
Denver Radically Expanded Its Transit, So Why Are More People Driving Cars? - gok
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/11/denver-public-transit-growing-pains/544472/
======
smelendez
> 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.

~~~
knz
Wouldn't you time your arrival at the bus stop to coincide with the arrival of
the bus?

If you're waiting 30 minutes for an uninterrupted service you're doing it
wrong....

~~~
evo_9
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.

~~~
freeone3000
The entire concept of a "blood type thing" has no basis in fact, and isn't
commonly accepted in the West.

~~~
evo_9
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.

------
fatlasp
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.

~~~
provost
> our section of the rail to beyond 2040

Whoa, what's their explanation for it to take 23+ more years? That seems
unreasonable.

~~~
samlevine
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.

------
OtisS
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.

------
joshuaheard
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.

~~~
istorical
It's not that simple.

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.

~~~
bkeroack
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.

~~~
WalterBright
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.

~~~
majormajor
Now imagine when autonomous cars take away the parking and traffic stress.

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).

~~~
chadgeidel
I don't think we should assume autonomous cars will reduce traffic stress.
[http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-traffic-
con...](http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-cars-traffic-
congestion-2017-6)

------
simmons
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. :/

------
cletus
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.

~~~
gok
> 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.

------
hexis
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.

------
rebuilder
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.

~~~
chadgeidel
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.

~~~
rebuilder
I should probably have gone for time in transit rather than distance...

~~~
chadgeidel
It's about 45-55 minutes door-to-door in my experience. Doesn't really matter
if I drive or ride.

------
julienchastang
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).

------
PatientTrades
> 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.

~~~
chadgeidel
Even reducing the number of free parking spots would help. IMHO free parking
isn't actually free: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-
H_7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U).

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](https://uspirg.org/reports/usp/who-pays-roads)

------
masterleep
Because cars are far more convenient and a better solution than transit for
most people.

~~~
buxtehude
It depends...

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.

