It's worth noting that we don't quite have the transit system that the original 2004 $4.7B FasTracks design envisioned for 2017. The schedule has considerably slipped, with some lines pushed out to the 2040's. The BRT to Boulder is probably an improvement over the former bus route, but isn't considered to be true BRT (except by RTD, the transit agency) due to sharing priority lanes with cars. The G line train has technically been finished for the past year, but crossing gate problems keep stalling its launch. (Either software problems, or intractable requirements from various parties, depending on who you ask.) I'm looking out my window right now at one of the many G-line crossings where the contractor staffs two people around the clock to make sure traffic stops. :/
I live in Longmont; one of the cities promised a light rail connection in 2004. So far RTD has collected more than $44 million in taxes and has pushed the completion date of our section of the rail to beyond 2040. This is why I am still driving my car. I don't care how the transit 'looks and feels' -- I just want it to exist.
Seattle's modest light rail system is going to end up costing $50 billion. Ultimately Americans are just really bad at infrastructure and if you're not willing to spend 10x what other developed countries are you're not getting it.
My understanding is that the original idea was to do a partnership / use BNSF rails (for some reasonably "small" fee [I think I heard $30-40 mil]) which were preexisting but then BNSF decided that the rail could only be used during certain time windows when it wouldn't effect their industrial traffic; OR RTD could pay something like $550 million. Not sure if the 23 years is to collect the tax for that cost or what.
You'd have to look up the last couple of years in the Daily Camera. Basically RTD invested in buses for Boulder along the rebuilt US 36 (not even attempting to build a rail line); they announced there would not be enough money to complete a rail line to Longmont until 2044, even if using a direct South-North rail line that already exists and doesn't go near Boulder; and finally they confirmed failure/refusal to negotiate and pay to keep their option to run on the BNSF line to Boulder (BNSF upped the price beyond RTD's reach since then) -- so it is not happening for at least another 30-40 years I would guess. When we moved to Boulder in early 2009 we were told the line was in progress and would be done by now...
Yep - this is waaaay overdue. If Denver metro is serious this project should be completed in the next 5 years or less (hwy 36 Boulder to Westminster station then Union Station Denver; Boulder to Longmont on 119). Then get on building that train from Denver to Summit County and a Caltrain type setup from Fort Collins to at least CO Springs...maybe Pueblo. Except this time its ground up, so how about higher speeds...its not like we live in 2017 or something.
I'm also going to say that for the most part we want mass transit but in America we build incomplete mass transit and then complain that it sucks. it also doesn't help that (with enough frequency) it is not on time, slower than driving, not maintained well, and dirty. Its for the poor people who can't afford a car! But again this is due to the fact that we treat it as a second class transportation option.
We would need to commit to something like the "Interstate Highway System" if this sort of thing is going to work. That project is proof that it can happen and for the most part many people are glad it exists today. If we can build a national interstate system in 35 years we can certainly build a real mass transportation infrastructure.
In other words it should not take 40 years to build a light rail from Boulder to Denver lol
So much rationalization and excuse making. Surprise, people don't like being forced on some institution's schedule, forced to ride with strangers without any kind of standards or code of conduct or even just personal safety measures, and they don't like paying essentially just as much as driving a car and they don't like it taking twice as long to get from point A to point B by going through points D, E, and T.
It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information.
Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect).
Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
Your statement is completely false in a dense urban area with lots of traffic and a well designed transit system (look at London, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, etc.).
Even in a not so dense urban area - transit could potentially be better - but it has to be faster, easy to get to and frequent - competing with other modes of transport. But in this use case it can get expensive and potentially be unsustainable.
> Within the city of Denver, only about 34 percent of people live within walking distance from stops where a bus arrives every 15 minutes or less, far behind cities like Seattle or San Francisco.
That seems critical, especially in a city that gets cold during the winter. Nobody wants to wait half an hour for the bus, when it's cold and dark out and you have things to do.
Can confirm that this is a problem. I live in cap hill, which is about two miles from work. If I miss the bus, I might as well walk. In practice I just call a lyft, you know, contributing to the problem.
No offense, but have you considered a bicycle? Two miles wouldn't get you sweaty and temperatures are generally mild throughout the winter and summer. Obviously July/August aren't good times to ride in the afternoons. You can buy a lot of bicycle for the cost of a year of daily Lyft rides.
I agree. There are so many people here promoting autodrive cars as a safer alternative to the dangers of driving. But riding a bike to work every day looks more dangerous than skydiving. I haven't met any cyclist who, after a few years commuting to work, hasn't had some sort of serious accident or injury. And not just with cars. A good friend of mine needed stitches after hitting a pedestrian.
You seem to think Denver is Tokyo where the actual people driving the buses and trains have pride in their work. That's not the case in Denver; when I came back from Tokyo in 2002 I was disgusted watching two or three buses nearly bumper to bumper pull up to my stop. If they had pride in their work this wouldn't happen; instead people just run their routes because it's there job, they don't care at all. Not sure why this is, maybe just a US thing? I hate to say it's a blood type thing by my ex-wife swore it was because Japan is largely A-positive blood type.
Yeah it was surprising how often it came up. We'd just gotten married and every single relative I met asked my blood type within the first minute. And everyone was shocked that I had no idea what mine was, or that my my ex married me without knowing it. I just chalked it up to a sort of horoscope for Japan, or fan will kill you if left on while sleeping Korean myth type of thing.
That is simply the state of public transportation in the US. I don't use buses very frequently, but the times I had to, my success rate with getting on a bus at the time it was scheduled is somewhere around 40%.
Sometimes it comes 15 minutes late, sometimes it doesn't come entirely and then it's a 30 minute wait (or longer) until the next one. One time it actually came early AND left early. I have no idea what the people who expected it 10 minutes later did. I guess they had to wait 40 minutes.
And it's not a walkable distance either (5-6 miles), so I still have to wait.
I took the bus in Pittsburgh PA for many years. I'd often show up 10 minutes before the scheduled arrival time and quite commonly the busses were 20-30 minutes late... or didn't come. Or came by, but didn't stop.
It's simple. Cars are better than mass transit. A car is a personal on-demand door-to-door transportation system. Mass transit is a shared, fixed schedule, partial mode transportation. It's ironic that their answer to the failed mass transit system is more mass transit.
I see the future of transportation in autonomous electric or fuel cell automobiles, either publicly owned, privately owned, or corporate owned (ie Uber), probably of mix of all three.
Cars are better than mass transit in a low population density place. In a high population density place like Manhattan you wouldn't be able to get enough cars to fit on the streets if everyone was in a car. If you used buses you might make it work but not cars.
So you're right about Denver but you made too much of a blanket statement.
Agreed, but Denver is not as dense as Manhattan. You also have to take into account that autonomous electric cars will be much smaller than regular cars (see the Google Gumdrop autonomous car), and traffic can flow at a much higher rate, since they don't need a following distance for human reaction times.
that's not necessarily true, people will still like their large cars. Gas cars aren't big because they run on gas, because motorcycles run on gas and are very small. Also the cars would have to be smaller than motorcycles for them to reach the density of a bus at which point they will cease to be comfortable.
People get large cars so they can drive around in large cars and use 1/5th the available space every other month. I don't think it's related to technology at all.
OP means "better" in the subjective sense. They're more comfortable, more convenient and faster. It takes a very large degree of external difficulty (traffic, parking) to tip the scales enough in favor of mass transit to make the latter desirable for most people who can afford a private vehicle.
The reason the majority of people in cities favor investing in mass transit is in the hope that other people use it so they can continue to drive and enjoy less traffic and more parking.
When I'm in Berlin or London, I much prefer the mass transit to dealing with a car. It's faster, more convenient, and I don't have to deal with parking or the stress of traffic.
I used to live in NYC, and I miss enormously (among other things) the connivence of the NYC subway. I've taken many times more Lyfts in the past few months than I did in years in NYC (including taxis).
> The reason the majority of people in cities favor investing in mass transit is in the hope that other people use it so they can continue to drive and enjoy less traffic and more parking.
This might describe you, but I would be extremely surprised if it actually described a majority of people... Especially in cities with high ridership (NYC, for example)...
In NYC (Manhattan, specifically), the external costs associated with driving (bridge/tunnel fees, parking) are so expensive that it prices out a large fraction of the population. That doesn't mean that driving a car wouldn't be subjectively more pleasant for them than the subway.
I only said that you were wrong in your assumption about people's motivations in supporting mass transit. If you're in a city (especially in one with high ridership, like I said) mass transit expansion can be hugely impactful and not because you'll ever be able to drive a car...
Obviously there are many additional costs associated with driving in NYC...
Denver driver/transit-er here. Cars aren’t automatically better than transit in many cases.
The rail is nearly as fast and much less hassle along the I-25 corridor, which is why I take it. My route is probably the most optimal of course as I both live and work near a light rail station.
I’ve commuted from south Denver to Boulder and that is about 30 minutes longer using Public Transit, but that’s largely due to transfer waits.
Transit systems absolutely need to compete against auto transport options.
But transit systems can potentially blow away ride sharing or autonomous autos if they are truly fast and convenient. If you build express tracks so that transit trains do not need to stop at every station and use truly fast train technology (+100mph) - there is no way autonomous autos could compete on long enough trips.
Of course this costs money - so build it where the density supports it. Plan your cities so that you build sufficient density.
Just to explore this further, the distance from 1 Market, San Francisco to Apple Campus, Cupertino - is about 44 miles.
Using a car, the commute time via Highway 101 leaving SF at 8AM is about 1 to 2 hours.
Using a train going 60mph should get you there in 44 minutes. During rush hours this beats driving and is about the same or slower than a car traveling at or above the speed limit (65mph).
With a train going 100mph that travel time goes down to 26 minutes
150mph (capable by Amtrak Acela in US) travel time: 17 minutes
200mph (capable by ICE in Germany, Shinkansen aka bullet train in Japan, TGV France, etc.) travel time: 13 minutes!
And there are faster travel times out there. What about hyperloop?
With a fast well designed transit system, autonomous autos and ride sharing can not compete on the full trip in terms of time. However ride sharing would be great getting people to/from stations.
Cars are only better in cities designed and planned with them in mind, but now Denver and many other growing cities are feeling the pain that cars and roads simply do not scale. Retrofitting transit is much more expensive with the existing infrastructure and massive sprawl that would not have existed in the first place.
And it's hard to argue that cities should be designed for cars - longer commutes, more accidents, more pollution, worse pedestrian experience...
This weekend, I was with three friends at Union Station, waiting for a bus back to boulder. While waiting, we noticed than an Uber was only $30 ($10/person) and the line for the bus was getting crowded. While $10 from Denver to Boulder is just over 2x a bus ride ($4.50 one way), the Uber dropped us off at our front door and didn't stop at 10+ bus stops along the way. The new RTD plan for Colorado was drafted before ride sharing apps became popular. - Dosen't explain the increase in cars, but does add to why people aren't flocking to public transit.
So much rationalization and excuse making. Surprise, people don't like being forced on some institution's schedule, forced to ride with strangers without any kind of standards or code of conduct or even just personal safety measures, and they don't like paying essentially just as much as driving a car and they don't like it taking twice as long to get from point A to point B by going through points D, E, and T.
It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information.
Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect).
Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
> the system’s per capita boardings were down 4 percent, while vehicle miles traveled went up a whopping 12 percent.
One way to solve this problem is to add significant tolls along major congested routes that drivers of vehicles have to pay. Naturally this would incentivize people to take the public transit to avoid the added toll tax, and cause traffic to decrease.
EDIT: I see people are downvoting my suggestion. As usual everyone is for more taxes until it affects them personally of course.
The company I work for is building a large new parking structure in my office because people have complained about parking for so long. Do they offer transit options? No. It seems shortsighted.
EDIT: I see you are being downvoted. I assume that's because of your "charge tolls" recommendation. Most folks I talk to think they "pay their fare share" with taxes and roads. They are surprised that road and gas taxes only pay for about half: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
The problem is that Denver has too low a population density combined with the fact that owning and operating a car is too cheap, easy and flexible.
Cars are too cheap because we subsidize them too much, in terms of roads, parking lots and so on. It still strikes me as crazy that >$1B in land value (back of the envelope calculation) of Manhattan is dedicated to FREE street parking.
Likewise in most places population density is too low as a consequence of just how much land there is and as a matter of policy. It's crazy to me that in a city like Atlanta (for example) you can get 1-2 acre lots.
Yeah, I thought the cost of car ownership was under-explored in this article. If increasing public ridership is a goal then it might help to use sticks and not just carrots.
> Cars are too cheap because we subsidize them too much, in terms of roads, parking lots and so on.
I find this argument increasingly tired. Car sales themselves are not directly subsidized. Yeah taxes build roads, but that's largely covered by fuel taxes. And roads are used by trucks and buses too. We could tax parking more than we do, but just because we could tax something and aren't doesn't mean that we're subsidizing it. I appreciate there are some exceptions where cash-strapped cities are leaving money on the table, but that's rare.
Better mass transit is certainly a good idea, but the excuse every time it doesn't work out is "cars are cheating." It looks more like a lot of transit systems are being designed, built and operated incompetently.
I grew up in Boston and I spent tons of time riding the T. Driving in the city and especially parking was a nightmare and the T almost always got me where I wanted to go.
I lived on the front range for 4 years about 10 years ago. I only took the train in Denver a handful of times because driving in the city and especially parking was very easy and convenient.
I'm guessing over time Denver will become a less pleasant place to drive, but it's still decades behind many cities with solid public transportation.
What's the typical distance a passenger on Denver's transit system will take?
At 34, I've just bought my first car. I live in a scandinavian country. Up to last year, my daily transit distance never exceeded about 6 km one way. IOW, I've lived all my life in a fairly compact urban environment, and public transport has been both more convenient and cheaper for my needs. The same has been true for the vast majority of my peers - most people I know do not own a car.
Now, I live about 12 km away from my office. There's a direct bus line, which is about as fast as a private car, so I've stuck to public transport. It's become a bit of a hassle though, what with having a kid, and some trips taking an hour due to having to change buses etc, but doable. Just don't go to certain places, it takes too long and the kid will remind you just how long it's taking all the way there.
And finallly, just now, I'm moving out of the city, and have concluded it's time yo cave in and buy a car. Wow. So much easier. Most people who live where I still do now, within very reasonable public transport distance of the city center, seem to have cars. I see why, now. But I managed to live over 30 years in areas where public transpory was, hands down, the best option, and I think it simply comes down to how far I needed to go each day. Over 6 km, it becomes a bit of a hassle. Over 12, at least one car in the family is probably in order. And once you have the car, you're more likely to use it.
I'm guessing a lot of people in Denver have cars and need to travel at least 6 km one way on a regular basis.
I'm 15 miles (24 Km) home to work. I would guess that's a little further than average, but probably not much. That's farther than I would care to ride my bicycle, but the train makes it a quick commute.
Boulder voters have strongly supported public transit at the voting booth, but unfortunately, the love has not been reciprocated. The promised rail line will not happen for decades or ever. And the Denver/Boulder bus line is not a BRT by any definition of the term. Most infuriating is the lack of off-board fare collection. The improvements along the US 36 corridor have come from CDOT with the HOV lanes. The bus trip from Boulder to Denver is pretty much the same it has always been with the important exception of the horrible Broomfield Park-n-Ride which was a detour of 12 minutes (I timed it once).
64 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadWhoa, what's their explanation for it to take 23+ more years? That seems unreasonable.
I'm also going to say that for the most part we want mass transit but in America we build incomplete mass transit and then complain that it sucks. it also doesn't help that (with enough frequency) it is not on time, slower than driving, not maintained well, and dirty. Its for the poor people who can't afford a car! But again this is due to the fact that we treat it as a second class transportation option.
We would need to commit to something like the "Interstate Highway System" if this sort of thing is going to work. That project is proof that it can happen and for the most part many people are glad it exists today. If we can build a national interstate system in 35 years we can certainly build a real mass transportation infrastructure.
In other words it should not take 40 years to build a light rail from Boulder to Denver lol
It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information.
Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect).
Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
Your statement is completely false in a dense urban area with lots of traffic and a well designed transit system (look at London, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, etc.).
Even in a not so dense urban area - transit could potentially be better - but it has to be faster, easy to get to and frequent - competing with other modes of transport. But in this use case it can get expensive and potentially be unsustainable.
That seems critical, especially in a city that gets cold during the winter. Nobody wants to wait half an hour for the bus, when it's cold and dark out and you have things to do.
If you're waiting 30 minutes for an uninterrupted service you're doing it wrong....
Sometimes it comes 15 minutes late, sometimes it doesn't come entirely and then it's a 30 minute wait (or longer) until the next one. One time it actually came early AND left early. I have no idea what the people who expected it 10 minutes later did. I guess they had to wait 40 minutes.
And it's not a walkable distance either (5-6 miles), so I still have to wait.
Waiting for 30 minutes seemed about the average.
I see the future of transportation in autonomous electric or fuel cell automobiles, either publicly owned, privately owned, or corporate owned (ie Uber), probably of mix of all three.
Cars are better than mass transit in a low population density place. In a high population density place like Manhattan you wouldn't be able to get enough cars to fit on the streets if everyone was in a car. If you used buses you might make it work but not cars.
So you're right about Denver but you made too much of a blanket statement.
The reason the majority of people in cities favor investing in mass transit is in the hope that other people use it so they can continue to drive and enjoy less traffic and more parking.
In ten years I don't expect there to be many place I'm going to bother taking a train in. Tokyo's are good enough, but that's a high bar.
Uber already spoils me too much to want to take the subway on Manhattan (crossing the river is a different story).
A data point countering your assumptions - I sold my car because I don’t like driving. I want transit to be good so I can use it.
This might describe you, but I would be extremely surprised if it actually described a majority of people... Especially in cities with high ridership (NYC, for example)...
I only said that you were wrong in your assumption about people's motivations in supporting mass transit. If you're in a city (especially in one with high ridership, like I said) mass transit expansion can be hugely impactful and not because you'll ever be able to drive a car...
Obviously there are many additional costs associated with driving in NYC...
The rail is nearly as fast and much less hassle along the I-25 corridor, which is why I take it. My route is probably the most optimal of course as I both live and work near a light rail station.
I’ve commuted from south Denver to Boulder and that is about 30 minutes longer using Public Transit, but that’s largely due to transfer waits.
But transit systems can potentially blow away ride sharing or autonomous autos if they are truly fast and convenient. If you build express tracks so that transit trains do not need to stop at every station and use truly fast train technology (+100mph) - there is no way autonomous autos could compete on long enough trips.
Of course this costs money - so build it where the density supports it. Plan your cities so that you build sufficient density.
Just to explore this further, the distance from 1 Market, San Francisco to Apple Campus, Cupertino - is about 44 miles.
Using a car, the commute time via Highway 101 leaving SF at 8AM is about 1 to 2 hours.
Using a train going 60mph should get you there in 44 minutes. During rush hours this beats driving and is about the same or slower than a car traveling at or above the speed limit (65mph).
With a train going 100mph that travel time goes down to 26 minutes
150mph (capable by Amtrak Acela in US) travel time: 17 minutes
200mph (capable by ICE in Germany, Shinkansen aka bullet train in Japan, TGV France, etc.) travel time: 13 minutes!
And there are faster travel times out there. What about hyperloop?
With a fast well designed transit system, autonomous autos and ride sharing can not compete on the full trip in terms of time. However ride sharing would be great getting people to/from stations.
And it's hard to argue that cities should be designed for cars - longer commutes, more accidents, more pollution, worse pedestrian experience...
It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information.
Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect).
Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
One way to solve this problem is to add significant tolls along major congested routes that drivers of vehicles have to pay. Naturally this would incentivize people to take the public transit to avoid the added toll tax, and cause traffic to decrease.
EDIT: I see people are downvoting my suggestion. As usual everyone is for more taxes until it affects them personally of course.
The company I work for is building a large new parking structure in my office because people have complained about parking for so long. Do they offer transit options? No. It seems shortsighted.
EDIT: I see you are being downvoted. I assume that's because of your "charge tolls" recommendation. Most folks I talk to think they "pay their fare share" with taxes and roads. They are surprised that road and gas taxes only pay for about half: https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads
Cars are too cheap because we subsidize them too much, in terms of roads, parking lots and so on. It still strikes me as crazy that >$1B in land value (back of the envelope calculation) of Manhattan is dedicated to FREE street parking.
Likewise in most places population density is too low as a consequence of just how much land there is and as a matter of policy. It's crazy to me that in a city like Atlanta (for example) you can get 1-2 acre lots.
I find this argument increasingly tired. Car sales themselves are not directly subsidized. Yeah taxes build roads, but that's largely covered by fuel taxes. And roads are used by trucks and buses too. We could tax parking more than we do, but just because we could tax something and aren't doesn't mean that we're subsidizing it. I appreciate there are some exceptions where cash-strapped cities are leaving money on the table, but that's rare.
Better mass transit is certainly a good idea, but the excuse every time it doesn't work out is "cars are cheating." It looks more like a lot of transit systems are being designed, built and operated incompetently.
I lived on the front range for 4 years about 10 years ago. I only took the train in Denver a handful of times because driving in the city and especially parking was very easy and convenient.
I'm guessing over time Denver will become a less pleasant place to drive, but it's still decades behind many cities with solid public transportation.
At 34, I've just bought my first car. I live in a scandinavian country. Up to last year, my daily transit distance never exceeded about 6 km one way. IOW, I've lived all my life in a fairly compact urban environment, and public transport has been both more convenient and cheaper for my needs. The same has been true for the vast majority of my peers - most people I know do not own a car.
Now, I live about 12 km away from my office. There's a direct bus line, which is about as fast as a private car, so I've stuck to public transport. It's become a bit of a hassle though, what with having a kid, and some trips taking an hour due to having to change buses etc, but doable. Just don't go to certain places, it takes too long and the kid will remind you just how long it's taking all the way there.
And finallly, just now, I'm moving out of the city, and have concluded it's time yo cave in and buy a car. Wow. So much easier. Most people who live where I still do now, within very reasonable public transport distance of the city center, seem to have cars. I see why, now. But I managed to live over 30 years in areas where public transpory was, hands down, the best option, and I think it simply comes down to how far I needed to go each day. Over 6 km, it becomes a bit of a hassle. Over 12, at least one car in the family is probably in order. And once you have the car, you're more likely to use it.
I'm guessing a lot of people in Denver have cars and need to travel at least 6 km one way on a regular basis.