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.
I have to say that the Southwest area is the most underserved mass transit area in the metro area.
There is NOT a way to travel from Ken Caryl to the Tech Center without at least one or two transfers. The route scheduler says that to get to the DTC by 7:00 am, one must leave by 5:15 am.
There is no good/viable Hampden bus. The Hampden Crosstown Route (35) originates at the Englewood Light Rail Station and goes east to the 9 Mile P&R. What about west of Englewood? A true "crosstown" route would go from the west to the east, not the middle to the east. The Yale Crosstown (27) travels from the Wadsworth P&R to DTC, but it takes 90 minutes to make the trip.
Right now Hampden is being expanded to 3 lanes each way from Wadsworth east. How about making the 3rd lane a bus lane? This would allow the buses to bypass the tie ups at the red lights at Lowell and Brady. This bus lane could run all the way to Monaco giving Hampden (one of the metro areas busiest thoroughfares) an effective BRT line.
Light Rail follows Santa Fe, but because of the way the city is laid out, there are not many residences west of the stations, only the Platte River and open space. The only way to use it if you live near Columbine/Ken Caryl is to get on a very slow bus to Mineral Station or drive your car 5 or more miles.
RTD will say that there are no routes because no one rides the bus, but no one rides the bus because it doesn't go anywhere useful. Meanwhile RTD is perfectly happy to ignore the area and take our tax money to subsidize other parts of the metro area.
Actually what you are talking about, is exactly the way RTD planed to do it back in the late 1970s. In 1978 when they implemented their grid system for bus routes. All the East-West routes ran from the West suburbs to the East. North-South routes ran from the North Suburbs all the way to the South.
The first problem was that the routes were too complicated, and it was hard for them to balance the service out. Usually one side of the city had higher demand for service then the other side. The second problem was reliability of service. For a bus to make a trip from Golden to Aurora Mall took almost two hours. By the time it got to Aurora Mall, there was about a 100% chance that it was running late.
RTD had to break most of the routes in half. So they ran only on one side of town. It worked, and service became more reliable. But then RTD started going crazy and breaking up routes into ridiculously small segments. They were creating totally unnecessary transfers, for no reason what so ever. Thats the way it got to be the mess it is now.
RTD is right though, in some parts of town, nobody does ride the bus. Your example of the 35 is a good example. When they opened the light rail to Littleton, and reinstated service on Hampden for the first time since the 1970s. I'm pretty sure that the 35 did run on West Hampden. I'm not sure how far out it ran, but I remember reading that they cut it back to Englewood a couple of years ago. Due to lack of ridership. So apparently not many people did ride it on the West side. Or at least not enough to fight to save it.
I rode buses in the Englewood area quite a bit back in the 1980s. So I can tell you what the problems is there. Yes the 35 is a way faster route then the 27. But the 27 services a much more populated area then the 35 does. So the 27 has more riders. But I agree RTD should do something to develop service along Hampden, and the other areas you mentioned. They don't do a very good job planing bus routes, that people can use.
Last time I checked light rail lines were all Route 101.
Route 101/Light Rail: Line C
Route 101/Light Rail: Line D
Route 101/Light Rail: Line E
Route 101/Light Rail: Line F
Route 101/Light Rail: Line H
I have an original RTD Light Rail schedule from when they first opened it. At that time having just one line with no letters, the schedule was just for Route 101. I never understood the reason for them printing it that way. Since they never displayed 101 on the destination signs.
As for the use on bus routes, I can see where they would need to number those for internal use. Just to avoid confusion. RTD has so over used letters for bus routes. Skyride Routes, Regional Routes, some shuttle bus routes and now Light Rail Lines. Then they had to re-letter some Regional Routes to avoid confusion with the Rail Lines. They could have made it so much more simple, if they had just used colors to designate rail lines, like most transit systems do.
Each route has a separate numeral designation for internal statistical and database use. You cannot easily do analysis with just a alpha descriptive term for a route. I have seen these designated numbers but since I have do not work for RTD, I do not have access to them and I do not remember the exact numbers for every route.
Not all light rail routes are denoted as route 101, obviously, that would not separate information in the data; if there was only one route in the past, an old document would say only one number--so the subsequent number are probably 101, 102 etc not 301 etc as I thought--so what? You are drawing assumption from an old schedule.
I can only imagine the amount of people in the Denver area, that have decided not to use the Rail System over the high cost of the fares. I have used transit most of my life even though I have always owned a vehicle. I would though if I lived in Denver, seriously consider not using the local system due to the high fares. Has Denver never considered the fact these fares are ridiculously high for nothing more that Light Rail. We are not talking a commuter rail system like the big Eastern cities, its only light rail. $9.00 tickets for a round trip. Really how many people that are not higher income. Or those riders not recieving a discount pass thru thier employer, could be spending that 5 days or more a week. A monthly pass would have to be well on its way to $200 a month to support that type of fare. Using the justification its cheaper than a car payment, insurance and gas would not justify that type of outrageous fare system that can only go up.
I see the Denver system only good for those that are receiving some sort of discount on their fares. I see many that simply could not afford these type fares especially a monthly pass. For the average person that gets no discount. I see them paying a very high fare that obviously will have to go up to keep this system operating.
Public transit is suppose to bring transit options to people at an affordable cost. Its definitely suppose to be taking some of the traffic off the fwy's. The Denver system I most definitely would think would force many to choose to drive. I think thats sad but that fact must be going on there, more than Denver would like to admit.
. . . Really how many people that are not higher income. Or those riders not recieving a discount pass thru thier employer, could be spending that 5 days or more a week. A monthly pass would have to be well on its way to $200 a month to support that type of fare. Using the justification its cheaper than a car payment, insurance and gas would not justify that type of outrageous fare system that can only go up.
I see the Denver system only good for those that are receiving some sort of discount on their fares. I see many that simply could not afford these type fares especially a monthly pass. For the average person that gets no discount. I see them paying a very high fare that obviously will have to go up to keep this system operating. . .
Individuals can buy monthly passes; they of course cost more than if an employer is subsidizing or providing them, but they do make rtd (including light rail) available at a more affordable price. There are discounted prices for students, seniors, disabled, etc.
RTD monthly passes (http://www.rtd-denver.com/MonthlyPass.shtml - broken link)
Quote:
Monthly Pass Prices
Type of Pass
Regular Price *Discount Price
Local/Limited $70.00 $35.00
Express $128.00 $64.00
Regional $164.00 $82.00
Active duty members of the U.S. military currently ride for free on all RTD services.
*Discount Fares apply to all seniors 65+, individuals with disabilities, Medicare recipients and students in elementary, middle and high school, ages 6-19. Proof of eligibility is required when boarding. For seniors or individuals with disabilities, a Special Discount Card may be obtained by calling 303.299.2667.
Local Monthly Pass is valid for unlimited rides on Local/Limited bus routes and travel between two adjacent light rail fare zones. This pass is worth a $2.00 credit toward a higher-valued fare for a regular fare and $1.00 for a discounted fare.
Express Monthly Pass is valid on Express bus routes and for travel between three adjacent light rail fare zones. This pass is worth a $3.50 credit toward a higher-valued fare for a regular fare and $1.75 for a discount fare.
Regional/skyRide Monthly Pass is valid on all Regional buses traveling between cities in RTD's service area, including skyRide service to Denver International Airport and all light rail fare zones.
I can only imagine the amount of people in the Denver area, that have decided not to use the Rail System over the high cost of the fares. I have used transit most of my life even though I have always owned a vehicle. I would though if I lived in Denver, seriously consider not using the local system due to the high fares. Has Denver never considered the fact these fares are ridiculously high for nothing more that Light Rail. We are not talking a commuter rail system like the big Eastern cities, its only light rail. $9.00 tickets for a round trip. Really how many people that are not higher income. Or those riders not recieving a discount pass thru thier employer, could be spending that 5 days or more a week. A monthly pass would have to be well on its way to $200 a month to support that type of fare. Using the justification its cheaper than a car payment, insurance and gas would not justify that type of outrageous fare system that can only go up.
I see the Denver system only good for those that are receiving some sort of discount on their fares. I see many that simply could not afford these type fares especially a monthly pass. For the average person that gets no discount. I see them paying a very high fare that obviously will have to go up to keep this system operating.
Public transit is suppose to bring transit options to people at an affordable cost. Its definitely suppose to be taking some of the traffic off the fwy's. The Denver system I most definitely would think would force many to choose to drive. I think thats sad but that fact must be going on there, more than Denver would like to admit.
You are making some assumptions that are not true. A full monthly regional pass, without discount, is $164--it is not $200. That would be necessary if a rider was to travel on 4 zones of the rail, which many do not.
The RTD fares are heavily discounted and subsidized with many programs, including for the elderly and the disabled. The fare cost is much less, if people use some of the discount purchasing http://www.rtd-denver.com/BusFares.shtml (broken link) Most people do not need to buy the highest cost discount regional pass or discount ticket book.
Most transit users, who make the right choices in life, and commute regularly, buy discounted passes. There are some people who do not make the right choices, and pay the full fare.
It really is the reality, no matter how cheap or free (and that has been done), many people will not get out of their car. I lived in NYC, the biggest and best transit system in this country. It is surprising to find that many people, in the City, do not use the transit, even it if is much cheaper and more convenient. I worked in Manhattan and I would constantly see people driving from Brooklyn and Queens; fighting the horrendous traffic over the bridges and paying unbelievable rates to park their cars; yet they could get to work faster and save much more money, by just taking the transit.
I am not talking about only the rich, many where the poor and middle class because that was their stupid choice and lifestyle. If it was free, they would still drive. Of course, that is why some where poor because they did not want to save for the future. At the same time, there were many wealthy that took public transit because that is how they got wealthy--by watching their expenses and they knew a bargain when they saw one. I worked for a Jewish Family, that could well afford chauffeured limousine service, and they took the train from their Resident Apartment building in Borough Park, in Brooklyn, which they fully owned.
Not all light rail routes are denoted as route 101, obviously, that would not separate information in the data; if there was only one route in the past, an old document would say only one number--so the subsequent number are probably 101, 102 etc not 301 etc as I thought--so what? You are drawing assumption from an old schedule.
Except that I wasn't drawing assumption from the old schedule. I simply provided that for historical context. The current information I posted for the C, D, E, F, H, lines I copied and pasted directly from RTD's light schedules. You can see it for yourself buy clicking on the link for each schedule.
Its pretty obvious that RTD runs all light service as one single route and timetable. It just makes sense. Trains need to be able to switch lines easily. An example: An inbound F train may very likely turn into an outbound D train. By your system, it would then be on a different route timetable, and would then have a different train number. Which would be a scheduling nightmare. By operating all the light rail service as one route on one timetable, they only need one set of train numbers.
Regardless all light rail service operates as Route 101. Thats not debatable. It's public information, per the link I posted above.
Last edited by KaaBoom; 07-25-2010 at 05:02 PM..
Reason: Spelling error.
Except that I wasn't drawing assumption from the old schedule. I simply provided that for historical context. The current information I posted for the C, D, E, F, H, lines I copied and pasted directly from RTD's light schedules. You can see it for yourself buy clicking on the link for each schedule.
Its pretty obvious that RTD runs all light service as one single route and timetable. It just makes sense. Trains need to be able to switch lines easily. An example: An inbound F train may very likely turn into an outbound D train. By your system, it would then be on a different route timetable, and would then have a different train number. Which would be a scheduling nightmare. By operating all the light rail service as one route on one timetable, they only need one set of train numbers.
Regardless all light rail service operates as Route 101. Thats not debatable. It's public information, per the link I posted above.
I stand corrected. You have provided the information that is posted on the website. I am sure I saw a chart designating each schedule as a separate route number. I have been to so many meetings and study groups over the years... Perhaps it was just preliminary data for study. Ah...I am at the age where I cannot remember 5 minutes ago.
I stand corrected. You have provided the information that is posted on the website. I am sure I saw a chart designating each schedule as a separate route number. I have been to so many meetings and study groups over the years... Perhaps it was just preliminary data for study. Ah...I am at the age where I cannot remember 5 minutes ago.
Thats very possible. I do think RTD probably had some plans to number the light rail lines, 101, 102, 103, etc. Most likely they abandoned that plan. Because they would have had to change too many bus route numbers, to free up the needed numbers. And that would have messed up the grid numbering system for local bus routes.
Which is why I don't understand why they even wasted their time with it. They should have just called them the Red, Orange, Green, Blue, and Purple Lines, like most transit systems do. And thats the way they display them on the maps anyway.
RTDs basic grid numbering system for local bus routes is perfect. But the lettering system for everything else, is just weird, and overly complicated.
Thanks for all the replies ... it has been an interesting discussion to read. I am coming out there this month, and will report my experiences. I'll probably ride the light rail and MallRide, but probably not a regular bus route.
In response to some of the posts concerning the extension of rail service to DIA, I'll give my perspective as a visitor. Though I am not automatically opposed to riding a bus in an area I am visiting, I am MUCH more likely to ride a train. Perhaps it is a perception of safety or comfort, the fact it is generally easier to haul luggage on a train than on a bus, or of the certainty of arrival time and travel time, or even that you KNOW where the train station is. Yes, I know bus stop generally don't move around, but if I ask a random person on the street where I pick up the "D" line vs. where I pick up the 16, I'm guessing I'll get a better answer about the D line. Maybe its not as much of an issue in this day of interactive, online maps, but a train system instills more confidence that I'll be able to easily find where I need to go. I've never set foot on a Washington DC public transit bus, but I rely on the Metro subway whenever I'm out there, even if there may be a bus that might actually be more convenient for a particular trip. It's so nice to be able to fly into Reagan National and hop on the subway to get within walking distance of so many different hotels and attractions, with perhaps one transfer and a five-minute wait. You can take MARC from BWI to Union Station, and soon, Dulles will be connected to Metro rail as well.
With regards to DIA, again from a visitor's perspective, I think a train connection to downtown would be fantastic. I actually looked into using the SkyRide to try and get me close to either a hotel or a rental car agency in order to avoid the ridiculous prices of rental cars at DIA, in part due to the concession fees, etc. At one point, I determined it would actually be much cheaper for two people to take the SkyRide into Denver, take a short cab ride to a rental car location (or use the SuperShuttle), rent a car for four days, and then do it all again in reverse, than to simply rent the same car at DIA. Thankfully, I eventually scored a great deal on a rental car at DIA (thank you Hotwire) that beat anything I could find off-site. Still, if my reasons for coming to Denver didn't take me out of the downtown or nearby areas, I would definitely ride a train from the airport and use light rail and perhaps some buses to get around. I'm actually curious how the rental car companies and their rates will fare once the train connection is made.
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.
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.
