HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7481  
Old Posted Today, 8:43 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
don't listen to 720
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 16,317
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7482  
Old Posted Today, 9:33 PM
bobg bobg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 315
2 hours for 37-40 miles sounds about right off-peak and from one periphery of the metro to the other.That's about what you would get from the N suburbs of Chicago to the south suburbs on Metra (IE Evanston Davis to Palos Heights) . That's also about what you would get going that distance from Long Island to Jersey (assuming you aren't able to use the amtrak to secaucus or newark penn). The frequencies on the LIRR/NJ Transit and Metra aren't that much better, and in some cases worse than RTD offpeak so the waiting would be about the same as for the BV.

On google it looks like the RTD scheduled travel time is from 1:29 when both the BX and the C are running to 1:55 when they are not. I am not sure that includes walking for the 2:04 or just RTD running behind schedule. But really it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me relative to other cities.

Transit is slow and infrequent (even in Japan and Europe) going those distances unless you are using inter-city motorcoaches or trains, but it's rare you can make those work.

Last edited by bobg; Today at 9:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7483  
Old Posted Today, 10:41 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobg View Post
2 hours for 37-40 miles sounds about right off-peak and from one periphery of the metro to the other.That's about what you would get from the N suburbs of Chicago to the south suburbs on Metra (IE Evanston Davis to Palos Heights) . That's also about what you would get going that distance from Long Island to Jersey (assuming you aren't able to use the amtrak to secaucus or newark penn). The frequencies on the LIRR/NJ Transit and Metra aren't that much better, and in some cases worse than RTD offpeak so the waiting would be about the same as for the BV.
Yeah, I was having the same thought while reading this exchange. I don't know that anybody, even the folks at RTD, would say that this is what the system is set up for. And as bobg points out, very few systems are... Palo Alto to Berkley via Caltrain with a transfer to BART in the center of SF would be another similar example. There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

But this in and of itself doesn't make the system a failure. America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow. I hope we're not under the illusion that transit should provide origin-to-destination service for every single-family resident in the metro area. Only the city center has the kind of density to consider that kind of a system (streetcar or subway), and even this is debatable since Denver isn't as dense as most cities that have a robust subway system.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation; there simply isn't the density in place to support an interconnected web of origins and destinations, and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it. I am one of the optimists that believes that in time density will, in fact, grow around commuter stations; and that transit may even eventually turn it into a viable option for a large portion of the population. But this doesn't mean that it will ever work for the majority of single-family homes in our region, nor that we should expect it to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7484  
Old Posted Today, 11:10 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 11,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it.
This is simply not true, though a common misconception. Land use is what we control through public policy. Transportation generally follows land use, not vice versa. I know there's a lot of planner-mantra out there that says "highways caused sprawl," but that's not true. Highways enabled zoning that cause sprawl. But it's perfectly possible to build a highway without sprawling - you just don't zone for the development. Boulder County has done it; the whole continent of Europe has done it. We're also managing to get quite dense in Denver with no transit to speak of - all you have to do is zone for it, and have the attraction. Density first, then transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow.
Then why build it at all? The vast majority of trips are those suburb-to-suburb ones. Is the whole point of transit really so we can reduce the number of parking garages downtown?

More to the point - if we don't want land use that support transit... and we don't, we don't zone for it, we don't like the density, and that's the aspect of growth that we have the most control over... if we won't do that, then why bother with transit? Personally, I think we are spending $7 billion because people think it'll help traffic (it won't), and as a subsidy for downtown. The latter is why I support it. But there is no good transportation-based argument for Fastracks, I don't think, not really.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7485  
Old Posted Today, 11:25 PM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is online now
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Regional buses skip some local stops in order to go faster. If a long distance bus made every local stop, your 2 hour trip would've taken even longer. That's the whole reason RTD skips some of the stops.

That said, 2 hours is ridiculous.
I understand that, but I was not taking the BX or BMX, I was on the BV. and as far as I can tell, the BV actually does stop at almost every local stop along broadway and table mesa. This is why I am confused that a few stops appear to have been left out of the route for no apparent reason. Broadway and Arapahoe isn't that small of an intersection, so it seems strange to me that the BV doesn't stop there but stops at almost every other stop along broadway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7486  
Old Posted Today, 11:27 PM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is online now
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
Yeah, I was having the same thought while reading this exchange. I don't know that anybody, even the folks at RTD, would say that this is what the system is set up for. And as bobg points out, very few systems are... Palo Alto to Berkley via Caltrain with a transfer to BART in the center of SF would be another similar example. There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

But this in and of itself doesn't make the system a failure. America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow. I hope we're not under the illusion that transit should provide origin-to-destination service for every single-family resident in the metro area. Only the city center has the kind of density to consider that kind of a system (streetcar or subway), and even this is debatable since Denver isn't as dense as most cities that have a robust subway system.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation; there simply isn't the density in place to support an interconnected web of origins and destinations, and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it. I am one of the optimists that believes that in time density will, in fact, grow around commuter stations; and that transit may even eventually turn it into a viable option for a large portion of the population. But this doesn't mean that it will ever work for the majority of single-family homes in our region, nor that we should expect it to.
My point is that it is ridiculous that I had to transfer twice to get to downtown littleton. Isn't Union Station supposed to be the center of RTDs entire transit system? If so, why doesn't the southwest line have a direct link into Union Station? If RTD thinks that serving california and welton is more important than Union Station, what even was the point of building Union Station? The grand centerpiece of RTDs transit system should be able to support a direct link to the southwest line, should it not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.