Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,300,450 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
I don't doubt that solar has a lot of long-term potential, but it still faces very serious cost and technological issues. Decades of experience tell me that it won't progress as quickly as it proponents suggest. Forty years ago, the Pollyanna's were predicting the demise of the structurally inefficient internal combustion engine by 2000. Well, it's 2014 and there are a relative handful of non-internal combustion engine-powered cars on the road. Will the internal combustion engine become rare someday? Yes, in fact, it will have to--but that is still a long ways off. The same will be true of the electrical grid--it will change, but not near as fast as some people think that it will.
There are more than a "handful" of non-internal combustion engine cars out there, in the DENVER area anyway, and plenty of hybrids. Why my DH, one of the most conservative (when it comes to engineering, etc) guys out there, bought a hybrid and loves it. You can never predict the speed of change. The switch from horse/buggy to cars went pretty fast, once cars caught on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,259 posts, read 24,378,209 times
Reputation: 4395
Quote:
Originally Posted by livecontent View Post
You do not seem to understand that the improvement to transit and the environment is not going to move forward when all you think about is yourself. Building parking garages so you can have an convenience and the monopoly on a space is ridiculous and will be opposed by more sensible people. Many of us are now stopping the building of more and more parking consuming the land and that future is ours to take not yours to own. You think driving closer together and that is going to increase space, so more and more want to park in limited space. Oh, I see, we shrink them with some idea of your fanciful ideas of the future and fold them in an Einstein spacetime.

You seem to not understand that a driverless car is only not controlled by the passenger but it is be driven by a driver, whether it is a robot or human.

You need to live in NYC for a time and see all the driverless cars cruising the streets of Manhattan--many the ubiquitous yellow cabs; not stopping because there are few cab stands and very little parking. They cruise the dance of the city looking for fares, night and day, day and night; you hear the ever present droning, bleating, blaring, beeping calls of despair.

You ever wonder how those overpaid, pompous, blow dried talking heads of morning network shows get to work? Their networks contract with a driverless car fleets of towncars which take them there and take them back.

Oh, then we have those wealthy ones who can buy their own driverless car with the own robot (chauffeur) and of course they need not cruise because they can easily afford to buy a parking space that cost more than a house.

What is providential is that these cars will be so expensive that only those with more means will be able to purchase them and so many private ones will not exist. There will be the intelligent monied who will not see the need to buy their own, maintain their own and park their own in fewer available pricey spaces as the knickerbockers have found out.

With that idea, many more New Yorkers do not own cars and take public transit. They can easily afford the car but they cannot afford the space even if they can find it.

The future taxpayer is not going to pay for your selfish idea of a space always available for yourself. You will pay dearly but only if we allow you to own your magic carpet; drive your magic carpet and park your magic carpet in the future car free cities of the future--driverless or not.

Livecontent
Not a fair comparison as they are not driverless, their is a taxi driver and they are working. Plus parking garages for only driverless cars can be more compact as no one will be getting in and out so they will go in and park and leave so we can make them smaller and a lot less expensive then the ones we have today. Finally no one is suggesting that cities like NYC will lose its mass transit as they will still need it I am just talking about places like Colorado where the HSR or even train between Denver and Pueblo will most likely be less viable then it is today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 08:37 AM
 
459 posts, read 804,782 times
Reputation: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Driverless cars will drive close together so the capacity of the roads will go up dramatically. I have seen a video on it and its quite interesting.
I have seen numerous videos and articles on this as well (probably the same ones you did). Assuming perfect communication and the systems talk to each other they can minimize but not eliminate buffer space.

However combining that buffer space with the assumption they can allocate the cars to meet the number of passengers (IE one person driverless taxi) cars will still take up substantially more space per person than a train. Driverless cars do not change this.

Additionally how much throughput on the road is gained vs demand generated by the technological advances?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Everything else will change as well. At Bronco games now I park right next to the stadium in lot J so I don't have to walk far. In the future they can build a parking garage few blocks away and my SUV would drop me off in a staging area next to the stadium and go park till after the game then come pick me up and take me home. That would be much better then going to the train stop in Pueblo then going to Denver with stops along the way only to change and get another mass transit option to the game then finally walking a few blocks to the game.
Once again that parking offsite scenario after being dropped off at a staging area will double the number of cars on the road around mile high before and after the game. Cars go into staging area then to the parking garage before game, then cars go into staging area from the parking garage then leave with people after game. The roads even with the efficiency gains (speed, buffer) will not have the space to accommodate that especially combined with the number of people no longer taking the more space efficient public transit.

BTW who is paying for this parking garage? Because even at $100 a car with only a dozen or so events a year it still won't pay for the roughly 25k a year per space a parking garage space costs to build, finance, and maintain. Also where is this parking garage being built? A few blocks away in any direction is either gentrifying (N, W, E) or on the verge of a major project (S).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,259 posts, read 24,378,209 times
Reputation: 4395
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
I have seen numerous videos and articles on this as well (probably the same ones you did). Assuming perfect communication and the systems talk to each other they can minimize but not eliminate buffer space.

However combining that buffer space with the assumption they can allocate the cars to meet the number of passengers (IE one person driverless taxi) cars will still take up substantially more space per person than a train. Driverless cars do not change this.

Additionally how much throughput on the road is gained vs demand generated by the technological advances?



Once again that parking offsite scenario after being dropped off at a staging area will double the number of cars on the road around mile high before and after the game. Cars go into staging area then to the parking garage before game, then cars go into staging area from the parking garage then leave with people after game. The roads even with the efficiency gains (speed, buffer) will not have the space to accommodate that especially combined with the number of people no longer taking the more space efficient public transit.

BTW who is paying for this parking garage? Because even at $100 a car with only a dozen or so events a year it still won't pay for the roughly 25k a year per space a parking garage space costs to build, finance, and maintain. Also where is this parking garage being built? A few blocks away in any direction is either gentrifying (N, W, E) or on the verge of a major project (S).
The parking garage won't only be for Bronco games. I would have to sit down and figure it out and honestly i don't want to spend the time as its years if not decade or two off, Mercedes says they will have them by 2020. My point is if there is driverless cars I think more people would chose to use them over mass transit from Pueblo to Denver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Colorado
2,483 posts, read 4,355,384 times
Reputation: 2685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Solar panels are getting smaller and more efficient at a exponential rate. Plus we get more then enough energy from the sun to power our all needs. So it can and will be done cheaply in the next 20 years. I could be wrong on the mass transit part as that is not information technology. I am not wrong on the solar aspect as that is information technology. However I think both go hand in hand as I think more people would rather have their own car then rely on mass transit especially when the energy to run it becomes cheap.
You answered not one of my questions, which makes it sound like you're not listening and you have your mind made up. So should I just drop it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 09:20 AM
 
975 posts, read 1,318,497 times
Reputation: 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterprods View Post
You answered not one of my questions, which makes it sound like you're not listening and you have your mind made up. So should I just drop it?
You are assuming that he has the technical background to answer your questions. This is the same individual who equates solar technology with information technology instead of electrical technology.

Ask for an explanation and prepare for pain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 09:31 AM
 
459 posts, read 804,782 times
Reputation: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
The parking garage won't only be for Bronco games. I would have to sit down and figure it out and honestly i don't want to spend the time as its years if not decade or two off, Mercedes says they will have them by 2020. My point is if there is driverless cars I think more people would chose to use them over mass transit from Pueblo to Denver.
These are some of the economic and capacity (physical limitations) details that hinder the desirability of driverless cars. I am not sure how anyone can make a statement that driverless cars will be more desirable without being able to resolve those sorts of issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 10:02 AM
 
Location: 5280 above liquid
356 posts, read 621,323 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
These are some of the economic and capacity (physical limitations) details that hinder the desirability of driverless cars. I am not sure how anyone can make a statement that driverless cars will be more desirable without being able to resolve those sorts of issues.
I have a hard enough time trusting the "Parallel Park Assist" let alone a driverless car. Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 10:17 AM
 
5,089 posts, read 15,356,046 times
Reputation: 7017
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
Wtf?

...

Anyone else reading this? The future belongs to you no more than to anyone else.

People should not be forced to live in NYC. There are plenty of things they do wrong. Anyone who likes NYC is free to go there, but most people who don't live there do not have any desire to be part of that city.

Some cities do have ample roads, and cars work just fine there. Some people despise that those cities can work with a road system and would try desperately to tear it down because it is proof that alternative options can work. The best thing we can have, in my opinion, is a plethora options. Let us have diversity in our cities so each person can find something that works well for them. If every city was the same, there would be no options for the person that didn't like the one acceptable city format. That would be a bleak and pathetic future.

To be clear: The way NYC is designed will not work for cars. It won't work regardless of the presence or lack of presence from drivers, the city is simply far too compact in nature with too many people needing to move around for a car-primary system to work. In a city like New York, the most they could hope for was a system that allowed cars much better than the current system by focusing on providing more effective transit options. However, again, the city and subway were built with little knowledge about how massive the city would become so the framework is already in place.

Smaller cities and newer cities can be designed in a way that makes the car work as a viable option by having multiple "downtown" type areas so that the whole city is more spread out. Now granted, some urban planners will scream, "no, **** you, you can't have more land" but they are free to move away from the new larger city. They have absolutely no right to stop its existence. That's the real issue at play. A car based city requires more land. Many "urban planners" do not want people to have that freedom.

Re: Bronco Games. I used the light rail and was disappointed to see how expensive it was. I could have just parked near the game for a similar price because I was intelligent enough to come with 4 adults in the vehicle to split the costs. The benefits of taking the rail are much lower when you are already using your car responsibly.
I am not saying that people should move to NYC. I am only saying one can see an example of a city where we can see a future with more cars, more people and less space for parking.

If you review many of my previous posts, you will see that I firmly say that mass public cannot and should not view as the sole source of transit. The car is certainly an important and needed part of the transit modality. I view the car also as public transit because it uses the roads, highways and parking spaces which are funded by the public and without these roads, highways and parking, one could never leave the driveway. Even in NYC, the extensive mass transit does not totally serve the population without the use of the public transit option of the personal car.

I understand that the use of the personal transit car is more applicable and economical is many situations. Denver as all cities have difference throughout its area. As such cars are best suited for some areas and mass transit is a better means in other places. There are areas where the idea of expanding rail is ridiculous and there are areas where the use of cars is becoming unsustainable.

Of course there are difference between Denver and NYC but having more space in and around some cities, does not mean that we can expand at will. There is an extreme cost to expansion and maintenance of land space with the infrastructure to build and support these uses. In some area, even if the space is available, it is impossible to expand as the nature of the land will not support those perceived needs.

I am not a planner; I am not a mass transit expert; I am just a resident of the area for 35 years but I am a ex New Yorker. Because I believe is helping my State and my City, I have been actively involved to make it better.

Your example of the better use of your car vs. mass transit is a myopic view. The cost of using your car also includes the cost of the infrastructure needed to support your personal transit of the highway and the cost to the environment of using and also manufacturing your sole use machine. If we look at the total cost to all of us, then your cost for your driving and sole ownership is more. That is why mass transit, a more sustainable and efficient use of resources that serves the many, is better for our future than the sole auto transit that serves the few.

I am saying that we, that is the those who are working to make the future better for our descendents, will take the the future and make it better. We will push hard against those who only think of themselves and their selfish wants who think that they have a personal ownership of today and tomorrow--it belongs to all of us and especially of those yet to come; we must preserve and protect their right and their future needs.

Livecontent

Last edited by livecontent; 03-04-2014 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 10:17 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 29,387,272 times
Reputation: 9305
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
^There's a couple of differences that make the Utah/Colorado comparison difficult. One is that Utah didn't have to build as much trackage as what would be required to to connect Fort Collins to Pueblo decreasing the capital cost. The other big one is the lack of ROW through the south metro area. In Salt Lake City there was a nice bit ROW that UTA was able to purchase from UP that didn't hinder UP's operations, than kind of luxury doesn't exist in the south metro area.

Commuter rail will probably be running from Fort Collins to Denver by 2030 or so given that the ROW is either secured or readily available for purchase as BNSF isn't demanding an outrageous sum. But punching it through to Colorado Spring will take a lot longer as UP/BNSF will not give up their consolidated tracks w/o some serious upfront money.

Can't say anything about Colorado's constitutional fiscal limitations except that there's a reason that no other state has adopted them: the end result is a non-functioning state.
Utah was smart in recognizing that it could existing rail rights-of-way for much of its commuter rail. The biggest impediment to that in Colorado is, as you note, the lack of track capacity between Denver and Crews (Crews is just south of Colorado Springs). The big bottleneck is between Palmer Lake and Crews. That could be solved by building a second track from Palmer Lake to Crews and a third track from Denver to Palmer Lake. Both would be feasible along the existing rights-of-way, but would not be cheap. They still would cost a tiny fraction of what building another lane onto I-25 would cost. Unlike Colorado, even ultra-conservative Utah figured out that a public investment in a workable commuter rail system would pay huge economic dividends in the long run.

And your last sentence says a whole lot of why Colorado is headed down the toilet over the long term. It's faced with an expanding population with no long-term fiscal possibility of being able to adequately expand its infrastructure. Worse yet, it continues to socialize growth costs on the existing residents, while allowing the land developers to walk away with all the profits. That upcoming "train wreck"--excuse the pun--is a major reason that I left Colorado. The Good Ship Lollypop Colorado has already run into the iceberg and is going to sink. I and a few other Coloradans have figured that out, but most haven't and will go down with the ship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top