Thursday Night Notes: Fake Trolleys and Blown Up Ridership Estimates

These articles are from a few days ago but I wanted to clear my tabs and get some opinions.

Ogden is going to spend some money on buses that they hope will stimulate streetcar ridership. While I've been impressed with the Broadway Shuttle in Oakland that recently started running given the short headways and fast access to Specialties bakery and Bakesale Betty from City Center, I have to wonder if people honestly think they are going to get a real estimate from these faux trolleys. (Calling them trolleys is a whole other can of worms I could get into in another post) It's understandable to want to know what is going to happen and spending less money to do it. But I'm convinced that given the completely different experience, you're almost dooming any streetcar to death by running the fake trolleys, especially if the headways are limited. Would like to hear more on this from others though.
~~~
I know we have to make ridership estimates for capital projects. Until recently ridership estimates made or broke your ability to build projects. So color me annoyed that Denver finally gets around to updating the regional land use estimates that boost ridership for the Fastracks plan. Should we think this estimate is correct? No. Ridership estimates will always be horrific when done using software built for estimating auto trips. Should Denver have gotten more federal money for the program? Yes. Given they are already underwater paying for it, why didn't they try to fix this earlier and get more than 20% from the Feds? Were they just lazy?

Regions that are doing these massive projects like LA, Seattle, Denver, Houston, and Salt Lake City should get more help from the feds. They have a plan and are moving forward with it. It's likely that these types of network expansions that make up the Transit Space Race will give more bang for the buck than one off single line expansions.
~~~
Here's an interesting article sent in by reader David. I'm always amazed at the different issues that places like Vancouver are dealing with than the majority of the United States in terms of ridership and development pressure along transit lines.
~~~
Finally, there are tons of academic journals out there. They make you pay for their products and don't really care if only a few academics read them. But there's always interesting things to be found. Here are some links to Elsivier journals with a barrel of research on transport issues you all might care about. If you're RSS junkies like me, put them in your reader.

Can One Development Catalyze a District?

And is it right to be developing once vital industrial land? It's a question that often comes up that I don't quite know the answer to. Here in Oakland many properties in West Oakland have been deemed off limits to commercial or residential development. Many council members want to preserve the industries that provide much needed jobs and an economic boost.

In Denver, there are developers who are looking to revitalize the South Broadway area around the Evans station that is primarily industrial. Much of the project is a mixed use redevelopment on six acres that was once a superfund site. The developer is a single developer which also begs the question of how a market gets started. Once he proves that the area is changed and continues to build more and more projects, other folks will follow suit. But ultimately the developer is the one who will boom or go bust.

I find this interesting because everyone is always looking for the next big neighborhood or district. In the past improvements have been predicated on good bones. The gridded street network already exists and a light rail station is already near by. But at the moment the market isn't there. Could it be a single developer who creates a market? Or are markets organic and ultimately unpredictable. I guess we'll find out.

Wednesday Night Notes

Steve Patterson discusses the passing of an influential figure in city planning's past who often advocated for widening streets and euclidean zoning.
~~~
There's been an interesting discussion going on about industry clusters. I wish I had more time to write about them. The interesting thing is that these clusters don't necessarily have to be urban. Rural clusters such as wind farms in Texas and wine making in Sonoma show lots of promise in raising wages while other clusters such as Tech are looking to intensify to provide amenities on par with what urban workers are looking for. I hope others tackle this subject because I'd like to see some opinions on the cluster's effect on urbanism and urbanization in these rural areas.
~~~
A pretty cool spread on the future of Denver. via Denver Infill Blog
~~~
Happy Birthday Streetsblog.net. Here's to next year!
~~~
I've also started tweeting more article links. Follow @theoverheadwire or visit the bottom right of the blog for more links.

Infrastructure Spending

There's an article in the New York Times that discusses the lack of major infrastructure projects around the country funded by the Federal Government. For the most part it seems as if major infrastructure projects are having to go at it alone locally.

Another approach is to finance new projects several notches smaller in cost and boldness — and in contribution to economic growth. Denver and Salt Lake City, for example, are extending light rail and bus lines into the outlying suburbs, at a cost of less than $5 billion apiece.

The Federal Government is a limited partner in these investments. For example while the Feds pay 90% of freeway expansion, more recent experience for these transit projects shows there is only a 50% match, and in more recent new starts reports that has been sliding down. Denver for example is asking for less than 40%.

With federal funds dwindling it also begs the question, if the Federal Government is not going to give regions funding for projects, why are regions sending the federal government any gas tax money? Sometimes it seems like a fairly inefficient funnel. Ultimately the MPO is the acting federal government at a regional level where there usually is no real governance. Since regions are the economic engines for the country, it makes a little sense but the federal government has too much power to tell regions what they can and can't spend money on.

But the benefits of having the federal funding mechanism dialed into the region is during a severe downturn. Ultimately that funnel can become a spigot pushing projects faster than they would normally go by providing jobs. In thinking about it this way, perhaps something they can do to help places like Denver or Salt Lake City is take over the capital funding for already under construction projects and allow those cities to use their existing capital money for operations or other projects. There are plenty of places that already have transit networks that could get pushed up if there were a guaranteed capital outlay.

I don't quite understand why the large goal oriented projects have stopped or are at least slowed. My only guess is that things have become so politicized and the no taxes groups have taken over the political landscape, making everyone else afraid to make a decision without getting hammered politically. Ultimately there needs to be a way to pay for needed infrastructure improvements, even outside of a crisis.

Match Points

Every place in the country wants to spend more money on infrastructure but none of them have it. Los Angeles and Denver want to pay for their transit systems and Governor Goodhair in Texas wants more roads but doesn't want anyone to pay. No new taxes!...? But isn't a toll a tax? All arrows point to the federal government but they aren't budging any time soon. What gives? Always money.

What I also don't get is why Denver isn't asking for a full New Starts contribution for its Fastracks money match. They need as much and even more than they are asking for, 39% and 28% for two corridors. Why can't they ask for 50% of each? Roads get 80%! I don't get it! They need the money to complete the project.

Los Angeles on the other hand is going looking for more. $9 Billion and soon. Mayor V says LA should get money because they are putting up their own, but isn't Denver putting up its own? Isn't Houston putting up its own? It's Salt Lake putting up its own?

“What we’re saying to them is we’re one of the few cities coming in with our own money,” Villaraigosa said in an interview yesterday. “You figure it out.”

Perhaps he has those other cities in mind. Cities are living up to their end of the deal and more. With the feds giving out money, many have struggled to criticize, feeling like they might get the spigot cut off. Well right now there isn't a spigot at all, so its probably time to start railing on the folks in Washington to get moving already. Apparently Peter DeFazio has already started. Get rid of the clowns that are advising Obama or at least shut Summers up and get some infrastructure spending going. LA is putting up their end, Denver is putting up their end. Metro Regions keep getting the shaft, give them a hand and create some jobs already!

When Road Engineers Do LRT

I mentioned in a previous post that I don't believe freeways are places for stations. I stand by that remark and worry that here in the United States, we're worried so much about the lowest cost we don't really care about the outcome on ridership, as long as it hits a target for cost effectiveness (the FTA kind) that makes us marginally happy.

Unfortunately using this cost index we're not maximizing our opportunities when we decided that the freeway is the place to be all the time outside of the CBD. I don't disagree with folks like Jarrett when they say that rapid transit has its best opportunities to run fast in the freeway. But at the same time, there are similar opportunities to leave the freeway ROW when it comes time to have a station and connect the places that people ultimately want to go, and the parcels that should be redeveloped into walkable districts.

I believe a perfect example of this is the Denver Tech Center. When they designed the T Rex project, why didn't they go forward with the option that would have allowed direct access to the center of the employment district? I imagine it was perceived cost compared to running time. It didn't matter that its where people wanted to go, when the train was moving it was running fast, so stopping on the other side of the freeway was a better option for the ridership modelers and the engineers designing the road.

It doesn't look like anyone was thinking of people when they designed the interchange. I'm sure they are happy with the way the light rail and freeway interchanges look and operate, but unfortunately the engineers did nothing for people riding the train to work in the second largest employment center in the Denver region. Now the line is on the other side of the freeway, away from the largest market forces in the area and not available to change the parking lots over because of the continued utility of the car. In the cold of winter people get to walk over an overpass above a bunch of cars driving at 65 miles per hour.

The map below shows a routing that would have been very easy to build in my mind and not cost much more money. You could have surface stops and a few cut and cover tunnels would be needed but nothing huge. It likely would have brought over time a jump in tens of thousands of riders over the long term. Simple ideas like this is why I don't like the idea of freeway running. It gives designers a free out when it comes to designing for people instead of cars. The map below also shows where the videos below that I took came from.


View Denver Tech Center in a larger map

Video 1



Video 2




I also still believe that its possible to have fairly rapid transit on arterial streets, we just need to do it right. Sometimes such as in Charlotte you get lucky with a freight ROW that runs parallel to a major arterial and a major freeway. In this instance, you have the best opportunities. But for the most part, major highways don't lend themselves to going places where people want to go on foot. While it might seem like a nice compromise, I think that we're selling ourselves short if we continue to build stops in the center of the freeway.

And ultimately in the United States where we don't seem to know how to design rapid transit, its perhaps best to keep it away from the freeway all together, especially if this mistake will continue to be made where it seems cost is more important ultimately than connecting major employment districts directly.

Initial Take Aways from the 2010 New Starts Report

Once a year Santa Transit comes and brings us the New Starts report (Warning 12mb) which lets us know which cities have been naughty or nice (err qualified for federal help building transit). The 2010 version came out this Friday and there were two places that caught my eye, Austin and Denver.

Austin

It looks like Austin has screwed itself yet again, this time by applying for federal funding to build rapid bus along the best corridor for light rail in the city. So if you live there don't expect anything that goes where lots of people go outside of downtown or riverside for perhaps another generation. I'm disappointed in it myself and it's getting harder to find a reason for me to ever move back. As bad as it is here in San Francisco (and it's pretty bad by international standards), it's way better than Austin, which for all its progressive action can't seem to shake the state off its back or get rid of the leaders at Cap Metro who are just begging for the transit agency to be dissolved. The bad PR is adding up. Just like the Oakland Airport Connector study by Transform, they call this street running bus BRT. Please stop. Either that or name it what it is, bus repackaged transit.

These lines look familiar?

Looks sorta like a certain transit plan we had in New Starts in 2001.


Denver

For a region who's been under the gun for spiking Fastracks costs they aren't doing themselves any favors asking for 39% and 28% for the Airport and Gold Line corridors. With Congressman Oberstar looking for modal parity, making highways and transit always pay the same share, it seems like only asking for this much match is silly. Now this might have something to do with the fact that you can only have one project at a time and currently they are funding the West corridor. Yet Houston has two corridors in currently which could get funding. Places like Utah have even made deals to get multiple lines funded. They shouldn't have to go at it mostly alone, just like the federal highways system, these lines are of utmost importance to regional productivity. It seems like they should get thier due as well.

Finally...

It's also funny how the new starts report never seems up to date even when it comes out. With Sunrail "not quite dead yet" and the Silver Line III tunnel dead things seem to be decided pretty fast. In any event, I'm sure I'll have more things to talk about with this report but just wanted to share my initial reactions.

Pre Easter Linkfest

Here's a few links from the wide world of transit:

In Denver, the Daily Camera posed a question about the possible Fastrax expansion tax hike to fill the funding gap for all the lines. There were a few interesting nuggets in some ranting. Most of all though, they aren't really seeing the one possible solution to this mess, shifting money from roads to transit. Here's one from an anti growth guy who doesn't quite get that growth happens whether you like it or not, but he makes an interesting point about paying for your impact.

The fundamental reason we need more transit and more roads is growth. And the fundamental reason that taxes keep going up and service levels keep going down is the failure of the majority of the Legislature to impose impact fees on new development to pay for growth-related infrastructure. Why don't they impose such fees? It's simple - these fees cut into the profits of developers and land speculators, and they are big contributors. In this pro-development political environment, transit doesn't solve problems; it just encourages more development but in different places.

The commenters also leave much to be desired. This is one reason why we need to stand up to the likes of O'Toole, because his crap gets distributed through article comments like this.
~~~
Could inadequate transit cost Tampa?
~~~
California State cuts to transit are killing local agencies. It makes them look for more funding and look like the bad guys in all of this. Adequate blame should be announced in some way or another.
~~~
No more stepping into the street for a streetcar in Toronto.
~~~
Trains jammed for Arizona Diamondback games. Also, it seems to me that because sports fans are going to be perpetually confused about transit TVMs, why not just allow tickets to be POP.

Metro estimated that 5,000 to 6,000 fans used the trains for their trip to and from Chase Field on Monday. The process repeated itself, but in smaller numbers, Tuesday and Wednesday.

~~~
A two station solution for the transbay terminal CAHSR issue?
~~~
More cuts, Boston.
~~~
Hippocrite, thy name is Tim Pawlenty. Remember when he vetoed funding for expanding Twin Cities transit? Now it's all cool when Joe Biden sez.

Preserving Affordable Housing Near Transit

In a recent report, my day job with the National Housing Trust looked at the number of expiring section 8 and 202 units near fixed guideway transit stations in 8 cities. In these cities, 63% (65,000) of the units that are located within a half mile of the station will have their section 8 and section 202 housing contracts expire in 2012.

This is only eight cities with rail transit but when you think about the mobility that transit allows for people who already have a hard time, it's an even bigger deal when it disappears. A recent Center for Housing Policy report found that low and moderate income families spend as much or more on transportation than they spend on housing. So you can see why it would be important to preserve housing such as this near transit stations in order to give folks more opportunities than they would have if they lived on the periphery. There should be a concerted effort to preserve these affordable units near transit.

So imagine my hope rising when the MacAurthur Foundation along with Enterprise Community Partners pledged $3.5 million dollars to fund new and preserve affordable housing units in the Denver region near transit corridors.

ULC — a nonprofit group affiliated with the Denver Foundation that buys, preserves and develops urban real estate — is expected to be the sole borrower of the fund, and will be responsible for buying property for the TOD housing and partnering with local companies for site redevelopment.

For the TOD housing project, the ULC will target three types of properties — existing, federally assisted rental housing; unsubsidized rental properties; and properties that currently are vacant or used for commercial purposes that have desirable locations for new affordable housing.

This is a way to get out in front of the market. If used intelligently, much of the money could be used for landbanking along future transit corridors then provided to affordable housing developers who could never get in on the market later on. I hope this is replicated in other cities soon.

On Locking Grids

Given many cities don't have grids anymore, I find it interesting that gridlock is still in the lexicon, specifically because if we did have a grid system, its likely there would be less lock. And to my current point in the last post about congestion and its endless war, I think the editors of the Rocky Mountain News have it wrong that the whole purpose in life of transportation funding should be to keep travel speeds at current levels through increased road and transit capacity. That's hardly a laudable goal given the number of people that will likely live in Denver in 20 years and how much more VMT that would mean, more than likely wiping out reductions in emissions.

It's not only FasTracks that is short of funding, after all. Revenue for the upkeep, improvement and expansion of metro roads and highways is also far below what would be needed to preserve today's travel speeds over the next 20 years. Unless lawmakers and civic leaders think FasTracks alone can prevent future gridlock - a naive hope for reasons we'll explain - they should make sure that any future ballot issue includes more than a FasTracks bailout.

I think there should be money for maintenance and repair, but beyond that, Fastracks is just a regional commuter system. There needs to be funding for local circulation and greater frequency that will help spur denser walkable neighborhoods. Don't get all scared at density either Denver. Maybe it means a few granny flats or maybe it means high rises. Depends on the neighborhood.

Sand Traps

In and around San Francisco, there are places where LRVs stop and you'll see lots of sand. For a while I wondered where it came from until I talked to some folks who told me that every LRV has a sandbox under the seats behind the wheels to gain traction going up hills and on rainy days. Today in the Rocky Mountain News. One of the LRT mechanics discussed the sandbox:

It's for traction, but it's pure, high-grade sand, not salt or chemicals, according to a reader who's a mechanic on light-rail cars. "When the propulsion system detects either sliding while braking or spinning while powering, sand is dropped to increase traction between the wheels and the rails," the reader wrote.

You can see the sand on the ground here in the photo below. It's the best one I could find. (Note to self, take better pictures of the little details)

Where's the Housing Action?

On the blue line in Charlotte.

Development in the Charlotte region has slowed for sure, but real estate analysts say persistent developers are still making things happen.

Look no farther than the Lynx Blue Line, where the Charlotte Apartment Report says 10 communities totaling nearly 3,000 apartments are in various stages of development along the tracks paralleling South Boulevard.

This along with similar reports in Phoenix and Denver has been telling us what everyone needs to hear. If you want a strong region, there needs to be a range of opportunities for people to live. I feel like part of the reason for this continued construction on housing near transit is not only that its strong in a storm, but rather there is a lot of catching up to do in order to provide the actual product that people want. The market is so saturated with the same dreck, the pendulum swing is going to be long and hard. I hope it goes far to the other side, but I'm not holding my breath.

Things Getting Heated in Denver

United we stand, divided we fall. Worried about how to pay for all the corridors, Mayors in Denver are worried that their city will get cut out and lines will drop off the list.

When RTD consultant Julie Skeen started to explain the assumption was simply for purposes of doing the analysis and didn't reflect the RTD staff's position on how the money should be divided, Tauer cut her off.

"Would you please let me finish because we don't trust you," he said. "This is about how we are going to cut up the pie." Denver Public Works Manager Bill Vidal urged the group to focus on finding a way to complete all the corridors. "Every time we talk like this it just ends up dividing us," he said.

New Poll: Worst Rail Project in Planning

Thanks for all the input. It seems like we have a few projects that are pretty bad. Again I'm not going to let you choose more than one. You have to choose what you think is the worst. So here are the contestants based on feedback. I added in two specifically nefarious BRT projects as well.

BART to San Jose
NJ Access to the Regions Core
LIRR East Side Access Project
San Francisco Central Subway
Montreal Train de l'est
LA Gold Line to Montclair
Toronto Spadina Extension
NY Subway 7 Line Extension
Metro to Dulles (Silver Line)
MBTA BRT Silver Line Phase 3
US 36 Denver BRT
Miami Metrorail North
Anacostia Streetcar

So those are the list. Usual week for voting applies. Vote for Other if there is a project not listed.

Expanding or Contracting?

Two articles in two separate Denver papers paint somewhat different pictures of what is going on with the Fastracks program. One discusses the exponential cost increases that have occured on the Northwest rail line. The usual libertarians are given a voice are calling for the line to be cancelled because in their view it was a worthless investment anyway. Losing out on direct transportation from the center of cities is not a proposition the proponents want to consider, since they had hoped to develop centers around the stations, something the opponents don't think is important. It shows thier true colors really. They don't believe that climate change is a problem and they don't really believe in the true conservative idea of saving infrastructure money by building centers instead of furthe sprawl.

Instead, Calongne says, the debate centers less on transportation and more on lost opportunities for development near rail stations. "If there's no train, then a train won't go through downtown Louisville or the south part of Westminster," she said. "That's what this is about." Officials agree that's a big part of the push for rail. "

FasTracks allows all of us to develop our urban centers," said Louisville Mayor Chuck Sisk. "Transit-oriented development keeps our population densities in the core areas," he said. "We made choices not to expand and grow our population outward, and this transit piece is the important part of growing and developing our cities."

But then there is the other article from the Denver Post. It states that the cost projections are all messed up by the global economic slowdown. Sure sales taxes have taken a hit, but so have commodity prices.

Pointing to the volatility of some commodity prices, Heimowitz presented a chart showing the price of steel (using an index cost of 100 for January 2001 as the base) bouncing from 252 last year to a high of 507 in June before tumbling to 384 in September, 257 in October and 144 on Nov. 14. "People were completely apoplectic about the price of steel four months ago," Heimowitz said, "and here we are, it's a whole other world."

If it continues this way, it could be a real boost to the program and lower construction costs, especially since fuel costs are down. And a stimulus boost would probably help even more, getting these projects moving faster. So what will happen? It would be nice to say that things will continue to go down, but we know that is bad for the overall economy. Perhaps some simple balance of the two would be best. But for now, we'll have to wait and see the true effect.

Friday Night Linkfest

Siemens will hire 200 workers in Sacramento to build light rail cars.
~~~~~~~
Strip malls offer an opportunity to change our development paradigm. The Oregonian:

Strip malls offer a particularly keen opportunity. Look past the big box stores, Nelson said, and you have large, flat, well-drained, developable space linked to existing infrastructure. Broad rights-of-way allow easy access. There is space enough to bring in tracks for light-rail trains or streetcars. They are perfect for much denser, mixed-use developments in which people can live, work, shop and eat, he said.

~~~~~~~

Ask Barack Obama to focus on smart transportation investments. T4America.
~~~~~~~

No light rail? Empty commercial space. Denver Post:

New office buildings opening in southeast Denver are leasing well as long as they're next to a light-rail stop. Developer John Madden's Palazzo Verdi, which has direct access to the light-rail line, is 100 percent leased to Ciber and Newmont Mining. The building opens next week.

But Shea Properties' Maroon V, which does not have direct access to light rail, is sitting vacant. The building opened before Shea's Village Center Station, which is under construction along the rail line and is fully leased. Wireless-service provider Cricket and Shea will occupy the building.

~~~~~~~
Follow the Yellow Brick Railroad for Fort Knox.

~~~~~~~
The question should be: Do you really want to speed up traffic?

Friday Night Linkage

Time to figure out which route is best for the Southwest Corridor in Minneapolis.
~~~
Pelosi for HSR. Major firepower will make sure that this project gets its federal funding in the next congress.
~~~
A Streetcar for Middletown Connecticut?
~~~
Is a DDOT Streetcar ever going to get built?
~~~
More on Denver's property increases near light rail:

As I've mentioned previously, many of the people that I've talked with on my trip have mentioned that transit is not good where they are, and it's a deciding factor not just in what neighborhood they move to, but what city they move to. We don't have any data yet on the West Corridor, but anecdotally, I have seen a lot of competition for properties on the west corridor. We lost a bid on a property that was listed for around $100,000, even though we bid $25,000 over the list price.

Property Near Light Rail Weathers the Storm

While housing values around the country are falling, there has been anecdotal evidence of value near rapid transit staying high or even going up. Now we have empirical evidence in Denver that this is true:

Homes near light-rail stations along the southeast line, which opened in November 2006, have increased by an average of nearly 4 percent over the past two years, according to an analysis by Your Castle Real Estate. But the rest of the Denver market declined an average of 7.5 percent.

"I know that it's always been a good neighborhood, but I didn't think it was like that," said Humphrey, who doesn't drive and frequently uses public transportation.

The closer a home is to the station, the more its value increases, according to the Your Castle analysis. Homes less than a half-mile from a station increased an average of 17.6 percent, while those 1 1/2 to 2 miles away increased just 0.1 percent on average. The data varied widely among stations, however.

17.6% is no slouching in this economy. I'd love to see the study in more detail, but the initial findings reported look very promising.

Friday Night Linkage

Peter at SF Bike Blog points out the shameful state of bike lanes compared to other green cities.
~~~
To me, when McCain's economist says we should invest in infrastructure "wisely", especially after talking about Dulles, he really means that like Ma Peters, he thinks investing in bikes and transit is silly. He also uses the phrase "performance and accountability in our taxpayer dollars". If we continue to measure performance like they do, the New York Subway and Metro are worthless investments.

H/T Greater Greater Washington via Grist
~~~
Options are available for cutting down the cost of the Fastracks program, especially the sections to Boulder. I'm hoping that the stimulus package includes money for them to finish.
~~~
Senators are standing up to the transit cuts that would happen if AIG and others go back on thier deals with transit agencies.
~~~
Purple Line leaders formed a coalition to be more effective at getting federal funding, or as its known these days, beating your fellow Americans for the scraps.

State legislators from Montgomery and Prince George's counties announced the formation of the Purple Line Legislative Caucus Thursday in order to make a stronger case for federal funding of the proposed light rail or bus line.

~~~
Surprise Surprise!!! The Seattle Times columnist says vote No on Light Rail in Seattle. I hope it passes big time under the big blue wave.

Space Race Update: Denver's Whiners

I like the Fastracks program. What it has done is lead the way for other regions to start thinking about how transit is being built in this country, usually one line at a time over many years. But now that the budget has gone up a few times, a lot of people are freaking out, mostly the people that didn't want the project in the first place, like the Rocky Mountain News. Part of the problem is that they never saw the importance of the project, but another part is that they are stuck in the car oriented world of roads are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

An editorial at the Rocky Mountain News this weekend states that Fastracks should be pared down in order to deal with the cost, which sounds reasonable when you think about it, until you read what they feel like should be the priority instead.

Some of those new revenues could come from whatever tax plan for transportation emerges from the legislature in the coming years. But transit should be far behind highway and bridge construction as a priority for state transportation planners. There simply isn't enough new revenue likely to materialize.

Because new highway construction to make the problem Fastracks is trying to help solve worse is a great idea. Look, for over 60 years in Denver, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on road infrastructure just like everywhere else. I don't see why making even a $10 billion investment in transit is such a big deal.

I do think RTD is doing the best it can with a bad situation created by the people that love roads anyways. It's not their fault that costs have skyrocketed because of issues outside of their immediate control, but to say that because of the cost, this type of project shouldn't be completed is wrong headed and short sighted. In fact, if the money for expanding (not fixing) freeways in the state was shifted to transit to complete the project, they would get done faster and help direct growth more intelligently sooner. The funds used on expansion would have just allowed people to sent more of their money to foreign oil companies and increase VMT.

There was a poster who replied to the editorial saying he was tired of North Denver getting the shaft when it came to funding allocations. The favored quarter of the Southeast is getting a lot of the investment and the northern end is paying for a lot of it, yet there is a lot going on in the Northwest as well.

I can see where the corridor gets even more congested between Boulder and Denver as population fills in the gap between the two cities. The need for an alternative development strategy is great and its not going to happen with BRT going down the center of a huge freeway, contrary to what people think. I have a lot of problems with the southeast corridor light rail because it was run down the side of the freeway. Many of the stations including those in the area of the tech center are not able to help the district turn into a more walkable pattern because the stations are on the other side of the freeway. The line should have shot through the center of the building density, not around it.

But I digress. We should be measuring mobility projects on whether they can get us out of the hole we have dug. The Denver projects move the region in that direction and the locals will have to step up and push against the road building interests of newspapers and the status quo.