Car Free living in Denver (Aurora, Boulder: transplants, rent, insurance)

[livecontent]

[quote=yukon;1558635]livecontent, do you have any idea why RTD makes it so difficult for visitors to get route maps? When I lived in Dallas, all the transit centers had full system route maps and you could pick them up 7 days a week, a.m. to p.m. When I called RTD on my visit, they informed me I had to go to one of two transit offices, both downtown, during business hours or to an area library. Obviously this wasn't possible over the Labor Day WEEKEND, so I left with only a few maps that I found at my hotel (the internet PDF are harder to read than the full size folded maps). I found a couple of libraries and went by them, but both were still waiting for their display racks (and maps) to arrive from RTD.

I'm surprised they make it so hard to get information. You'd think they'd do as much as possible to make it easy for visitors and commuters, to encourage more ridership. IMHO, anyway.[/QUOTE

Sorry for not getting back to you, but I was unable to type as I have a recurring malady.

Yes, you are right, RTD makes it difficult to get these maps. I asked numerous times about this, and the answer I can get is that they are expensive. It use to cost a dollar to get one. But now it is free, available by mail and you can get a PDF copy online. Why do they restrict their outlets to Mon-Fri., and only at a few terminals?? This makes it difficult for people who really work and are not near these terminals. My feeling is that it is a large bureaucratic organization and not everything works as we like. I support RTD but sometimes @&#@*&^#

I find the PDF maps, and the downloaded schedules and maps, easier to use because they can be enlarged.

[danrlewis]

I just wanted to chime in that I've finally decided to make the move to Denver from Tampa, FL where it is near impossible (and incredibly dangerous on a bike) to commute without a car. I've lived in Dallas, NYC, as well as Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville in Florida. I'm sick of Florida. I don't want to drive a car if I should choose to. I love to bike and that's hard in Florida as well as in Dallas and NYC. Denver seems like the perfect fit, and I've always left it feeling homesick after visits. Can't wait! Great thread btw!

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by danrlewis

I just wanted to chime in that I've finally decided to make the move to Denver from Tampa, FL where it is near impossible (and incredibly dangerous on a bike) to commute without a car. I've lived in Dallas, NYC, as well as Orlando, Tampa, and Jacksonville in Florida. I'm sick of Florida. I don't want to drive a car if I should choose to. I love to bike and that's hard in Florida as well as in Dallas and NYC. Denver seems like the perfect fit, and I've always left it feeling homesick after visits. Can't wait! Great thread btw!

Glad to hear from a bicyclist. Denver is a top place for bicycling. There are paths everywhere. Near my house, I can enter, a path along Clear Creek and bike all the way east to the Platt River Greenway, from there I can go south to Chatfield Dam. If I go north on the Platt, I can go, far out into Adams County. Going West on Clear Creek, I can go to Golden, or go off on the Arvada Bike Path to west Arvada, HWY. 93 and beyond. I live near a reservoir that has biking paths and a new regional park is buing built. These are just the paths near my home---there are so many more.

The area is also expanding the bike trails--they are everywhere, from Boulder, Longmont, and Denver, all the Suburbs and all the mountain trails.

In addition, you can take your bike on most all buses and lightrail. Since Denver, is mostly flat, on the Great Plains, it is ideal for commuting and using a bike. Also, the weather is good for biking, all year.

I am writing from experience and have been on many trails and paths. Unfortunately, I suffered a severe illness that has incapacited me and just walking is sometimes very difficult.

Please come here. We need more people with your atitude. Good Luck!

[livecontent]

Kevin Flynn, a reporter, in The Rocky Mountain News has a series of stories about the building of the new West Light Rail Line to Lakewood, Walking the line The series is in mulitimedia and has text, videos and slideshows. It will give you a great look into neighborhoods on the west side.

Be sure to see the videos with each series; it shows the good and bad of Denver. A well rounded piece of journalism.


This is the link to the first part of the series:

Rocky Mountain News - Denver and Colorado's reliable source for breaking news, sports and entertainment


This is the link to the second part of the story:

Rocky Mountain News: Local (broken link)


This is the first line to start construction on the massive Fastrack project of RTD The Regional Transportation District Home Page which is a multimodal expansion of rail and buses in the metro area; this is the largest buildout of commuter rail in the nation.

FasTracks Home


Livecontent

[truepeacenik]

I live in Littleton, 1/4 mile from the downtown station, which is a bus/rail hub.
I walk to my main job and use RTD light rail and one bus for my second job.
Biking is not so possible for me now, but in the future, I expect to add it to the mix.
My sweetie has the car for his use.
I find that I can get to music, art, restaurants, ski areas, and most shopping/movies/parks easily.
It is a bit of a pain in teh cold waiting late night for trains and buses, but daytime and commuter routes are great.
Completely doable, and I use a laundromat as well.

[livecontent]

This is a link to a Denver Post Article in today's paper about a Brookings Institute report on Walkable Urban Places The Denver Post - Denver ranks fourth in "walkable places"

The full report is at Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas - Brookings Institution

The report list five areas in Denver Metro: Cherry Creek, LODO, Belmar, Downtown, Boulder.

Interesting that the report notes that "There Are an Equal Number of Walkable Urban Places in the Center Cities and the Suburbs" and that "Rail Transit Seems to Play a Significant Role in Catalyzing Walkable Urban Development".

So appears that the Denver Metro Area is walking down the right path.
(pun intended)

Livecontent

[Katiana]

I saw that on msn.com I intend to post it on some other city webpages also.

[MobyLL]

The study is interesting, but it has some major flaws -- here are a couple of quotes from the Denver Post article:

"The New York area had the highest number of walkable urban places in Leinberger's survey. Most of the 21 places he listed are neighborhoods in Manhattan.
But the Washington region, with 20 walkable places, outranked New York on a per-capita basis, and Leinberger says it could serve as a national model. It has one walkable place for every 264,000 //people."

"Leinberger attaches one major caveat to his report: The survey did not take into account the size of each walkable place. For example, midtown Manhattan is given the same weight as Reston Town Center, a lifestyle center outside Washington, even though the latter has only a tiny fraction of the office and retail space, residential units, and hotel rooms of midtown."

Basically the author of the study is just counting what he defines as a walkable urban place dividing it by the population of the area and voila here is a magic list of cities ranked by their walkability.

But the major flaw is not what Leinberger himself mentions -- that the places are not weighted according to the size or population of the "walkable place". A bigger flaw is simply how a "walkable urban place" is defined.

It is mentioned that the New York area has 21 walkable places. How do they come up with that number? Basically all of Manhattan, most of Brooklyn and the Bronx and western Queens is "walkable". Someone could just as easily divide NYC into hundreds of "walkable urban places" and it would come up number 1 on the list. Or someone could say all of NYC is one walkable urban place and therefore, if the authors methodology were used, the one walkable place divided by the population -- NYC would come out at or near the bottom of the list.

Pittnurse70 -- I think i saw a humorous post of yours somewhere about lying with statistics, i don't remember the specifics but this study is a good example of that. Any study that has Miami as being a more walkable city than NY is just wrong. Interesting but wrong.

I think Denver is making great strides (livecontent you're affecting us all) in becoming more pedestrian and transit friendly, but I really can't say that Denver is more "walkable" than Portland, Chicago, NYC, or Philly, all of which rank below Denver in this list.


Walkability rankings of metro areas
A Brookings Institution survey ranks the 30 biggest metropolitan areas according to the number of "walkable urban places" relative to the area's population:
1. Washington
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Denver
5. Portland, Ore.
6. Seattle
7. Chicago
8. Miami
9. Pittsburgh
10. New York
11. San Diego
12. Los Angeles
13. Philadelphia
14. Atlanta
15. Baltimore
16. St. Louis
17. Minneapolis
18. Detroit
19. Columbus, Ohio
20. Las Vegas
21. Houston
22. San Antonio
23. Kansas City, Mo.
24. Orlando, Fla.
25. Dallas
26. Phoenix
27. Sacramento, Calif.
28. Cincinnati
29. Cleveland
30. Tampa, Fla.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by MobyLL

The study is interesting, but it has some major flaws -- here are a couple of quotes from the Denver Post article:

"The New York area had the highest number of walkable urban places in Leinberger's survey. Most of the 21 places he listed are neighborhoods in Manhattan.
But the Washington region, with 20 walkable places, outranked New York on a per-capita basis, and Leinberger says it could serve as a national model. It has one walkable place for every 264,000 //people."

"Leinberger attaches one major caveat to his report: The survey did not take into account the size of each walkable place. For example, midtown Manhattan is given the same weight as Reston Town Center, a lifestyle center outside Washington, even though the latter has only a tiny fraction of the office and retail space, residential units, and hotel rooms of midtown."

Basically the author of the study is just counting what he defines as a walkable urban place dividing it by the population of the area and voila here is a magic list of cities ranked by their walkability.

But the major flaw is not what Leinberger himself mentions -- that the places are not weighted according to the size or population of the "walkable place". A bigger flaw is simply how a "walkable urban place" is defined.

It is mentioned that the New York area has 21 walkable places. How do they come up with that number? Basically all of Manhattan, most of Brooklyn and the Bronx and western Queens is "walkable". Someone could just as easily divide NYC into hundreds of "walkable urban places" and it would come up number 1 on the list. Or someone could say all of NYC is one walkable urban place and therefore, if the authors methodology were used, the one walkable place divided by the population -- NYC would come out at or near the bottom of the list.

Pittnurse70 -- I think i saw a humorous post of yours somewhere about lying with statistics, i don't remember the specifics but this study is a good example of that. Any study that has Miami as being a more walkable city than NY is just wrong. Interesting but wrong.

I think Denver is making great strides (livecontent you're affecting us all) in becoming more pedestrian and transit friendly, but I really can't say that Denver is more "walkable" than Portland, Chicago, NYC, or Philly, all of which rank below Denver in this list.


Walkability rankings of metro areas
A Brookings Institution survey ranks the 30 biggest metropolitan areas according to the number of "walkable urban places" relative to the area's population:
1. Washington
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Denver
5. Portland, Ore.
6. Seattle
7. Chicago
8. Miami
9. Pittsburgh
10. New York
11. San Diego
12. Los Angeles
13. Philadelphia
14. Atlanta
15. Baltimore
16. St. Louis
17. Minneapolis
18. Detroit
19. Columbus, Ohio
20. Las Vegas
21. Houston
22. San Antonio
23. Kansas City, Mo.
24. Orlando, Fla.
25. Dallas
26. Phoenix
27. Sacramento, Calif.
28. Cincinnati
29. Cleveland
30. Tampa, Fla.

You are so right, as usual. The study is flawed and badly put together. The ranking means nothing. Brookings Institute is just another think tank, many times a place for over-paid, over-degreed, under educated, no experienced scholars and this study is just another example of the nonsense.

It just is catering to the public needs and wants for lists and rankings.

It does put out the importance of walkable communities. I have lived and worked in NYC and I consider what you say is true, most of the city can be considered walkable.

There are also many other areas in Denver and the Suburbs that are very walkable and will be more so with an expansion of the mass transit system. (It takes a think tank scholar to come up with that idea}
We are still on the right track.(another pun)--I am just getting so good.

Livecontent

[Katiana]

LOL, MobyLL! When I took statistics in college, we had to read an article called "How to Lie with Statistics". I saw some of the methods of lying used in the "Places Rated Almanac". I guess I retained something from that course!