7 ms·

Denver Radically Expanded Its Transit, So Why Are More People Driving Cars?

30 points by gok 9y ago

simmons 9y ago
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. :/
fatlasp 9y ago
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 9y ago
  > our section of the rail to beyond 2040 Whoa, what's their explanation for it to take 23+ more years? That seems unreasonable.
  - thescriptkiddie 9y ago
    Most likely lack of funds. They will collect taxes for ~20 years and then build it in the last ~3.
  - samlevine 9y ago
    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.
  - fatlasp 9y ago
    My understanding is that the original idea was to do a partnership / use BNSF rails (for some reasonably "small" fee [I think I heard $30-40 mil]) which were preexisting but then BNSF decided that the rail could only be used during certain time windows when it wouldn't effect their industrial traffic; OR RTD could pay something like $550 million. Not sure if the 23 years is to collect the tax for that cost or what.
- mkempe 9y ago
  Worse for Boulder: it was recently decided by RTD that after collecting $millions in taxes they would NOT build a rail connection.
  - julienchastang 9y ago
    @mkempe Do you have a reference or link for this? Thanks.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      You'd have to look up the last couple of years in the Daily Camera. Basically RTD invested in buses for Boulder along the rebuilt US 36 (not even attempting to build a rail line); they announced there would not be enough money to complete a rail line to Longmont until 2044, even if using a direct South-North rail line that already exists and doesn't go near Boulder; and finally they confirmed failure/refusal to negotiate and pay to keep their option to run on the BNSF line to Boulder (BNSF upped the price beyond RTD's reach since then) -- so it is not happening for at least another 30-40 years I would guess. When we moved to Boulder in early 2009 we were told the line was in progress and would be done by now...
- bproven 9y ago
  Yep - this is waaaay overdue. If Denver metro is serious this project should be completed in the next 5 years or less (hwy 36 Boulder to Westminster station then Union Station Denver; Boulder to Longmont on 119). Then get on building that train from Denver to Summit County and a Caltrain type setup from Fort Collins to at least CO Springs...maybe Pueblo. Except this time its ground up, so how about higher speeds...its not like we live in 2017 or something. I'm also going to say that for the most part we want mass transit but in America we build incomplete mass transit and then complain that it sucks. it also doesn't help that (with enough frequency) it is not on time, slower than driving, not maintained well, and dirty. Its for the poor people who can't afford a car! But again this is due to the fact that we treat it as a second class transportation option. We would need to commit to something like the "Interstate Highway System" if this sort of thing is going to work. That project is proof that it can happen and for the most part many people are glad it exists today. If we can build a national interstate system in 35 years we can certainly build a real mass transportation infrastructure. In other words it should not take 40 years to build a light rail from Boulder to Denver lol
23443463453 9y ago
So much rationalization and excuse making. Surprise, people don't like being forced on some institution's schedule, forced to ride with strangers without any kind of standards or code of conduct or even just personal safety measures, and they don't like paying essentially just as much as driving a car and they don't like it taking twice as long to get from point A to point B by going through points D, E, and T. It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information. Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect). Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
masterleep 9y ago
Because cars are far more convenient and a better solution than transit for most people.
- buxtehude 9y ago
  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.
- trumpownsyou420 9y ago
  Libturds hate him!
smelendez 9y ago
> 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.
- hockeybias 9y ago
  Good point
- denverresident 9y ago
  Can confirm that this is a problem. I live in cap hill, which is about two miles from work. If I miss the bus, I might as well walk. In practice I just call a lyft, you know, contributing to the problem.
  - chadgeidel 9y ago
    No offense, but have you considered a bicycle? Two miles wouldn't get you sweaty and temperatures are generally mild throughout the winter and summer. Obviously July/August aren't good times to ride in the afternoons. You can buy a lot of bicycle for the cost of a year of daily Lyft rides.
    - denverresident 9y ago
      I got doored recently; I'm taking a break.
      - sandworm101 9y ago
        I agree. There are so many people here promoting autodrive cars as a safer alternative to the dangers of driving. But riding a bike to work every day looks more dangerous than skydiving. I haven't met any cyclist who, after a few years commuting to work, hasn't had some sort of serious accident or injury. And not just with cars. A good friend of mine needed stitches after hitting a pedestrian.
joshuaheard 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - joshuaheard 9y ago
    Agreed, but Denver is not as dense as Manhattan. You also have to take into account that autonomous electric cars will be much smaller than regular cars (see the Google Gumdrop autonomous car), and traffic can flow at a much higher rate, since they don't need a following distance for human reaction times.
    - vorotato 9y ago
      that's not necessarily true, people will still like their large cars. Gas cars aren't big because they run on gas, because motorcycles run on gas and are very small. Also the cars would have to be smaller than motorcycles for them to reach the density of a bus at which point they will cease to be comfortable.
    - denverresident 9y ago
      People get large cars so they can drive around in large cars and use 1/5th the available space every other month. I don't think it's related to technology at all.
OtisS 9y ago
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.
wahsd 9y ago
So much rationalization and excuse making. Surprise, people don't like being forced on some institution's schedule, forced to ride with strangers without any kind of standards or code of conduct or even just personal safety measures, and they don't like paying essentially just as much as driving a car and they don't like it taking twice as long to get from point A to point B by going through points D, E, and T. It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information. Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect). Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.
PatientTrades 9y ago
> 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 9y ago
  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
cletus 9y ago
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 9y ago
  > 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.
- cattleprodigy 9y ago
  Yeah, I thought the cost of car ownership was under-explored in this article. If increasing public ridership is a goal then it might help to use sticks and not just carrots.
- chadgeidel 9y ago
  Streetsblog has extensively covered the Denver parking issue. https://denver.streetsblog.org/category/parking/ https://denver.streetsblog.org/category/parking/
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
  Well, it's not like public transit is not subsidized... people who commute with a car pay taxes, too.
hexis 9y ago
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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    I should probably have gone for time in transit rather than distance...
    - chadgeidel 9y ago
      It's about 45-55 minutes door-to-door in my experience. Doesn't really matter if I drive or ride.
julienchastang 9y ago
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).

30 points by gok 9y ago

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. :/

fatlasp 9y ago

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 9y ago
> our section of the rail to beyond 2040 Whoa, what's their explanation for it to take 23+ more years? That seems unreasonable.
- thescriptkiddie 9y ago
  Most likely lack of funds. They will collect taxes for ~20 years and then build it in the last ~3.
- samlevine 9y ago
  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.
- fatlasp 9y ago
  My understanding is that the original idea was to do a partnership / use BNSF rails (for some reasonably "small" fee [I think I heard $30-40 mil]) which were preexisting but then BNSF decided that the rail could only be used during certain time windows when it wouldn't effect their industrial traffic; OR RTD could pay something like $550 million. Not sure if the 23 years is to collect the tax for that cost or what.
mkempe 9y ago
Worse for Boulder: it was recently decided by RTD that after collecting $millions in taxes they would NOT build a rail connection.
- julienchastang 9y ago
  @mkempe Do you have a reference or link for this? Thanks.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    You'd have to look up the last couple of years in the Daily Camera. Basically RTD invested in buses for Boulder along the rebuilt US 36 (not even attempting to build a rail line); they announced there would not be enough money to complete a rail line to Longmont until 2044, even if using a direct South-North rail line that already exists and doesn't go near Boulder; and finally they confirmed failure/refusal to negotiate and pay to keep their option to run on the BNSF line to Boulder (BNSF upped the price beyond RTD's reach since then) -- so it is not happening for at least another 30-40 years I would guess. When we moved to Boulder in early 2009 we were told the line was in progress and would be done by now...
bproven 9y ago
Yep - this is waaaay overdue. If Denver metro is serious this project should be completed in the next 5 years or less (hwy 36 Boulder to Westminster station then Union Station Denver; Boulder to Longmont on 119). Then get on building that train from Denver to Summit County and a Caltrain type setup from Fort Collins to at least CO Springs...maybe Pueblo. Except this time its ground up, so how about higher speeds...its not like we live in 2017 or something. I'm also going to say that for the most part we want mass transit but in America we build incomplete mass transit and then complain that it sucks. it also doesn't help that (with enough frequency) it is not on time, slower than driving, not maintained well, and dirty. Its for the poor people who can't afford a car! But again this is due to the fact that we treat it as a second class transportation option. We would need to commit to something like the "Interstate Highway System" if this sort of thing is going to work. That project is proof that it can happen and for the most part many people are glad it exists today. If we can build a national interstate system in 35 years we can certainly build a real mass transportation infrastructure. In other words it should not take 40 years to build a light rail from Boulder to Denver lol

23443463453 9y ago

So much rationalization and excuse making. Surprise, people don't like being forced on some institution's schedule, forced to ride with strangers without any kind of standards or code of conduct or even just personal safety measures, and they don't like paying essentially just as much as driving a car and they don't like it taking twice as long to get from point A to point B by going through points D, E, and T. It's really not rocket science, yet the cult of public transportation that holds on to parameters and variables that made sense in the late 19th and early 20th century simply cannot seem to internalize new information. Whenever this issue comes up I feel like I'm in that scene in Idiocracy where the presidential cabinet's response is a circular logic of "plants crave Brawndo, because Brawndo has electrolytes, what plants crave" (or something to that effect). Surprise, people, sane people don't want things that are worse that an alternative that is better in many different ways.

masterleep 9y ago

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

buxtehude 9y ago
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.
trumpownsyou420 9y ago
Libturds hate him!

smelendez 9y ago

> 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.

hockeybias 9y ago
Good point
denverresident 9y ago
Can confirm that this is a problem. I live in cap hill, which is about two miles from work. If I miss the bus, I might as well walk. In practice I just call a lyft, you know, contributing to the problem.
- chadgeidel 9y ago
  No offense, but have you considered a bicycle? Two miles wouldn't get you sweaty and temperatures are generally mild throughout the winter and summer. Obviously July/August aren't good times to ride in the afternoons. You can buy a lot of bicycle for the cost of a year of daily Lyft rides.
  - denverresident 9y ago
    I got doored recently; I'm taking a break.
    - sandworm101 9y ago
      I agree. There are so many people here promoting autodrive cars as a safer alternative to the dangers of driving. But riding a bike to work every day looks more dangerous than skydiving. I haven't met any cyclist who, after a few years commuting to work, hasn't had some sort of serious accident or injury. And not just with cars. A good friend of mine needed stitches after hitting a pedestrian.

joshuaheard 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.
- joshuaheard 9y ago
  Agreed, but Denver is not as dense as Manhattan. You also have to take into account that autonomous electric cars will be much smaller than regular cars (see the Google Gumdrop autonomous car), and traffic can flow at a much higher rate, since they don't need a following distance for human reaction times.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    that's not necessarily true, people will still like their large cars. Gas cars aren't big because they run on gas, because motorcycles run on gas and are very small. Also the cars would have to be smaller than motorcycles for them to reach the density of a bus at which point they will cease to be comfortable.
  - denverresident 9y ago
    People get large cars so they can drive around in large cars and use 1/5th the available space every other month. I don't think it's related to technology at all.

OtisS 9y ago

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.

wahsd 9y ago

PatientTrades 9y ago

> 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 9y ago
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

cletus 9y ago

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 9y ago
> 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.
cattleprodigy 9y ago
Yeah, I thought the cost of car ownership was under-explored in this article. If increasing public ridership is a goal then it might help to use sticks and not just carrots.
chadgeidel 9y ago
Streetsblog has extensively covered the Denver parking issue. https://denver.streetsblog.org/category/parking/ https://denver.streetsblog.org/category/parking/
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
Well, it's not like public transit is not subsidized... people who commute with a car pay taxes, too.

hexis 9y ago

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 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  I should probably have gone for time in transit rather than distance...
  - chadgeidel 9y ago
    It's about 45-55 minutes door-to-door in my experience. Doesn't really matter if I drive or ride.

julienchastang 9y ago

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).