[miketoronto]

Here is an article from The Rockey Mountain News. I think this article shows the big problem public transit systems have still not been able to fix. And that is the fact that public transit even in rapid transit corridors is still not competing with the car well in terms of travel time.
---

Car commute is faster; light-rail trip smoother

By Rocky Mountain News
November 21, 2006
Here's a tale of two commutes.
On Monday, the first big test of the new Southeast light rail, reporters Charley Able (car) and Fernando Quintero (train) started a morning rush hour trip from a neighborhood in Highlands Ranch to the World Trade Center at 1625 Broadway.

The result: Light rail took longer, but it was easier on the pocketbook and nerves.

Fernando's train trip

7:03 a.m.: Leave 6400 block of East Ashburn Lane.

7:07 a.m.: Arrive at the 388-space park-n-Ride at the County Line station. I park right in front of the station entrance.

7:10 a.m.: This is a four-zone trip. The electronic ticket machine easily accepts well-worn dollar bills.

7:12 a.m.: F Train for downtown Denver arrives. A handful of passengers are on board. Most are either reading the newspaper or listening to music through headphones. Few look at the mountains.

7:26 a.m.: At the Southmoor stop, the view changes to concrete sound barriers.

7:29 a.m.: The train reaches the Yale Avenue station. Most seats are filled and a few boarding passengers are forced to stand.

7:35 a.m.: At Broadway, the train slows to negotiate a sharp S turn. The downtown skyline comes into view.

7:53 a.m.: I get off at 16th and California streets and walk across the street to catch a mall shuttle.

8:03 a.m.: Arrive at World Trade Center.

Charley's car trip

7:03 a.m.: Leave 6400 block of East Ashburn Lane.

7:06 a.m.: On Quebec Street, an SUV driver cuts across my path in right-turn lane onto C-470. I hit the brakes.

7:07 a.m.: Turn onto C-470 and into the harsh glare of the rising sun.

7:10 a.m.: Merge onto I-25 at 50 mph; traffic on the interstate is flowing well at 65-plus mph (mostly plus).

7:14 a.m.: Traffic still running smoothly at the Belleview exit. A small, white sedan has been patiently trailing me since entering I-25.

7:18 a.m.: Still cruising at 55 mph at Hampden Avenue, still being passed on both sides.

7:19 a.m.: Approaching Colorado Boulevard exit, the no-longer-patient driver of the small, white sedan finally passes, honks as she pulls beside me, then scowls.

7:26 a.m.: Exit onto Sixth Avenue eastbound. Driver next to me speeds up, slows down, speeds up as I try to maneuver onto through lane.

7:27 a.m.: Turn left onto Santa Fe Drive; traffic is moderate and moving at 25 mph.

7:31 a.m.: Turn right onto Colfax Avenue; traffic is light and flowing smoothly.

7:34 a.m.: Turn left from Colfax to Cleveland Place, find parking lot one-half block north of Colfax.

7:36 a.m.: Pay and park, walk half a block to World Trade Center.

7:39 a.m.: Arrive at WTC.

Trip by car

• Elapsed time: 36 minutes

• Cost: $14.05

All-day parking, $12; fuel, approximately $2.05

Trip by train

• Elapsed time: 1 hour

• Cost: $3.75 for light-rail ticket

[CONative]

You have to consider that the highway lanes were also expanded through this same corridor as the light rail -- it's all a part of the same transportation project. So, for now....of course it will be faster to drive. It's only a matter of time before traffic will be hell on this stretch of highway and the commute will be longer if you drive.

[miketoronto]

You have to consider that the highway lanes were also expanded through this same corridor as the light rail -- it's all a part of the same transportation project. So, for now....of course it will be faster to drive. It's only a matter of time before traffic will be hell on this stretch of highway and the commute will be longer if you drive.

But we should not be counting on traffic to cause LRT to be faster. LRT, subways, etc should be able to compete even without traffic.

[glowrock]

Actually Mike, you're behaving like an ass with regards to this... First of all, this whole little scheme is taking place on a HOLIDAY WEEK, when traffic is VERY light around Denver (and every other big city), because so many people are already on vacation.

Secondly, the time it takes to go from I-25/Lincoln to downtown on the 16th St. Mall ends up being only 43 minutes via LRT. Remember, we're talking about a total mileage of roughly 20 miles here, if not a touch more. And this includes the section where the LRT runs without grade-separated ROW in the downtown area. If you're driving during morning rush hour, there's no freaking way in HELL that it would take any less than that, at least not during a NON-HOLIDAY PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting VERY tired of your rants and raves about transit already, Mike. Hell, yesterday and today I took transit from my apartment in Lakewood (west side of Denver), a 20 mile commute to my office in the Denver Tech Center each way, and it took me a grand total of 45 minutes. In the morning by car I can normally make it in about half an hour (I leave VERY early, as I get to work by 6:30am most mornings), but in the afternoon it can easily take me more than an hour to get home.

Also, remember one other thing here. The Rocky Mountain News (aka the Snooze) has been anti-transit from day one, and is certainly known to put a little biased bullshit reporting in their paper when it comes to transit issues. Take anything they say with a grain of salt (or a pound of salt, even!) when it comes to transit.

Next week will be the REAL first test of the rail system in terms of commute savings or lack thereof. Highway traffic is bound to be MUCH worse next week than this week, and the time differences will be far more accurate.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

But we should not be counting on traffic to cause LRT to be faster. LRT, subways, etc should be able to compete even without traffic.

How do you propose doing that? Eliminating all stops/stations??? :rolleyes:

Aaron (Glowrock)

Edit: Here's the Letter to the Editor I just sent off to the Rocky Mountain News, explaining the situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,


I read with some dismay your article describing the commutes via LRT and via personal car in the Tuesday edition of the Rocky "Car commute is faster; light-rail trip smoother". In the article, the personal car commute is shown as being only 36 minutes long, while the transit commute is 1 hour. What was never mentioned, however, is that this is on a holiday week, when freeway traffic is flowing considerably smoother than normal, because so many workers are on vacation. I suggest making the same comparison some time next week, when traffic levels are more typical, and then seeing what the time differences really are.

I feel that your choice of using the first Monday of the system's opening to make this comparison was simply unfair, because of the holiday period we're currenty in. Making such comparisons during a holiday week introduces entirely too much bias into the equation.

Aaron Rever
Lakewood

--------------------------------------------------------------

[LordMandeep]

Mike Going from Kipling to Young and Dundas may take 35 Min but its an easy cheap ride.

[J Church]

Trip by car

• Cost: $14.05

All-day parking, $12; fuel, approximately $2.05

Trip by train

• Cost: $3.75 for light-rail ticket

This isn't for Michael's benefit; he'll never learn. But it bears pointing out for others.

[soonermeteor]

I don't know why this post makes me so angry... maybe it's because on an urban website someone found a way to semi trash Denver's new rail line. We've waited five years for this thing to become a reality, and I don't want to have to read this crap. Glow already summed it up perfectly. It's a holiday week, I don't know but I'm guessing there were no major accidents, and that isn't even considering the positives of riding rail even if its a few minutes longer than the average drive......................

GAAAAH! :hell:

[glowrock]

Trip by car

• Cost: $14.05

All-day parking, $12; fuel, approximately $2.05

Trip by train

• Cost: $3.75 for light-rail ticket

This isn't for Michael's benefit; he'll never learn. But it bears pointing out for others.

Let's be fair here as well. Say $12 for all-day parking (more likely $6-8, but who's counting? :D), $4.10 for fuel (round trip), total of $16.10... For the LRT, $3.75 each way, total of $7.50. Still less than half the total of driving, but more realistic...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[1Post2]

^ most regular RTD riders buy ticketbooks or monthly passes as well, which would drop the ticket price. Do the lots downtown have a "frequent parker" program? What about car related costs other than gas? At least a hundred a month in the very cheapest of circumstances, realistically averaging about $300. (Although, to be fair, nobody in Highlands Ranch is ever gonna be carless.)

Anyway, it's too bad the article wasn't printed on a day there was a traffic accident and people were rubbernecking all over the place.

[bcp]

who cares what mike says....RMN should be the one who's lambasted here...

[glowrock]

I wonder if the RMN will print my letter to the editor??? :D

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Cirrus]

Has RTD ever considered running express trains?

[joeindt]

Most people working downtown on a regular basis won't pay $12/day. Alot of people would walk to the empty parking lots about 4-6 blocks away to pay $5/day. So if you add the time of paying a lot attendent, and walking from that distance you are realistically looking at 45 min commute by car. 36 min might be nice, but it comes at a premium. If price is no object, then do the comparison of someone taking a taxi to point a to point b, gee, its going to be even faster.

[glowrock]

Exactly, Joe... I'm pretty miffed at the RMN using a holiday week to compare commute times (they knew damn well that the freeways were going to be less busy this week than, for instance, any other damn week outside of Christmas week!), and they of course used a parking garage adjacent to the final destination building. This entire comparison was a freaking joke, which is exactly why I'm hoping they have the balls to print my letter to the editor calling them out on that fact.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[miketoronto]

I don't know why this post makes me so angry... maybe it's because on an urban website someone found a way to semi trash Denver's new rail line.
GAAAAH! :hell:


I am not trashing Denver's LRT. Infact I am glad it has opened and think it looks great. I work for a public transit system, and I was telling everyone in the office about the great LRT Denver just opened and how we are so far behind here in Toronto in building systems like Denver.

I am not bashing it. But I am also talking about an issue that not only effects Denver, but all cities.
And that is if we are building rapid transit, then we have got to make it more rapid, to fully get people out of cars.

If it takes a couple min longer yeah thats fine. But we don't want it taking 20,30,40min longer.

So I did not mean for it to sound like a bash thread. It is just an issue I think needs to be addressed more.
For example I just used the subway from downtown to Don Mills here in here in Toronto. If I where to drive, it would have taken me 15min to get to Don Mills from downtown. By subway it took me 35min.
That is not acceptable, and is not very rapid. I can see why people I know in that area are still driving downtown.

We have got to work better at making transit rapid. That was all I wanted to point out.
All our cities need to rise to that challenge.
I deal with transit riders everyday at work, and one of the main reasons they will stop using transit and start using the car, is travel time. The min they hear transit can't get them to work or school, or where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time, they hop in the car without thinking twice.

But don't think that I think Denver should not have built LRT or that is it not good. Denver I think is doing a good job, and from what I hear the South West LRT line is very competative with the car and attracts a huge number of people.

[pablosan]

The real issue here is that of the "car culture". Many American cities are built around the automobile. Rapid transit can only be "perceived" as effective if the culture of cars is changed. I have faith that once FastTraks is complete, perceptions here in Denver will drastically change. Once TODs become more mature and more efficient, LRT will only become more important. The true benefits of TODs and rapid transit won't be realized for several decades, here in Denver, and many other cities.

[Jared]

I am not trashing Denver's LRT. Infact I am glad it has opened and think it looks great. I work for a public transit system, and I was telling everyone in the office about the great LRT Denver just opened and how we are so far behind here in Toronto in building systems like Denver.

I am not bashing it. But I am also talking about an issue that not only effects Denver, but all cities.
And that is if we are building rapid transit, then we have got to make it more rapid, to fully get people out of cars.

If it takes a couple min longer yeah thats fine. But we don't want it taking 20,30,40min longer.

So I did not mean for it to sound like a bash thread. It is just an issue I think needs to be addressed more.
For example I just used the subway from downtown to Don Mills here in here in Toronto. If I where to drive, it would have taken me 15min to get to Don Mills from downtown. By subway it took me 35min.
That is not acceptable, and is not very rapid. I can see why people I know in that area are still driving downtown.

We have got to work better at making transit rapid. That was all I wanted to point out.
All our cities need to rise to that challenge.
I deal with transit riders everyday at work, and one of the main reasons they will stop using transit and start using the car, is travel time. The min they hear transit can't get them to work or school, or where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time, they hop in the car without thinking twice.

But don't think that I think Denver should not have built LRT or that is it not good. Denver I think is doing a good job, and from what I hear the South West LRT line is very competative with the car and attracts a huge number of people.

Well, what do you propose actually doing about it then, mike?

Face it, you're never going to get a subway that transports people 150km in an hour. You need stations every 1-2 km (hopefully closer to 2). There is a maximum g-force that people can handle (I doubt any system would have more than 3Gs), so there are limits to how fast you can accelerate and deccelerate. What exactly is your plan to get around this?


Rapid Transit cannot compete very effectively in a sprawled out autocentric wasteland. As long as the freeways are relatively unclogged, the car will be faster. However, RT is the faster method of getting around when it comes to a much more compact city, since the distance you have to travel is smaller.

[PDXPaul]

The worst section of the light rail in Portland is where they chose to save money and put it at grade in Lloyd center and downtown when it slows to a crawl. There's something rather glorious about flying under city streets in the subway, but $$ is $$.

That's kind of bullshit that they'd run this little 'competition' on a holiday week. Anti transit bias.

[paul451]

I don’t post here very often, but today I just had to.

You have to be realistic, the example that the “Rocky” uses is completely stupid but hey it’s just a newspaper.
What is a 24 minute difference when the fare is over 3 times cheaper? Also we are talking about public transit versus a private car; the car is travelling at much higher speed and is not making stops every few minutes. I would be interested to see the time it took a car if it had to make a stop the same amount of times the train makes.
They used a car that is travelling on a highway. This is like considering an express train and a local.
When taking public transportation you are travelling a set route, the transit vehicle is going to be making stops along this route to accommodate all its passengers. If the 20 minute difference is so much of a problem then you should not be using public transport.

I don’t think that comparing two different types of public transport is in anyway beneficial, certainly not in the day and when we are trying to get more people to move away from using their cars and shifting to mass transit.

[J Church]

Also, while glowrock was right to point out that the cost comparison wasn't really fair, it also didn't take into account all of the other costs of automobile ownership: purchase, repair, insurance. I doubt many folks will give up their cars because of this new service, but even those who don't could reduce wear and tear.

[glowrock]

Yes, wear and tear on a car can be considerable, but remember, you sure can't include purchase and insurance, because the vast majority of people will STILL own a car, especially in places like Denver... Transit will certainly let people drive a lot less, but they're still not going to give up their cars, at least for the most part.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[DenverInfill]

Why is there this assumption (which is inherent in Mike's comments as well as in the Rocky Mountain News article) that a successful mass transit system (or any mode of transport, for that matter) is all about speed of travel? Why are we, as a society, so focused on getting from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible? Frankly, it is that obsession with speed and time that contributes to our society being so stressed, violent, and dysfunctional. Sure, sometimes there are situations in which getting from one place to another as quickly as possible may be paramount, but that hardly should be the critical factor in evaluating or comparing modes of transport.

Is McDonalds "better" simply because I can get my food faster than, say, an upscale sit-down restaurant? Not necessarily. Actually, I'm often willing to pay more for slower service when it comes to dining. In fact, there are all sorts of things we do in life in which we value it more if it is slower or takes longer. So why, when we talk about transportation, do we focus on just "get me there as fast as possible?" It is that focus on speed in transportation which has given us 60-mph architecture instead of 6-mph architecture as well as a loss of attention to the public realm and to the quality and details of our built environment.

If driving a car takes me 30 minutes, but riding light rail takes me 50 minutes, why is that an argument for driving my car? Who said I want to get there as fast as possible anyways? Not only is the light rail cheaper, but those 50 minutes on the train can be 50 minutes in which I can relax, read a book, sleep, stare out the window and contemplate life, or work on my laptop. I cannot do any of those things while driving a car. So, even if I maximize my time during the first 20 minutes after I get to wherever I'm going via my car, I'm still "down" by 30 minutes in the total amount of quality useable time, given that I had the potential for 50 minutes of quality time on the train, but little to no opportunity for quality time while driving my car.

Then, there's cost. If I want to get somewhere as quickly as possible, I should be prepared to pay more for that convenience. As noted above, depending on the situation, sometimes we're willing to pay more for something to be slower. But there are also many things in life in which we're willing to pay more for something to occur faster. It all just depends on the situation and what is important to me at the time. Transportation is no different. If I want to get someplace faster, I'll have to pay more for that opportunity. Automobiles cost more than public transit, so it should not come as a surprise that driving in a private automobile is often faster than public transit. If that's what was important to me in that situation, great! I had a choice that met my needs! But we must recognize that I paid for that convenience. I chose to sacrifice money for time. But the fact that I chose one over the other doesn't universally make the one a more valuable commodity than the other. So then, why does the debate about public transit always focus on just the time factor?

There are all sorts of other variables to consider in the auto vs. transit analysis... risk of personal injury or damage to personal property; environmental impacts; land utilization; mobility for the car-less, the elderly, and the handicapped; flexibility of schedule and route; personal privacy, etc. Some favor autos, some favor transit, but they are all valid factors that we take into consideration when we choose a means of transport on any given occasion.

So, can't we just QUIT OBSESSING about travel times and recognize that it is only one of many factors that impact us when we choose to move from place to place?

[Policy Wonk]

Why is there this assumption (which is inherent in Mike's comments as well as in the Rocky Mountain News article) that a successful mass transit system (or any mode of transport, for that matter) is all about speed of travel? Why are we, as a society, so focused on getting from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible?

This is a classic problem with trying to encourage increased ridership of public transportation. If an individual has no particular need to utilize public transit how do you encourage increased ridership when the service being offered is not especially attractive to an individual with other options.

I personally would rather have an extra hour in bed in the morning and an extra hour at home in the evening. That is worth more than a few bucks to me.

[DenverInfill]

If an individual has no particular need to utilize public transit...

But see you're missing my point. It's not about having a need to utilize public transit, it's about having a need for transportation. At some point, everyone has a need for transportation.... usually daily, if not many times during the day. And each time, we make a choice between using private transportation (your car, bicycle, or walking) or public transportation. Each has its advantages and disadvantage, and there are a multitude of variables that we take into consideration (at least subconsciously) every time we make a choice. Travel time is just one of them. For you, that may be very important and, if so, then you choose accordingly. But since travel time isn't necessarily the most important factor for a lot of people, then why do we obsess about it like it's the end-all determinant for everyone?

[Policy Wonk]

But since travel time isn't necessarily the most important factor for a lot of people, then why do we obsess about it like it's the end-all determinant for everyone?

Who would be those people? the retired? the homeless?

Unless your commute to work looks something like an SUV commercial I don't think many people would elect to spend more time than absolutely required by any means of transportation.

Most people have something better to do than sit in traffic, be it in a car or bus.

[DenverInfill]

Who would be those people? the retired? the homeless?

Unless your commute to work looks something like an SUV commercial I don't think many people would elect to spend more time than absolutely required by any means of transportation.

Most people have something better to do than sit in traffic, be it in a car or bus.

But you don't sit in traffic on the train. And, unless there's a substantial time difference between the two, then a lot of people are willing to exchange a little extra time for the reduced cost, the lack of stress, the lower risk of accident, the reliability of travel in inclement weather, the usefullness of time, etc.

For a year and a half, I commuted by bus to the Tech Center (obviously before this Southeast rail line was completed). It was one hour each way. If I drove, sometimes it would take me as little as 25 minutes, but sometimes, almost an hour. But, I still chose to give up that extra 15 minutes to 30 minutes twice a day for the opportunity of not having to drive my car in stressful, packed highways with aggressive and/or inattentive drivers zigzagging in and out of traffic, the constant accelleration and braking, creeping along for miles at 5 mph due to an accident, not to mention icy streets, splashback from big trucks, etc. Avoiding the stress I would experience from a typical rush hour commute was absolutely worth the extra time, not to mention the lower auto insurance rates and the obvious lower costs associated with having a vehicle that is now 3.5 years old and has only 26,000 miles on it.

[Policy Wonk]

Actually, where I come from you do sit in traffic in the train... but that is another story.

The cost-benefit analysis that you make is completely valid, but until the "rapid" in rapid transit comes into its own people will make the same cost-benefit analysis you do and elect to drive their private vehicles.

[miketoronto]

But see you're missing my point. It's not about having a need to utilize public transit, it's about having a need for transportation. At some point, everyone has a need for transportation.... usually daily, if not many times during the day. And each time, we make a choice between using private transportation (your car, bicycle, or walking) or public transportation. Each has its advantages and disadvantage, and there are a multitude of variables that we take into consideration (at least subconsciously) every time we make a choice. Travel time is just one of them. For you, that may be very important and, if so, then you choose accordingly. But since travel time isn't necessarily the most important factor for a lot of people, then why do we obsess about it like it's the end-all determinant for everyone?

You bring up good points. I myself do enjoy the aspect of going slower sometimes on transit, and seeing the buildings and streetscapes, etc.

However there is also a need for speed. A study was done here in Toronto on why non-transit users don't use transit. And the number one reason was travel time.

Infact I talk with alot of non-riders and travel time is their biggest issues. Its not that they hate public transit or would not like to use it. But at the end of the day, they want to be home in 20min instead of one hour. And the travel time wins out.
My neighbour actually for example was transfered downtown and she tried the train for a while. She really did try it out. But in the end she ended up driving downtown, because she could not put up with an extra 40min of travel time at the end of big day at work.

No matter if you enjoy seeing the views from the train or not, at the end of the day increased travel time eats into your time with your kids, or family, etc.
I myself put up with long commute times. I could drive to work downtown in 20min. Yet I take public transit that takes 45-60min to get me to work.
I usually don't mind the ride. But there are times like when I work at night or something that I just want to get home, and that extra 40min is not as fun.

People will put up with a little additional travel time when taking transit. But they are not going to put up with a system that takes double the amount of time over driving, or something like that.

Most public transit riders are choice riders, and we have to keep and attract them.

I also don't believe cost of driving is as big a factor as people make it sound. I work downtown and there are people in my office only making 15-25,000 a year, and they gladly drive to work, pay the parking, gas, etc. They don't care about the cost.
And these are lower wage people just working part-time, etc.
Now you think the full time workers making 80 grand a year are going to worry about parking costs, or gas? Not really.

Transit must compete or its not going to carry as many people as it can. There are only so many people like myself who are willing to put up with longer transit travel times.

[plinko]

Most public transit riders are choice riders,...


Maybe on suburban lines...but I seriously doubt that's the case on inner city lines and it couldn't possibly be the case on the bus.

[BarbulaM1]

In Denver, it seems it is different than many cities. I went on a trip to LA a few weeks back, and took the Metro to the hotel I was staying at from the airport. And who was on the trains and buses? well of course, sterotypical lower class. However, when Im downtown Denver I see lines of people waiting for the bus to different park and ride stations, not that there are any lines market, people just form them and you ask someone what route the line is for, not just lower class, I saw massive lines outside the Qwest corperate headquarters building.

People are excited to ride the transit, in Denver it is not that the majority of people can't afford to take their own cars. It is that it can be more conventent to drive to a park-and-ride in the burbs and take feeder bus to the light rail station, or take an express bus into the city. Everyone takes it. Also btw, Denver is the 9th most expensive city to commute into, so take that into account. (look that up on Google).

[mersar]

Sounds like its very similar to Calgary in that regard. Although here the lack of parking in the downtown also contributes forces it.

Any estimates on what ridership has been since it opened?

[bunt_q]

Who would be those people? the retired? the homeless?

Unless your commute to work looks something like an SUV commercial I don't think many people would elect to spend more time than absolutely required by any means of transportation.

Most people have something better to do than sit in traffic, be it in a car or bus.

Sorry, but I'm going to steer this thread in a direction it shouldn't go... but you seem like kind of an asshole, so here goes. I am one of the "new riders" on Denver's new light rail line. I drove last week. My truck stayed home this week (yes, a big manly pick-up truck - clearly I am your stereotypical transit rider). Am I homeless? Nope, I probably make more money than you. White, male, everything I'm sure you love in a down-home (as my little picture says, "provincial bumpkin") American. The train added ~15 minutes to my commute. But you know what, instead of ~60 minutes in my truck, I now sit on the train for ~45 minutes per day, and get a nice half hour walk. So I get some exercise, and I get to read a book for 45 minutes. I'm sorry, but if time is all about quantity to you, with no consideration of quality, you must lead a very sad life.

[J. Will]

It's hilarious that people are upset at Mike and making comments about him for posting an article that someone else wrote.

[Cirrus]

Mike has a history.

[glowrock]

J Will, it's just that Mike ALWAYS posts articles like this... He's obsessed with speed, he's obsessed with transit being as fast as private cars, he's obsessed with the idea that noone would EVER ride transit unless it's as fast or faster than commuting by car. He's a broken record, that's all...

As for policy wonk, your siglines say it all. "Sprawl is beautiful?" "Never plan any project, of any type around any level of government doing anything on your time table, if ever. especially transportation!"??? For chrissakes, are you one of the heads of the Independance Institute? Do you follow Wendell Cox around like a little puppy dog??? :rolleyes:

Aaron (Glowrock)

PS: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! And yes, this applies to my Canadian forumer friends as well! :banana:

[J. Will]

What's wrong with being obsessed with speed? There's no way it should take longer to get downtown by transit than by car. I'd be more worried about people who aren't obsessed with speed than who are. I actually see stuff like this as pro-transit. It shows that there is not enough attention and funding for transit, and that it needs improvement. People who are saying that public transit is already the mode of choice could be construed as saying that it's good enough as it is, and doesn't need improvement. Complaining that someone is obsessed with transit speed is like complaining that someone has an obsession against wasteful sprawl. Transit speed should be improved, and articles like this just point it out.

[Doady]

Obsessions of any kind can be unhealthy.

[Lee_Haber8]

Maybe instead of speeding up the LRT, they should think about slowing down cars. What is the point in going fast if you have to travel further? That is the huge flaw of planning for cars. They should remove highways parallel to LRT lines to create a more pedestrian friendly and more pleasant city. Have services, amenities and jobs closer to where people leave, they might not be getting there as fast, but it will be more pleasant and will cost them much less (e.g. 5 min walk to grocery store instead of 5 min drive). Removing highways would get rid of scars which divide the city not to mention LRT ridership would skyrocket.

[texcolo]

The only negative thing I can say about the Southeast line is that is sits right on I-25. And than no matter how pleasant you try and make a station, AKA the Leaf sculpture at the Lousiana Station, you're still sitting right next to a major freeway.

As for costs of driving, the RMN should have added a $1.25 for the cost of having insurance, $??? for vehicle maintenance, $??? for vehicle loan costs.

ALSO: How often do they have wrecks on I-25? At least once or twice a week, and that almost always adds 15 minutes to your commute.

[glowrock]

The only negative thing I can say about the Southeast line is that is sits right on I-25. And than no matter how pleasant you try and make a station, AKA the Leaf sculpture at the Lousiana Station, you're still sitting right next to a major freeway.

As for costs of driving, the RMN should have added a $1.25 for the cost of having insurance, $??? for vehicle maintenance, $??? for vehicle loan costs.

ALSO: How often do they have wrecks on I-25? At least once or twice a week, and that almost always adds 15 minutes to your commute.

No, insurance costs shouldn't be added into the equation, as MOST riders on LRT here in Denver also continue to own a vehicle. If you already own a car, and have no interest in giving up your car, then why include those costs?

Added maintenance, sure. Obviously, the less you drive, the less your maintenance costs will be. But no, not insurance costs. Same with loan costs.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

What's wrong with being obsessed with speed? There's no way it should take longer to get downtown by transit than by car. I'd be more worried about people who aren't obsessed with speed than who are. I actually see stuff like this as pro-transit. It shows that there is not enough attention and funding for transit, and that it needs improvement. People who are saying that public transit is already the mode of choice could be construed as saying that it's good enough as it is, and doesn't need improvement. Complaining that someone is obsessed with transit speed is like complaining that someone has an obsession against wasteful sprawl. Transit speed should be improved, and articles like this just point it out.

No? No way? So, either you want all express trains that don't stop anywhere but the two end-line stations, or you want to eliminate all major highways in and out of downtown. Which one is it?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[J. Will]

Neither. I just think transit speeds should be increased. I see not being happy with the status quo as pro-transit (believing it needs more funds and priority). If you're in favour of public transit you shouldn't be happy with service as it is.

If there's one place that it should be faster to get to and from it's downtown.

[paul451]

^^^ I don't think that neither is a possible answer in a realistic world.
You cannot increase the speed of trains without turning the trains into "express trains", which will then reduce the overall service for certain riders. This eventually defeats the purpose of public transport.

[glowrock]

^^^ I don't think that neither is a possible answer in a realistic world.
You cannot increase the speed of trains without turning the trains into "express trains", which will then reduce the overall service for certain riders. This eventually defeats the purpose of public transport.

Exactly! Most of the time, transit lines operate as fast as they can reasonably go with regards to station distances, acceleration and deceleration times, loading/unloading of passengers, etc... It's simply not feasible to allow for the same number of stations, same number of stops, and suddenly expect a vastly different result. SOME express service trains would be fine, but not in general terms, because all you do then is make it a special train between end-lines, which essentially screws over everyone else at the other stations.

Face it, in the metro areas, public transit will NEVER be faster (at least not by much, or not including major traffic jams) than private cars. It's a convenience, choice, and cost issue. Unless you want to develop some completely new kind of system technology that would literally allow for instantaneous stops and starts in and out of stations, it's just not going to happen!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Chicago103]

No, insurance costs shouldn't be added into the equation, as MOST riders on LRT here in Denver also continue to own a vehicle. If you already own a car, and have no interest in giving up your car, then why include those costs?

Added maintenance, sure. Obviously, the less you drive, the less your maintenance costs will be. But no, not insurance costs. Same with loan costs.

Aaron (Glowrock)

The costs of gas and the costs of parking alone should be enough to justify taking public transportation. All-day parking in the downtown of a city of any significant size alone costs more than round trip transit fare. There are monthly parking passes but monthly transit passes are cheaper. If you want cheaper parking you have to walk further (assuming where you are going is the heart of downtown) and oftentimes transit can get you very close.

Its very annoying when you encounter people who dont go downtown because of the cost of parking when there are transit alternatives available. There are two ways to deal with the high costs of parking downtown, one is to use some other means besides driving to get downtown and the other is to not go downtown at all. Unfortunatly alot of suburbanities choose the latter, driving to them is more important than visiting downtown. Sure there will always be some people who wont mind the extra costs and inconviniences associated with driving but there are others when faced with traffic and parking problems will just avoid urban areas alltogether. Thats a big part of the reason why some people consider downtown to be so expensive.

[Doady]

I wonder what the solution to this problem is.... lots of express buses?

[glowrock]

The costs of gas and the costs of parking alone should be enough to justify taking public transportation. All-day parking in the downtown of a city of any significant size alone costs more than round trip transit fare. There are monthly parking passes but monthly transit passes are cheaper. If you want cheaper parking you have to walk further (assuming where you are going is the heart of downtown) and oftentimes transit can get you very close.

Its very annoying when you encounter people who dont go downtown because of the cost of parking when there are transit alternatives available. There are two ways to deal with the high costs of parking downtown, one is to use some other means besides driving to get downtown and the other is to not go downtown at all. Unfortunatly alot of suburbanities choose the latter, driving to them is more important than visiting downtown. Sure there will always be some people who wont mind the extra costs and inconviniences associated with driving but there are others when faced with traffic and parking problems will just avoid urban areas alltogether. Thats a big part of the reason why some people consider downtown to be so expensive.

I never said transit wasn't less expensive overall than driving, Chicago103... I just said you've got to make a fair comparison, one that reasonably compares the two modes and their total time and monetary costs.

As for the bigger issue of slower transit times than private car times, I don't think there's any easy solution to it. You have to either decrease the number of stations, add some sort of express train/bus system, or speed up the trains themselves. New technologies aren't exactly cheap, it's not good to alienate commuters by adding too many express trains/buses, and it's not necessarily good to eliminate too many stations, either. It's kind of a situation where there's no easy answer.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[westsider]

"Rapid transit" is a oxymoron. Is there one light rail system thats quicker than driving the same route without needing a major accident?

[WesTheAngelino]

Well......I have seen the last sign of the Apocalypse: I AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF ONE OF MIKE'S THREADS!!!!!!

Seriously, to be blunt, most of you ganging up on Mike need to pull your collective heads out of your collective asses in regards to light rail. Seriously, I have no idea how such smart people could be in such denial.

From my years of posting on this board and from rail wonks I know otherwise, there is a total disconnect on how you think about transit and how the average person thinks about it.

While many of you seem to like transit because you have a train fetish, have need to consume urban cache and look like an urbanite by riding transit, or ride transit because you're an environmental do gooder, these reasons rarely if ever enter the minds of the average citizen of these United States or world (believe that or not). It often comes down to what I like to call the three c's of travel: cost, convenience, and comfort.

Allow me to present a personal history, my own, as an example. I arrived in Los Angeles in the fall of 02 to attend USC, carless in what is supposedly the car capital of the world. I took the bus and the rail everywhere, because I had to. It was rarely convenient or comfortable, but it was cheap. Upon graduating and landing a job this year, I got a car. This summer I lived in a pretty transit-unfriendly area, so I drove literally everywhere. But, this fall I moved to downtown Los Angeles three blocks from a station on our Blue Line Light rail. Let's examine my options for a daily trip:

Work: I can either a) drive and be in the San Fernando Valley in half an hour and the trip due to funky L.A. traffic patterns will be 45 minutes coming back. I live right by the freeway, work is right off the freeway, so not to much stop and go save for a stretch on the return trip. Cost: about $2.50 for gas, parking provided free by employer. Option b) take a 6 minute walk to the Blue line station which hopefully I timed to catch the train when I get there. About 10 minutes to 7th/Fig. where I would catch the Red Line subway to Universal City....30 minutes....disembark, catch the Ventura Rapid bus to Coldwater Canyon....15 minutes....disembark then walk three blocks to work...6 minutes. So, thats about 1 hour 15 minutes, assuming smooth connections all the way. Cost $3 for a daily pass or $42 monthly. Just not worth it to spend two and half hours on the bus and rail. Not to mention the fact that going to the gym and running errands after or before work would be so difficult via transit. WINNER: CAR

Trip to Hollywood to see a concert/people watch/shop/meet a friend/harass Scientologists/whatev: a) drive on the always congested 110 and 101 freeways for 30-40 minutes. Either circle around side streets of Hollywood Blvd. looking for free street parking at night for about 15 minutes all the while getting pissed...if none found break down and pay to park ranging from $2 at Hollywood/Highland (if you buy something and validate) to $12 bucks for two freakin hours at a parking lot. $2 for gas b) Walk to blue line, catch red line to Hollywood...35-40 minutes....$2.20 round trip while happily listening to my ipod and eyeing attractive ladies on the train. Winner: TRANSIT.

Transit is also the winner for whenever I want to go downtown, especially during the weekend. It's just cheaper and more convenient if not always faster (but sometimes it is). Plus I get some exerxise and enjoy myself.

I take transit when IT MAKES SENSE. Why on earth would I, or anyone else, take it otherwise????

[Cirrus]

I didn't read your whole post, Wes, but I suspect I got the drift of it.

Here's the bit that's important: Transportation shapes land use, and we've spent the past 50 years building cities around making cars convenient. Of course they’re going to be the more logical choice for a lot of trips. But cars aren’t inherently better; they’re better most of the time right now because of a very carefully engineered system of subsidies and laws that *make* them the winner.

And, just as the more roads and parking lots you build the easier and more convenient it is to drive, the more transit you build the easier and more convenient it becomes to use transit, particularly when you take into consideration the type of development that can surround rail stations.

Now, many of us on these boards are urbanists. We like cities. Not *just* tall buildings, but the things that make cities different from suburbs: dense, walkable, diverse neighborhoods. And not coincidentally, the more dense and walkable a neighborhood becomes, the more convenient transit becomes relative to cars, and at the same time, the more convenient transit becomes relative to cars, the more dense and walkable it is possible for new development in that neighborhood to be.

As for the rail versus bus question, there are a host of reasons why we like rail better than buses that have nothing to do with the “cool” factor, but the most important one is that rail has a much greater effect on land use than buses. It always has, and it most likely always will. It is true on Manhattan island and around Metro stations in the Washington region. It is true in downtown Denver and sunbelt Atlanta. It is true even in Los Angeles, where many (perhaps even all) of the basin’s greatest urban areas were constructed around streetcars.

So this is a board full of urbanists, and rail and urbanism go hand in hand. Transit is not an end in itself, but a means to great urbanism.

Get it?

[WesTheAngelino]

^ I think you need to read my post in its entirety, and I think I obviously need to clarify a thing or two.

First, I'm for all the things you stated above and stand with you and everyone on this board who is pro-density, pro-walkability, and pro-transit. My point is, and what I'm pretty sure Mike's point is, that there is a certain amount of time people are willing to spend getting from point A to B whether they are walking, riding a train, or driving a car. This is pretty elementary....why do you think urban rail developed in the first place? Because cities became too large for people to walk everywhere as they had done for thousands of years. I can guarantee you that if it took more than an hour to get from Yankee Stadium to Midtown Manhattan, from Rosslyn to Capitol Hill, or from Berkley to Union Square people would begin jumping ship...er...train and either find some other way to get to their destinations and back again faster or exit from the situation altogether and move themselves and their business to some place where trips could be made faster , cheaper, and more conveniently (re:sprawlburbia). This feeds into one of Mike's main gripes which he brings up time and time again, so much so that we want to kill him sometimes: the flight of people, eployment, and retail from city cores, specifically Toronto. While Mike often presents this in a skewed and doom and gloomy fashion, the man does have a point. More than ever people live, WORK, shop and do everything in the kind of sprawling suburban environments that we on this board view as anathema. Key to curbing this is giving people better choices, better options. In order ot do that transit must be convenient, i.e. on time and FAST. According to APTA the average light rail speed in America is 19 mph....clearly cities such as Denver and my great city of Los Angeles could use some more fine tuning to get them running at a faster pace. Grade separation and expresses are obvious starting points.

[feepa]

"Rapid transit" is a oxymoron. Is there one light rail system thats quicker than driving the same route without needing a major accident?

The LRT line in Edmonton if you're going to the university (or further south once built) from Claireview is faster I think then driving at the speed limit on the roads...

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1448/lrtedmontonel2.jpg


(green dot to yellow dot)

[Cirrus]

In principal I agree, particularly in regards to expresses, which everyone ought to run if possible (in combination with local trains that don't go all the way out to the end of the line).

Grade separation is more thorny. It's so expensive. If you can get two light rail corridors that are grade separated except for downtown for the same price as one corridor that’s fully grade separated, at this point I think most American cities have to go for the option that gets them more coverage.

I also think we need a DMU revolution. Light rail is great in some places, but a lot of cities are building light rail for lines more suited for commuter service. Those routes really ought to be DMUs. In other words, while I disagree with the position that BRT can do everything rail can do at less cost, I do think we need to escape from the mindset that light rail is the only solution. Most cities ought to be building DMU lines for commuters and streetcar lines for the inner city, with BRT along secondary corridors. LA is probably the one city in the country where massive investments in multiple new fully grade-separated third rail lines might be justified, because it’s *so* big and *so* underserved, but it’s the exception, not the rule.

[The Chemist]

"Rapid transit" is a oxymoron. Is there one light rail system thats quicker than driving the same route without needing a major accident?

Try driving to downtown Calgary from Somerset faster than the C-Train. I guarantee you won't be able to do it, unless it's late at night or Sunday.

[Agent Orange]

Calgary and Edmonton were smart (or lucky) in not having a major freeway system, particularly having none to feed in and out of their respective downtowns. Denver, and every large American city, has a whole system of limited access highways feeding into and out of its center. If light rail in cities like Denver, San Diego, St Louis etc did not have major highways to compete with, I'm sure they'd be more successful.

Alberta's cities were wise to invest in rail instead of pavement in the 1970s. Unfortunately, American cities didn't figure out the logic in that method until the 90s.

[WesTheAngelino]

In principal I agree, particularly in regards to expresses, which everyone ought to run if possible (in combination with local trains that don't go all the way out to the end of the line).

Grade separation is more thorny. It's so expensive. If you can get two light rail corridors that are grade separated except for downtown for the same price as one corridor that’s fully grade separated, at this point I think most American cities have to go for the option that gets them more coverage.

I also think we need a DMU revolution. Light rail is great in some places, but a lot of cities are building light rail for lines more suited for commuter service. Those routes really ought to be DMUs. In other words, while I disagree with the position that BRT can do everything rail can do at less cost, I do think we need to escape from the mindset that light rail is the only solution. Most cities ought to be building DMU lines for commuters and streetcar lines for the inner city, with BRT along secondary corridors. LA is probably the one city in the country where massive investments in multiple new fully grade-separated third rail lines might be justified, because it’s *so* big and *so* underserved, but it’s the exception, not the rule.


Totally agree with you on the DMU point. "Commuter" LRT is one of my main beefs with LRT investment in this country, particularly in L.A. Per example, there is serious discussion of a thirty mile extension of the Pasadena Gold Line to Ontario airport which in my view is simply rediculous.

[WesTheAngelino]

Calgary and Edmonton were smart (or lucky) in not having a major freeway system, particularly having none to feed in and out of their respective downtowns. Denver, and every large American city, has a whole system of limited access highways feeding into and out of its center. If light rail in cities like Denver, San Diego, St Louis etc did not have major highways to compete with, I'm sure they'd be more successful.

Alberta's cities were wise to invest in rail instead of pavement in the 1970s. Unfortunately, American cities didn't figure out the logic in that method until the 90s.

So, in other words you're saying that transit can't possibly compete with highways? Not a very good pro-rail argument there.

[Lee_Haber8]

So, in other words you're saying that transit can't possibly compete with highways? Not a very good pro-rail argument there.

Well they can't. There's no way a light-rail system can compete with an unclogged freeway when it comes to trip time. A light-rail train has to stop at every station for its passengers while a car on a freeway doesn't stop at all.

However, in every other respect light-rail destroys freeways. Light-rail can carry the same volume of passengers as a ten-lane freeway while only using a small amount of space. Light-Rail doesn't divide communities and make them less desirable as freeways do. It doesn't make entire parts of the city inhospitable to anything but cars. Rail costs much less to build then freeways and doesn't create pollution like thousands of cars do. Using light-rail also costs much, much less than owning an automobile does and is a safer mode of travel.

For all these reasons I think it makes sense that Denver, along with all other American cities start removing freeways to boost public transit ridership, reduce pollution, save money and increase quality of life. If they're looking at ways to fund it, use tax-incremental financing and develop the land that is freed up

[1Post2]

edit: sorry. just read above posts and it looks like this is pretty much what cirrus already said.

[WesTheAngelino]

^ I completely understand the impetus behind that. But let's face reality. The D.C. Metro is often cited at least by people on here as the most successful new rail system since the new era began w/ BART in the 60's. This is mostly due to the high number of people who walk to stations and the TOD that has occured around them. However, it is a mere drop in the bucket in terms of the DC Metro economy and population. And by the way....I really think it's unfair to use a HEAVY RAIL SUBWAY to back up arguments for light rail.


So, the question is this: do we continue the fools errand of trying to link outlying communities to city cores via light rail or do we want to invest these precious transit dollars WITHIN the cores of cities where there is more ridership and transit rider empowerment potential in the first place and a greater ability to really change things. Think about it: Would Atlanta be a better city with more MARTA stations within it's city limits? Wouldn't L.A. be better if the 13 miles gold line to Pasadena went through it's core instead? Would BART be a better system with more stations in San Francisco and Oakland than in places like Dublin and Pleasanton?

[glowrock]

For all these reasons I think it makes sense that Denver, along with all other American cities start removing freeways to boost public transit ridership, reduce pollution, save money and increase quality of life. If they're looking at ways to fund it, use tax-incremental financing and develop the land that is freed up


That would be a complete, total, unmitigated DISASTER, Lee_Haber! Removing freeways? No way. I can't imagine metro Denver removing any freeways, it would end up being a total traffic nightmare, even AFTER the total FasTracks buildout is completed!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Lee_Haber8]

That would be a complete, total, unmitigated DISASTER, Lee_Haber! Removing freeways? No way. I can't imagine metro Denver removing any freeways, it would end up being a total traffic nightmare, even AFTER the total FasTracks buildout is completed!

Aaron (Glowrock)

You still believe the false preconception that car traffic behaves like water and that if you block it off somewhere it will go somewhere else. I think everybody should note that more road space generates traffic, doesn't alleviate it. That is why no matter how matter how much you expand a road it always becomes congestion. It makes sense when you consider how people change their transportation patterns to use that widened road and when developers start planning their developments around that road.

The reverse also works, if you remove roadspace you will reduce congestion. This has happened in San Francisco and New York where traffic volumes decreased on streets near where a freeway was removed. Traffic engineer models ignore that people adapt under a stress, when they realized that driving wasn't very fast or convenient many switched to other modes like public traffic

[WesTheAngelino]

^ San Francisco also has experienced an economic slow down which has only halted as of now (or has it?), and what are you referring to specifically with New York? Also, you say that the streets right where the freeways were did not become super congested. While I can't speak for other cities, I know that if the 10 suddenly disappeared, the major streets right by such as Washington, Adams, and Venice would not be the ones to suffer, it would be Wilshire a couple miles north. In other words, freeways are sometimes not the natural arterials in their E/W or N/S direction. So, look at the bigger picture.

[Lee_Haber8]

^ San Francisco also has experienced an economic slow down which has only halted as of now (or has it?), and what are you referring to specifically with New York? Also, you say that the streets right where the freeways were did not become super congested. While I can't speak for other cities, I know that if the 10 suddenly disappeared, the major streets right by such as Washington, Adams, and Venice would not be the ones to suffer, it would be Wilshire a couple miles north. In other words, freeways are sometimes not the natural arterials in their E/W or N/S direction. So, look at the bigger picture.

It was the West Side Freeway in New York that collapsed in the 1970s I believed. They carefully studied the traffic on all major west side streets after and found that traffic congestion jumped briefly but then went down to levels before the freeway collapsed. I know what you're saying, but in this case they did look at the bigger picture and this was the conclusion they arrived at.

[glowrock]

You still believe the false preconception that car traffic behaves like water and that if you block it off somewhere it will go somewhere else. I think everybody should note that more road space generates traffic, doesn't alleviate it. That is why no matter how matter how much you expand a road it always becomes congestion. It makes sense when you consider how people change their transportation patterns to use that widened road and when developers start planning their developments around that road.

The reverse also works, if you remove roadspace you will reduce congestion. This has happened in San Francisco and New York where traffic volumes decreased on streets near where a freeway was removed. Traffic engineer models ignore that people adapt under a stress, when they realized that driving wasn't very fast or convenient many switched to other modes like public traffic

Stop patronizing me, Lee_Haber. I don't want to hear ad-nauseum how removing freeways reduces traffic, adding freeways adds traffic. Yes, I know you can only build so many freeway lanes, I know you can only accomodate so many cars before you hit complete gridlock. Look, I'm not stupid, and I'm not one of those incessant "build more freeways" people. I am, however, someone who believes that better mass transit, along with TARGETED ROAD/HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS, are the way to traffic alleviation in cities/metro areas. Most cities have no experience with tearing down freeways, and of the ones that do, MOST of those freeways were short stretches radiating out from a trunk freeway line of some sort. In Denver's case, I'd like to know which freeways you'd like to eliminate. I-25? I-70? Hmm, I don't think so. Maybe I-225? Perhaps, but the N-S arterials for several miles on either side would be a nightmare as a result. I-270? Hmm, how would the trucks navigate through Commerce City? Maybe 6th Ave. Freeway? Perhaps, but it isn't like that wouldn't need to be a six lane street anyhow....

It's time to admit that American cities, for the most part, are simply designed far differently than European and Asian cities, and even Canadian cities to some extent. You can't simply tear down automobile infrastructure and expect people to suddenly jump to mass transit. It's a long, slow, arduous process, period. Add to mass transit systems, first and foremost, but you can't simply ignore automobile infrastructure.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[tunnelbana]

^ Along those lines, I think it is important to consider the circumstances in which reduced road capacity lowers congestion. There tends to be a reasonable and reliable alternative:

San Francisco, the Embarcadero freeway collapsed, so people could switch to the already extensive Muni Service, and from the suburbs, BART.

New York, the subway infrastructure was there before any highways removed. It's not difficult to switch to transit in Manhattan because it already goes everywhere.

Copenhagen has systematically reduced the size of congested streets but again there is already superb transit coverage and extensive bicycle facilities.

Even London, which hasn't been restricting road space so much as controlling auto demand with pricing uses the funds to expand bus services substantially. This way, the already crowded yet extensive transit system can handle the extra demand.

In most American cities, like Denver, there isn't already appropriate infrastructure for the masses to quit using their cars. Competition between downtown and the suburbs is fierce. If you tear out the roads, many people in Denver would quit going downtown, and you'd see many more companies moving to the office parks in the burbs.

The point is, you can get two results from restricting capacity: people switch to another means of getting to their destination, or the cancel their trip. In large well-established city centers, it is reasonable to expect people to switch to another mode. In cities where the center is struggling to compete, restricting access is only going to tip the scale.

Along similar lines, if highways are getting people into the city faster than transit in a dedicated right of way, how bad can congestion be? In this case transit is about providing alternative choices and preparing for that point in the future when the highway would be jammed to standstill. Transportation is a big picture problem, it's less about which mode "wins" than what is most appropriate and sustainable balance for a city's needs.

[miketoronto]

There are areas where transit does compete well with the car. But what we have to do is make transit compete well in the majority of areas.

I work for GO TRANSIT, and I can tell you that our trains move you fast. Our express trains get you from downtown Toronto to Pickering for example in about 20min. Driving in no traffic would take atleast 35min. In traffic well over an hour.

But this is done by having limited stops, and during rush hours trains that go express. But it works, and the trains are full.

[SpongeG]

at least the groundwork is there for the future

[Lee_Haber8]

Stop patronizing me, Lee_Haber. I don't want to hear ad-nauseum how removing freeways reduces traffic, adding freeways adds traffic. Yes, I know you can only build so many freeway lanes, I know you can only accomodate so many cars before you hit complete gridlock. Look, I'm not stupid, and I'm not one of those incessant "build more freeways" people. I am, however, someone who believes that better mass transit, along with TARGETED ROAD/HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS, are the way to traffic alleviation in cities/metro areas. Most cities have no experience with tearing down freeways, and of the ones that do, MOST of those freeways were short stretches radiating out from a trunk freeway line of some sort. In Denver's case, I'd like to know which freeways you'd like to eliminate. I-25? I-70? Hmm, I don't think so. Maybe I-225? Perhaps, but the N-S arterials for several miles on either side would be a nightmare as a result. I-270? Hmm, how would the trucks navigate through Commerce City? Maybe 6th Ave. Freeway? Perhaps, but it isn't like that wouldn't need to be a six lane street anyhow....

It's time to admit that American cities, for the most part, are simply designed far differently than European and Asian cities, and even Canadian cities to some extent. You can't simply tear down automobile infrastructure and expect people to suddenly jump to mass transit. It's a long, slow, arduous process, period. Add to mass transit systems, first and foremost, but you can't simply ignore automobile infrastructure.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I agree with you that in someplaces you might not be able to remove a freeway out right without replacing it with an arterial street. Some freeways should definitely be removed before others and I find no problem with bypasses and intercity highways used for trade. The ones that would be the highest priority would be ones going through core areas and through important natural settings (waterfronts, rivers). In this case removing the I-25 makes the most sense, but of course it would be removed gradually in segments.

The fact is freeways have destroyed the urban fabric of many cities worldwide. American cities are the worst affected because of the powerful automobile and highway lobbies. At the turn of the twentieth century American cities were the best and most liveable in the world, 90% of people got around by public transit. The automobile culture and planning for cars alone helps explain why a lot of American city's cores are rotting and why public transit ridership is abysmal. With the exception of New York, Washington and San Francisco ridership is very poor when compared to not European, Asian, but Canadian Cities. The Toronto Subway and Montreal Metro both have higher ridership numbers than Chicago's El even though Chicago has a bigger system and many more people. Even highly touted systems and one of the best in America like the Portland Max only get around 100,000 daily riders which is less than half of the Calgary C-Train - which is a smaller city.

If American cities want to actually increase quality of life and have people riding public other than just the poor and those who can't drive it's going to have to:
-invest in building infrastructure
-learn how to properly use that infrastructure (15 min peak frequency doesn't cut it)
-learn how to plan around that infrastructure (transit oriented development)
-plan for people not cars (slower streets, removed freeways)
It's good to see that denver is at least doing two of these: infrastructure with fastracks and TOD. However, if it doesn't provide adequate frequency and discourage automobile use then people shouldn't complain if ridership levels are still low and the car is still king.

[passdoubt]

Park-n-Ride systems kinda suck.

[glowrock]

Lee_Haber, I have a problem in even discussing this issue with someone who seriously advocates removing I-25 from the Denver area! You want to annhiliate a major cross-country (or at least nearly so), north-south interstate? You remove I-25, you might as well say goodbye to the Colorado Front Range, economically at least! :eek:

Where do you live? What major interstate(s) run through your area? Remove one, tell me what that would do for commerce through your metro area???

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Lee_Haber8]

Lee_Haber, I have a problem in even discussing this issue with someone who seriously advocates removing I-25 from the Denver area! You want to annhiliate a major cross-country (or at least nearly so), north-south interstate? You remove I-25, you might as well say goodbye to the Colorado Front Range, economically at least! :eek:

Where do you live? What major interstate(s) run through your area? Remove one, tell me what that would do for commerce through your metro area???

Aaron (Glowrock)

Well I'm just suggesting it be removed inside Denver, not the whole cross-country portion. I mean couldn't freight traffic going around denver go on the 470 toll highway or even the I-225 and I-270 if you don't want to remove that much. The city I'm from has a perimeter highway that goes around it, no freeways inside the city. Besides, shouldn't cities be planned for the people who live in them and not for people who want to drive quickly through them? If trucks area going into Denver, well what's the problem with them traveling on normal arterials, they have to anyways at some point.

[BarbulaM1]

What about the distribution centers in the city... Denver is where most of the frieght is ending up to be re-distrubuted through much of the west and the plains :P... ya can't just bypass it..

[wong21fr]

Wait, so you would rather have a beltway around the city, thus promoting that much more sprawl?

[glowrock]

Good point, wong. Good point!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Lee_Haber8]

Wait, so you would rather have a beltway around the city, thus promoting that much more sprawl?

Well the beltway already exists, but to prevent sprawl along beltways and highways between cities you would need a green belt and argricultural land reserve. They have this in Vancouver.

[Cirrus]

to prevent sprawl along beltways and highways between cities you would need a green belt and argricultural land reserve.Not to get too off topic here, but I disagree. Those things are nice, but far less important than zoning existing areas for higher densities.

Or to put it another way, you don't NEED a greenbelt or land reserve to control sprawl; they help, but are not indispensable. The right zoning, on the other hand, is absolutely essential. You NEED it to do the job under the current American system of real estate development, no ifs and or buts.

Zone for high density and leave out the greenbelt and you will still get some sprawl, but you’ll make a serious dent. Some metro areas that have done this are now growing by population faster than land area, which essentially means the sprawl pattern has reversed itself and the city is contracting on a per capita basis rather than expanding.

OTOH, draw a greenbelt but don’t allow adequately high densities, and yeah, you might stop sprawl completely for a few years (unless it just leap-frogs over the outer edge of the greenbelt and makes things worse, as it often does), but in the long run all you’ve created is a system doomed to fail under the first signs of pressure.

[Lee_Haber8]

Not to get too off topic here, but I disagree. Those things are nice, but far less important than zoning existing areas for higher densities.

Or to put it another way, you don't NEED a greenbelt or land reserve to control sprawl; they help, but are not indispensable. The right zoning, on the other hand, is absolutely essential. You NEED it to do the job under the current American system of real estate development, no ifs and or buts.

Zone for high density and leave out the greenbelt and you will still get some sprawl, but you’ll make a serious dent. Some metro areas that have done this are now growing by population faster than land area, which essentially means the sprawl pattern has reversed itself and the city is contracting on a per capita basis rather than expanding.

OTOH, draw a greenbelt but don’t allow adequately high densities, and yeah, you might stop sprawl completely for a few years (unless it just leap-frogs over the outer edge of the greenbelt and makes things worse, as it often does), but in the long run all you’ve created is a system doomed to fail under the first signs of pressure.

Of course you should zone for higher density in the city, that sucks away the demand for sprawl. I completely agree, you need both.

[Wright Concept]

I wonder if the newspaper will do this "race" during the storm in Denver.

[wong21fr]

Well, there was only one thing still running today...and it wasn't the highway.

[texcolo]

Well, there was only one thing still running today...and it wasn't the highway.

Darn tootin'!!!!

[miketoronto]

You can't wait for a storm to make transit faster then the car. Transit must compete at all times with the car, and unless it does, it will fail to see the ridership planners hope.

[glowrock]

God, this is such an old, tired discussion! Mike, do you REALLY expect transit to EVER be as fast or faster than personal cars, NOT INCLUDING RUSH HOURS???? How can you expect transit, with stops at several stations, to ever be faster than cars, especially not considering traffic and weather conditions???

Aaron (Glowrock)

[wong21fr]

The system is faster during rush hours, and it does see the ridership planners have hoped for, so stop basing your assessment on that innacurate article.

[Justin10000]

I,ve given up on MikeToronto.

In his eye, Transit must be superior to the car for transit to be attractive. Why bother?

Public Transit, and Automobiles are too completely different modes, both with advantages, and disadvantages. He does not understand that it is not always about being the fastest. There is a lot more to it.

But why bother?

[miketoronto]

It may not be faster, but it has to be more competative then it is in most cities. If it takes double the time then driving the same distance in a car, then you can be sure people are not going to use it unless they have no choice.

Infact travel time is the largest factor in someone choosing transit or not. Most non-riders list transit time as the factor over why they choose to drive to work.

[Hysteria]

It may not be faster, but it has to be more competative then it is in most cities. If it takes double the time then driving the same distance in a car, then you can be sure people are not going to use it unless they have no choice.

Infact travel time is the largest factor in someone choosing transit or not. Most non-riders list transit time as the factor over why they choose to drive to work.

Mike's got it right. Mass transit must be quicker and more efficient than driving in order to compete ... Who likes waiting at a stoplight or four way intersection?

[Jared]

It may not be faster, but it has to be more competative then it is in most cities. If it takes double the time then driving the same distance in a car, then you can be sure people are not going to use it unless they have no choice.

Infact travel time is the largest factor in someone choosing transit or not. Most non-riders list transit time as the factor over why they choose to drive to work.

Really? I'm curious how this all fits together, considering:

1) Every three months we get another bloggish thread from you telling the forum that your trip to see some random family member took 3 times as long taking transit as it would driving

2) The fact that Toronto has a huge amount of choice riders.


By the way, it's interesting how you try to side track on your point as soon as somebody asks you how to explain how your particular ideological bent could ever come to pass.

[Justin10000]

Mike's got it right. Mass transit must be quicker and more efficient than driving in order to compete ... Who likes waiting at a stoplight or four way intersection?


You are clueless.

TRANSIT CANNOT BEAT A CAR.

You know why? Because a bus, LRT, or subway has to make STOPS!! Without these stops, how are people able to take advantage of the service? Geez!

WHat Transit can be is a comfortable, and relativelycheap alternative to the car. But transit in general will never be faster than the car. Sure you have express services during rush hour, but that is only to funnel large number out of the core fast.

It makes me wonder why transit ridership is growing overall in N. America even when gas prices have stabilized. Gee, is it because people realize that spending an extra 20-30 minutes a day taking the train isn't all that bad?
The only issue I agree with Mike about is that the travel time in some areas is too long. In the case of Toronto, it is the Nothwest, and Northeast, which incidently have NO rapid transit of any kind. Just local bus routes. Of course, it is going to take time.

I am a transit advocate , but I am sick of this stupid ideology that transit should be faster than the car, or transit will fail. Enough already.

[miketoronto]

I read the report ages ago and don't know where to dig it up.

But a report did by one of the transit systems found that choice riders will only put up with a transit trip that takes a max of 15min more then driving. If it takes longer then 15min more then driving the same distance then riders start to consider the car more over transit.



2) The fact that Toronto has a huge amount of choice riders.


We have a large number of choice riders, because in many areas of the city, transit can compete pretty well with the car, only taking a couple more min to take transit over driving.


Come to my area though, and I doubt most of the riders are choice riders, seeing that it takes over double the time to take transit to just get downtown, over the car. And it shows, as most of my neighbours won't step foot on transit. Not because they hate it, but because they can drive downtown in 20min vs 60min on public transit. My dad drove downtown all the 20 years he worked downtown. He was not going to put up with an hours travel time.

Thats how most people are. Yes they will put up with 5, 10 min extra. But once you hit a certain mark they are going to turn to the car.

Transit can compete. It just has to be designed better.

Infact I hear Denver's Southwest LRT competes very well with car travel into downtown Denver. That is probably part of its success, because it does compete well.

[65MAX]

Hey all,

It looks like miketoronto has infected your transit discussions as well. He's a perpetual instigator on the Portland and Seattle transit threads and apparantly has nothing better to do than spread libertarian all-cars-all-of-the-time propaganda wherever anybody will listen to him. :koko: We have several trolls hanging around our forum, best advise, don't respond to them. If you keep feeding them (responding to them) they just stick around, like stray cats.

Yes, it's very easy to pick apart their pretzel logic, but they'll just twist their argument with every response you make. It's futile to try and argue with them.

[BroncoCSU05]

the LRT line is definetly getting a large amount of ridership. people who've done that commute know that that corridor gets jammed at best during rush hour. it's fucking ridiculous if you're not in the HOV lanes. and on the northbound hov lanes, we've resorted to allowing single cars to drive on them....at a charge of $3.25 during rush hour. it's now the northen corridor that REALLY needs rail to alleviate traffic along it. every day en route to home downtown, i see people stuck in a complete JAM from about 84th all the way back into downtown. that's a good 6 miles of solid traffic. yuk.

[BroncoCSU05]

in all honesty...anyone who is capable of taking LRT to denver is stupid not to. it's so much more expensive when you try parking anywhere convienient...everyone i know who works downtown (that's around my age) who actually did grow up in suburbia takes the LRT in to work (hyatt, rocky mtn news, programming companies). people who commute from colorado springs have expressed how thankful they are that they can stop worrying about driving once they get into the denver area now. and funny enough...it seems the people who are more accustomed to living in the city are the ones more likely to actually drive into it. i think the suburbanites just don't want to put up with having to drive in a city.

[glowrock]

Hey all,

It looks like miketoronto has infected your transit discussions as well. He's a perpetual instigator on the Portland and Seattle transit threads and apparantly has nothing better to do than spread libertarian all-cars-all-of-the-time propaganda wherever anybody will listen to him. :koko: We have several trolls hanging around our forum, best advise, don't respond to them. If you keep feeding them (responding to them) they just stick around, like stray cats.

Yes, it's very easy to pick apart their pretzel logic, but they'll just twist their argument with every response you make. It's futile to try and argue with them.

Uhm, Mike might be a transit troll, but he's most certainly NOT all cars all the time, 65MAX... Might you have him confused with a different transit troll? :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Cirrus]

Mike just doesn't understand that there's more to convenience than time. He's a one issue voter in a multi-issue reality.

[glowrock]

Agreed, Dan, agreed...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[65MAX]

Uhm, Mike might be a transit troll, but he's most certainly NOT all cars all the time, 65MAX... Might you have him confused with a different transit troll? :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

Quite possibly, they start to sound alike after a while, that perpetual annoying buzzing, like a mosquito that won't go away. Sorry , I have zero patience with their ilk.

[Justin10000]

Mike just doesn't understand that there's more to convenience than time. He's a one issue voter in a multi-issue reality.

If we lived in the same city, I would invite you to a beer.

Thank you!!

It is refreshing to see someone understands that time is not always an issue. There are many more factors involved. This is why I do not respect MikeToronto. I do not think he is a troll. He has some knowledge. But he is too narrow-minded.

[J. Will]

Time is definitely an issue, it's just not the only issue. Though if it takes 3 times as long as driving, it's certainly a huge issue. To suggest it's not an issue at all is ridiculous.