Per capita transit ridership in Interior West cities

[bunt_q]

Now hang on, if cars do not run on gasoline and not require us to drive them, why are they still a problem we need to ween ourselves off of? Assuming you've eliminated the environmental argument and traffic (assuming the self driving will be vastly more efficient)... Why do we still want transit in that instance? At the densities we're willing to go to in Denver, we'd never *need* transit.

[TakeFive]

Cirrus... Thank you.

Weaning isn't something where everybody go to bed one night and wake up in the morning no longer attached to the auto's teat. But continuing to promote the sprawl model is neither smart nor cost efficient in the long run.

The current Federal Gas Tax no longer supports the expenditures. HELLO

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by brankrom

I wonder what is it about Utah, Idaho and Arizona that brings out the crazy?

The NRA and the Gadsden Flag come to mind.

Originally Posted by eastidaho

Off topic: The gentleman in the little hat and vest. He would call in and leave a 45-60 minute ramble on the mayor hotline in Boise 3 or 4 times a week back in 1999-2000. My wife working in the mayor's office while we attended Boise State, had the job of listening and then typing out each phone message left on the hotline. His rants were pretty funny the first ten or so times, but after a while I felt bad for her. The guy has been wack for decades. If you meet him he will show you his official letter from an African tribal leader that saw in vision his becoming POTUS. He will then most likely ask for a donation. Every city has them. Only the Idaho Republican Party puts them on public television for a live debate.

Give your wife my regards and seriously I wasn't rolling over laughing at her just with her.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Scottk

I would argue the cost is far too low. The higher the cost of gas, the better IMHO.

We as a country consume far too much oil and release ridiculous amounts of global warming causing greenhouse gasses.

Higher gas taxes would reduce the incentive to drive, increase public transit usage, and also increase the amount of funds available for infrastructure. Seems like a win win to me.

The sooner we can wean ourselves off oil the better

I wholeheartedly agree.

Not necessarily ground breaking but in case you (or others) hadn't seen THIS it's fun and on point.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Now hang on, if cars do not run on gasoline and not require us to drive them, why are they still a problem we need to ween ourselves off of? Assuming you've eliminated the environmental argument and traffic (assuming the self driving will be vastly more efficient)... Why do we still want transit in that instance? At the densities we're willing to go to in Denver, we'd never *need* transit.

Because this will still be true:

[bunt_q]

Not an issue at any density we're willing to build at.

[Cirrus]

Driverless cars will probably reduce some congestion, but not all of it. Where the line falls, whether it will be enough to solve all Denver's problems forever or not, is something nobody knows yet. Extreme euro-style urban density isn't what causes congestion on Denver's interstates today, why should it be the only cause in the future? Denver may not have tight little streets like in that picture, but we still have car storage problems, both on roads and for parking. Driverless cars will help some by moving more efficiently, eliminating rubbernecking, and valet-parking themselves, but the basic geometries that everyone's cars have to fit on limited road space won't change. The basic math that clustering more people into fewer vehicles is more space-efficient won't change -- although it may make it more important to give transit dedicated lanes (and thus a speed advantage) in order to be useful.

Even if we abandon individual car ownership and adopt much more widespread carsharing (which I think is a likely long-term outcome of driverless cars, at least in cities), thus dramatically reducing the number of cars on the road per capita, we'll still have the peak usage problem. Depending how things shake out, that could even increase transit usage. If we're all using shared vehicles anyway, it won't make sense to have twice as many as we otherwise need just for a rush hour where everyone is going to the same place anyway and could just as easily get on a bus. If the differences between riding transit and carpooling disappear, that will benefit higher-capacity vehicles.

Remember, driverless technology improves transit too. Without a (unionized, pensioned) driver to pay, we can run buses more frequently for less money. That'll mean we can justify really frequent headways without needing as much density as we need today. We can justify more bus lines where buses come so often that waiting for one takes less time than pulling a car out of a parking garage.

None of us really knows the answers to these questions. I'm 100% sure there are implications about driverless cars that nobody has thought of yet. I'm 100% sure they will revolutionize a lot about our cities. But I'm not willing to jump the gun and totally change everything about transportation planning based on a vague assumption. I'm not willing to repeat the 20th Century mistake of assuming cars make everything else obsolete unless we know vastly more about the implications.

Show me your math that says the efficiencies we gain from driverless cars will be enough to overwhelm the problems that cause congestion at peak hours, and convince me the math is valid and accounts for all variables, and prove to me these advantages will happen quickly enough for us to stop thinking about other priorities. Until then, I'm not abandoning proven strategies.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Now hang on, if cars do not run on gasoline and not require us to drive them, why are they still a problem we need to ween ourselves off of? Assuming you've eliminated the environmental argument and traffic (assuming the self driving will be vastly more efficient)... Why do we still want transit in that instance? At the densities we're willing to go to in Denver, we'd never *need* transit.

Proably becuase reducing the amount of materials and the energy used in manufacturing the thirty cars instead of one bus would probably be wiser for the environment. The resources to build a bus to serve forty people is not equivalent to the resources to build twenty cars. Not sure on the numbers, but Regina could have kick-ass transit with 300 buses running in the fleet at peak instead of the 180ish right now. 300 buses do not equate to 100,000 cars in terms of manufacturing footprint.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Perhaps I missed it (on this thread) but what specifically is being considered in raising the gas tax in Utah?

Yep, Federal taxes not increased sine 1993, not even to keep up with inflation.

It didn't matter so much in the last decade as billions upon billions in earmarks were given out like Halloween candy for road and bridge (or transit) projects. They just put it in with the rest of the General Fund deficit spending.

The momentum is headed in that direction. Right now several options are being considered. The most powerful part of Utah's Republican Party, The Chamber of Commerce, is very set on getting it raised. The other very powerful wing of Republicans, the real estate developers, want to move the burden to take care of these roads off of property taxes and back onto drivers.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...-bill.html.csp


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...allon.html.csp


http://utahpoliticalcapitol.com/2014...tax-increase/#

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I only know from doing some general background but I couldn't help but be impressed with what you all have accomplished.

Not to go all politics but it seems a case can be made, at least on the business side, that Utah/SLC is quite progressive. Texas to a degree as well.

Speaking of "per capita" can't SLC claim to be the most transit friendly city per capita?

The big HUGE advantage is the cost basis that you're able to execute at. I'm sure there are a number of reasons for this. Denver though , if compared to many other metro areas looks very reasonable in its own right. Seems like Miami has had some interesting experience with light rail?

We just get a lot of bang for our buck and shy away from over engineering commuter and light rail. I just got back from Seattle on a vacation and stayed near the airport and exclusively used their light rail line to get to and from the Seattle core. I knew the 16 mile line was a 2.4 billion dollar monstrosity but seeing it up close really still shocked me.



This Seattle metro area light rail stop isn't only grade separated, it's highly elevated to ease the decline of the grade. It also has two separate sets of up and down escalators so riders don't cross the non electrified light rail tracks. I was blown away.

[PLANSIT]

Credit to Seattle.

Obviously, topography has much to do with cost, but they are also building transit where it NEEDS to go, not necessary where it's EASIEST to go.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Credit to Seattle.

Obviously, topography has much to do with cost, but they are also building transit where it NEEDS to go, not necessary where it's EASIEST to go.

Agreed!

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Credit to Seattle.

Obviously, topography has much to do with cost, but they are also building transit where it NEEDS to go, not necessary where it's EASIEST to go.

I would love to hear a thought out argument from you explaining why building 3/4 of a heavy rail line with the lower speed and capacity of light rail is the best solution. Bonus points if you can be persuasive about the need for elevated platforms with a set of escalators on each side.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Agreed!

This was only slightly less informative than the post you quoted.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I would love to hear a thought out argument from you explaining why building 3/4 of a heavy rail line with the lower speed and capacity of light rail is the best solution. Bonus points if you can be persuasive about the need for elevated platforms with a set of escalators on each side.

Capacity is not an issue for most western cities, so that's irrelevant.

I can't speak to strange escalators. I find it unlikely they were built that way without a compelling reason, though. The airport station is the only one that comes to mind, and that was clearly built along ahillside, with the airport at the top. So elevated probably made sense.

The fundamental difference is, as PLANSIT said, that Seattle's light rail actually goes where people want to go. Which is why most of us, as tourists, have used it. (And not just to/from the airport.) I lay you odds, unless you're a transit nerd, you probably never set foot on our light rail when you visit Denver. Because we built is cheaply, we put it where right of way was convenient. It also happens to NOT be close to where the people are. Sure, it's fast and cheap - but I would argue that it defeats the purpose if you're building a system that can only be accessed by automobile. Which i what we've done. That is fundamentally why our system is a park-n-ride based commuter system, and probably always will be. Most stations are simply far from everything useful - along freight railroads, highways, etc. Transit - the type of transit that weasels its way into the everyday subconscious lives of regular people - is fundamentally pedestrian based. Seattle's system may be slower, but that's more than made up for by the fact that you can walk to it. That is not the case for our system. And let me tell you, I don't care that the train is going 45 instead of 35 after my 15-20 minute park-n-ride/wait for the train experience. Fast trains matter to one type of person - train nerds. The rest of us care about our overall trip being fast. Door to door, I bet Seattle still wins for most of its users.

[PLANSIT]

What Buntie said plus:

From a Denver perspective, we built our system mostly in freight ROWs that offered less barriers to implementation. Not having to go into neighborhoods kept costs down, but meant we were building stations in mostly industrial areas with a near-term park-n-ride strategy and a long-term TOD goal (very slow process when there are more desirable areas for developers). Politics played a huge part in this decision (RTD as a district is huge and therefore beholden to a massive geography of constituents). Point being, we had an opportunity to not only try and stimulate a PnR/TOD based suburb to center city system, but to actually serve our densest neighborhoods, communities, and employment centers (basically, already built TODs). Just look at the SE Line - it follows the busiest freeway corridor in the state, but only brushes the second largest employment center. There was an opportunity to punch the line into DTC, but we decided to stay on the western side of the freeway and have a bus circulator. Why? (rhetorical)

My over-simplified point earlier was that, in general, Seattle has decided to spend the extra money and build a system that serves its population in a more sustainable manner.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

What Buntie said plus:

From a Denver perspective, we built our system mostly in freight ROWs that offered less barriers to implementation. Not having to go into neighborhoods kept costs down, but meant we were building stations in mostly industrial areas with a near-term park-n-ride strategy and a long-term TOD goal (very slow process when there are more desirable areas for developers). Politics played a huge part in this decision (RTD as a district is huge and therefore beholden to a massive geography of constituents). Point being, we had an opportunity to not only try and stimulate a PnR/TOD based suburb to center city system, but to actually serve our densest neighborhoods, communities, and employment centers (basically, already built TODs). Just look at the SE Line - it follows the busiest freeway corridor in the state, but only brushes the second largest employment center. There was an opportunity to punch the line into DTC, but we decided to stay on the western side of the freeway and have a bus circulator. Why? (rhetorical)

My over-simplified point earlier was that, in general, Seattle has decided to spend the extra money and build a system that serves its population in a more sustainable manner.

If they actually had a bus circulator, that would be a good step in the right direction, but they don't even have that in the DTC. Have to walk/bike from the station to your destination which in most cases is easily a mile+ except for those buildings right around the stations.

The exact same debate is made for the Boulder rail line, except it hits even smaller population and employment areas and is even further from the city centers.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Capacity is not an issue for most western cities, so that's irrelevant.

I can't speak to strange escalators. I find it unlikely they were built that way without a compelling reason, though. The airport station is the only one that comes to mind, and that was clearly built along ahillside, with the airport at the top. So elevated probably made sense.

The airport station is elevated and the line stays elevated until it reaches the second station (which I showed with the picture) which is isolated and lost in a sea of parking. The line remains elevated the whole damn time from that station while it parallels the freeway! It is elevated as it enters Beacon Hill (with another elevated station and it stays elevated well after it leaves Beacon Hill with very flat and clear topography below for a long time until it ramps down fairly abruptly to the next ground level station.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The fundamental difference is, as PLANSIT said, that Seattle's light rail actually goes where people want to go. Which is why most of us, as tourists, have used it. (And not just to/from the airport.) I lay you odds, unless you're a transit nerd, you probably never set foot on our light rail when you visit Denver. Because we built is cheaply, we put it where right of way was convenient. It also happens to NOT be close to where the people are. Sure, it's fast and cheap - but I would argue that it defeats the purpose if you're building a system that can only be accessed by automobile. Which i what we've done. That is fundamentally why our system is a park-n-ride based commuter system, and probably always will be. Most stations are simply far from everything useful - along freight railroads, highways, etc.

I love the Seattle route so this is mute point. This isn't an issue about a route it's the means if execution. The route itself is hardly treacherous. I know it's flat in Denver, but light rail hauls balls up steep grades, even in snow. We have our Red Line that powers 45 mph up a decent sized hill to our University (certainly similar to the hills dealt with on the Seattle. Link LRT route). You don't need to elevate the shit out of your line or make the grade gradual with light rail, but you do have to with heavy rail. To keep my point simple they should have let their light rail be light rail and let it course up and down more on the gentle hills. Not making this a mostly heavy rail hybrid of light rail would have hardly added more time and discomfort and would have allowed for a greater distance.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Transit - the type of transit that weasels its way into the everyday subconscious lives of regular people - is fundamentally pedestrian based. Seattle's system may be slower, but that's more than made up for by the fact that you can walk to it. That is not the case for our system. And let me tell you, I don't care that the train is going 45 instead of 35 after my 15-20 minute park-n-ride/wait for the train experience. Fast trains matter to one type of person - train nerds. The rest of us care about our overall trip being fast. Door to door, I bet Seattle still wins for most of its users.

Again, I don't have an issue with light rail as a mode of transit and I think given the distance and density of the route it is ideal, I just don't agree with the over engineering. If you look at the least complex part of the line (ground level light rail interacting with intersections on roads) from the 3rd station down until you get elevated at the station before you tunnel into Beacon Hill, you'll see this amazing stretch of TOD residential housing that has sprung up in these rough areas and it looks beautiful. Like you can really tell it has changed this area in a dramatic way for the better. You don't actually feel that anywhere else on the line. Outside of that stretch and underground downtown, it's not a really walkable line. For 2.4 billion dollars.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

What Buntie said plus:

From a Denver perspective, we built our system mostly in freight ROWs that offered less barriers to implementation. Not having to go into neighborhoods kept costs down, but meant we were building stations in mostly industrial areas with a near-term park-n-ride strategy and a long-term TOD goal (very slow process when there are more desirable areas for developers). Politics played a huge part in this decision (RTD as a district is huge and therefore beholden to a massive geography of constituents). Point being, we had an opportunity to not only try and stimulate a PnR/TOD based suburb to center city system, but to actually serve our densest neighborhoods, communities, and employment centers (basically, already built TODs). Just look at the SE Line - it follows the busiest freeway corridor in the state, but only brushes the second largest employment center. There was an opportunity to punch the line into DTC, but we decided to stay on the western side of the freeway and have a bus circulator. Why? (rhetorical)

My over-simplified point earlier was that, in general, Seattle has decided to spend the extra money and build a system that serves its population in a more sustainable manner.

My argument is that where it overspent (a lot) in places where it actually avoided being part of the neighborhood. The line parallels the freeway for a large distance and is elevated the whole time. It avoids Beacon Hill neighborhood by blasting through it. The one big stretch where it was ground level it actually seemed to do the most for TODs and in generating ridership. The topography is hardly challenging.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

If it just means I will be paying even more at the pumps then no thank you. I don't care where the money is going. All I care about is how much I'm having to spend at the pumps. The cost is TOO HIGH how it is.

Well I personally am pissed off at how heavily subsidized suburbanization has been in this country.

Study the history. Modern America was created by fat-cat auto industry executives who made a living pushing pedestrians, bicyclists, and trolleys off of the roads. Then the government essentially subsidized suburban living after World War II, creating strict zoning laws that determine exactly what can be built and where, giving deals to developers and banks that fast-tracked huge suburban tract developments, and most of all received huge benefits from the auto industry to make roads as unsafe for pedestrians, and as easy and fun for their customers (which was basically everybody), as was humanly possible.

It's about time we started pushing back against that mentality, and against 80+ years of automobile industry lobbying that has been a huge cause of suburbanization and all of its horrible side effects. Why do you think that Americans are so fat and unhealthy compared to people in other first world countries?