big red bicycles seem to make it worse - riders for whom no rules apply. Sorry, just because you're doing a good deed for the earth does not mean you can ignore red lights! B-cycle membership does not come with a badge of entitlement.

Bike lanes/paths obviously reduce these conflicts...

If not that, I suppose some 'rules of the road' marketing would go a long way. I know I, for one, don't remember what the actual laws are from my traffic test when I was 16... I tend to be a sidewalk-rider, at least at intersections, unless I have to do the road thing (and I recognize that's probably the wrong answer - but I'm certainly not alone out there.)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I want the program to succeed, hence all my griping about the fare structure. But I want to be sure the improvements happen too. I disagree that it's a "never" thing... it's not like transit waiting until congestion is bad. And it's definitely not like the space program... those are classic policy/funding choices between competing programs, but it's not the same. Launching a space shuttle does not become a nuisance in the absence of the alternative. Doing a transit project instead of a highway project is maybe more similar... but congestion is not a nuisance per se, it's just a measurable inconvenience/inefficiency. Pump 5,000 bicycles (random number, not an Eeyore number) on to the streets of Denver at peak hours, without any bicycle lanes or other supporting infrastructure, and you've got a real pain in the rear and, I suppose, a safety hazard. Not to mention you probably contribute more to congestion than you take away (pure speculation - I'm sure somebody has actual data).

And it's not just a pain to cars. That's not really my concern (although it is a valid concern re: bikes... it's not like a bus that delays traffic, but does it for the benefit of 30+ people). Pedestrians are still the bottom of the food chain. And when a driver starts being a jackwagon because he's avoiding a bicycle rider who's being a moron... well, it's the poor hapless guy in the crosswalk who's hung out to dry.