Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
So according to you... Denver is getting the lion's share of our infrastructure spending, and as a result, Denver is capturing nearly all construction and growth... And you view this as a bad thing? That's exactly what most of us want to happen. It is sort the definition of the reversal of five decades of sprawl.
And I will say, I am not seeing what you're seeing with regard to the economy. (I have a depressing lack of clients in central Denver, and I am absurdly busy, so somebody is building something somewhere.) There are still challenges, but if anything, those are related to a more prudent public paying down debt and not spending willy nilly. Which is also what most of us want, despite some of the negative side effects. (Also, a general mismatch between American workers' skill sets and what is presently needed by business, but that will simply take time to work itself out.)
So basically, you describe a state here in Denver where we are growing (that is empirically true) in a more efficient manner than previously. And you characterize this as a doomsday scenario.
Explain. What I hear is that you want us to sprawl, live more inefficiently, and buy a ton of garbage we don't need along the way (big homes and stuff to fill them with)...
Have you considered that rather than just not being able to afford that anymore, we might not want that anymore? That possibly these changes are choices made out of free will?
I don't know, your characterization of things sounds a lot like progress to me.
|
I apologize for the time taken to respond: I had to think about this.
A) IMO Denver would have grown if no RTD had ever existed, and, possibly would have grown as fast, if not faster, than the metro area has grown size RTD started building transportation infrastructure.
Growth factors regardless of transportation mix:
1. The Denver metro sits in an extremely attractive setting.
2. Compared to many US metro areas, the weather is remarkably good.
3. The citizen of Denver (and Greeley and to a lessor extent Colorado Springs) has a lot of available water. (This is in large part through the efforts of very visionary people early in the 20th Century.
4. Compared to the physical plant in many eastern and Midwestern metropolitan areas, Denver has young water pipe and wastewater piping and processing systems.
5. The Denver metro area has room to grow.
6. The Downtown Denver Renaissance would likely have occurred without light rail, etc., and, is due, in significant part to national generational changes, as well as being due to the other factors mentioned.
IMO, the issue is not whether the city of Denver deserves the higher than it's percentage of public moneys for public transportation infrastructure based on percentage of population, but whether the money spent has had anywhere near the same impact on the rest of the metropolitan area as it has in a small part of Denver.
This is not the case.
In addition, Denver has sacrificed metropolitan transportation needs (intra-suburban connections) at the expense of developing a very small percentage of the CITY, and, a minute fraction of the metro area.
I do believe that had true efficient interconnectedness, such as same seat travel through the urban core, higher average speeds, station bypass availability through 3 tracking at LEAST a few stations, rail bypass connections (just as I-25 does not have to go through stop lights in Lodo) etc., that user demand metro wide would have increased very rapidly, and, the NET population densities increase far more rapidly metro wide than will be the case.
Furthermore, Denver and it's inner ring suburbs very likely would have increasing population densities regardless, following the example of Los Angeles. At the low and lower middle class economic level, suburban houses will evolve into multiple apartments. At the upper end, those who wish to live with immediate neighbors would live in high rises anyway.
My point always has been that planning needs to be directed towards inevitable population growth, increased density, and, lower median income. In order to continue to do so, the city of Denver as well as the metro region needs to understand that large masses of people will need the best public transit systems possible to have a good quality of life down the 'line.'
(The real estate development aspect has sacrificed much of the user need aspect for those who do not want to live in Lodo. I will admit that about 1500 meters around the DUS will be amazing, but there is far more to Denver and metro Denver than those few square kilometers.)
Prev
At least, transit that goes somewhere worth going... namely, downtown.
I'm sure the city would LOVE that. I figure section off 17th - 19th between California and Broadway, start at 10pm and utilize the urban landscape. I'm sure building owners / security would love that too.
Linear Mode
