Is Denver a Great City?

[steveco.]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

Many cities had better mass transit in the 20s than they do today b/c fewer people had cars then. Pittsburgh is one example. For the last 75 yrs people have been in their single-occupant cars. Hopefully, we're moving a bit in the other direction.

Yes. In fact for the majority of people mass transit was the only way to get around. This is why you see newer cities such as phoenix so suburbanized. They were invented during the height of the commuting age when people didn't need to live so close to the city center where most of the jobs and shopping was located in other, more established older cities. And I think that with the all of the investment into the mass transit we are seeing developers come in and develop in areas inside the city instead of looking mainly to the outer edges of the metro area. You can see what I am talking about over at the old gates factory site.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

I almost brought up National City Lines myself, figgered that no one wanted to hear my old rant on that topic.

For those who haven't heard of NCL, here's the gist of it. After WW-2, many cities got into a wave of "contracting out" city functions to "save money," the validity of that concept still being in doubt, to me. At war's end, much of our nation's railroad and tracked transit was worn out by the huge beating inflicted by the massive workloads of WW-2, not to mention 12 years of financial starvation during the Great Depression, and public funding of roads.

NCL notoriously underbid all the firms bidding to take over the trolley systems and operate them on behalf of the cities. First thing NCL did was tear out the tracks, burn the trolley cars and switch to buses. NCL was a phony firm, a front for General Motors, Firestone Tire and Standard Oil. Guess what 3 firms provided the buses, tires and fuel? Yes, they got caught by the early 1950's, fined a pittance, and that was it.

Other factors involved are that President Eisenhower (Ike), the famed WW-2 Supreme Allied Commander, was a big believer in motor transport, having seen it's value during wartime. So he and his pals dreampt up the interstate highway system, and had it publicly funded. Chief planner of the highway system was a senior VP of General Motors who came to work for Ike's administration. Imagine that. Eventually a phrase got coined: "What's good for GM is good for America." These days, I don't care if GM goes broke, and they can take Firestone (and their deadly Firestone 500 and Wilderness XT tires) with them.

So here we are in 2007, dependent on the auto. For 75+ years we've used taxpayer money to build roads, while starving our railroads who must raise all their capital funds via equity markets or borrowing, earn a profit and pay it all back as interest or dividends. The imbalance in public policy is so huge that no one seems to see it. Except for those like myself who spent a lifetime in the transportation business.

I'll end this history lesson / rant by clobbering G.W.Bush for giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy. He said they would know what to do with it, that they'd open factories. Sure they did. Intel just opened a billion dollar chip factory. In Vietnam. Intel just shut their plant in COL SPGS. Thank you George W. If we had put the bulk of that trillion dollars into mass transit, nuclear, wind & solar power, and electric cars, we could be a lot closer to energy independence. Denver would be a lot easier to traverse and nearer to greatness. It's truly depressing to see the opportunities squandered these past 7-8 years as the oil & auto lobbies have run rampant over us - again.

Except for the last paragraph, I pretty much agree with all of what you say, Mike. (Pres. Bush is certainly not the only President to be "run" by the auto and highway lobbies). As to some other posts about Denver's trolley system not being comparable to today's mass transit--why SHOULD people have to have an automobile to get around a city? If the ascent of the auto laid waste to the trolley system, why should not the rebirth of a "neighborhood" based transit system curtail or end our reliance on automobiles for day-to-day commuting tasks? Are we so brainwashed by three-quarters of a century of automobile dominance that the average Joe or Jane can't even conceive such a concept?

Want to read a good book? Go check out "Asphalt Nation." It does a pretty good job of explaining how America got into its current sorry state of transportation gridlock and sprawl.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Except for the last paragraph, I pretty much agree with all of what you say, Mike. (Pres. Bush is certainly not the only President to be "run" by the auto and highway lobbies). As to some other posts about Denver's trolley system not being comparable to today's mass transit--why SHOULD people have to have an automobile to get around a city? If the ascent of the auto laid waste to the trolley system, why should not the rebirth of a "neighborhood" based transit system curtail or end our reliance on automobiles for day-to-day commuting tasks? Are we so brainwashed by three-quarters of a century of automobile dominance that the average Joe or Jane can't even conceive such a concept?

Want to read a good book? Go check out "Asphalt Nation." It does a pretty good job of explaining how America got into its current sorry state of transportation gridlock and sprawl.

You know that I am one of the biggest supporter of mass transit, and I do what I preach--I use it frequently, I do agree that public mass transit systems can fulfill the needs of people of getting around the city--as long as that city is planned or rebuilt to accomplish that objective. The city would have to be concentrated in housing, employment, government services, entertainment and shopping---that would be a Transit Oriented Community (TOD) and that is what Denver is doing in many areas. I think in the future all cities will be able to ban cars in the core part of the cities.

A number of years ago, I got escorted out of a meeting that was making a decision to put a government office for services to the public. This type of office required the public to go to the office to get help for services. However, it was on no bus line. I made the issue, very loudly, that an office of this type has to be accessible to all people--whether they drive or not. It appeared that they really did not want the poor (no cars) to have access to their services. I told them what I thought and the security escorted me out of the building.

The issue is still today. We need to mandate by law that all public funded buildings, offices, recreation centers, libraries, etc., that the public frequently visit or have a need to visit, have sufficient public transit options, in place, for people who do not drive.

Do you ever look and see where many of the social services agencies, social security office, unemployment offices are located???

How about the Apex Center in Arvada, on West 72nd. This is the largest recreation center in the state--where is is located??? on no regular bus route. Do not tell me about the Call n' Ride, I know that--because I complained to get that included. They are saying we do not want "those" people in our center. I am getting mad.

There are many other issues of planning and transportation discrimination--but we are talking about how Great everything is--well this Grates on me.

Livecontent

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Except for the last paragraph, I pretty much agree with all of what you say, Mike. (Pres. Bush is certainly not the only President to be "run" by the auto and highway lobbies). As to some other posts about Denver's trolley system not being comparable to today's mass transit--why SHOULD people have to have an automobile to get around a city? If the ascent of the auto laid waste to the trolley system, why should not the rebirth of a "neighborhood" based transit system curtail or end our reliance on automobiles for day-to-day commuting tasks? Are we so brainwashed by three-quarters of a century of automobile dominance that the average Joe or Jane can't even conceive such a concept?

Want to read a good book? Go check out "Asphalt Nation." It does a pretty good job of explaining how America got into its current sorry state of transportation gridlock and sprawl.

i can agree with this. it is unfortunate there is such a stigma against public transport in many people's minds (more so in some less transit oriented populations), and that communities are now organized in ways that might make especially accessible rail, e.g., harder to achieve than otherwise mnight have been the case. big hurdles to overcome in some places, but i doubt insurmountable. imagine if some of what tax payers spend on *other things* these days were pointed to some of this, education, etc.. joe and jane just might warm up to some things once they see how nice it can be to put their resources (time and money) to other uses (not their gas bills, not dealing with everyone else's driving habits and exhaust and rush hour)...

[MobyLL]

Good responses. I appreciate how everyone is giving their opinion with reasons behind them, without this just devoving into a Denver sucks, Denver is paradise type thing. Valid criticisms... I guess I take the more optimistic view of the future that the Denver area is planning for the future growth of the area through fastracks at a time where (in my opinion) the area is still managable. I think many people/leaders in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix wish they had made the choices Denver has recently made back 20 or 30 years ago when the populations of those cities are what Denver's is now.

What makes Denver great to one person, makes it horrible to someone else and vice-versa. Each person has their own opinion and it is valid for that person. The main reason I started this thread is too hear varying opinions without it being filtered through an "experts" lens.

On a side, but related, note, ran across an interesting article today. The underpinnings of the argument made are a little fragile I think, but an interesting read nonetheless:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...quare-footage/

[suzco]

Talk about one step forward, two steps back. From the Boulder Daily Camera, a recent column by Sylvia Pettem about the history of Denver-Boulder transportation. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...rains-thrived/

A century ago, when automobiles were a novelty and large passenger trains steamed through downtown Boulder, forward-thinking transportation planners opened an electrically powered commuter rail line between Boulder and Denver. The Boulder-Denver Interurban, as the line was called, started service in 1908 and ran uninterrupted for 18 years. This FasTracks-concept may be considered revolutionary today, but in our city's past it was the only way to go.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by MobyLL

Good responses. I appreciate how everyone is giving their opinion with reasons behind them, without this just devoving into a Denver sucks, Denver is paradise type thing. Valid criticisms... I guess I take the more optimistic view of the future that the Denver area is planning for the future growth of the area through fastracks at a time where (in my opinion) the area is still managable. I think many people/leaders in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix wish they had made the choices Denver has recently made back 20 or 30 years ago when the populations of those cities are what Denver's is now.

What makes Denver great to one person, makes it horrible to someone else and vice-versa. Each person has their own opinion and it is valid for that person. The main reason I started this thread is too hear varying opinions without it being filtered through an "experts" lens.

On a side, but related, note, ran across an interesting article today. The underpinnings of the argument made are a little fragile I think, but an interesting read nonetheless:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...quare-footage/

i am not sure fastracks will be able to be as comprehensive as it could have been pre-"denver proper's now outnumbered 5 to 1 by it's suburbs". it's an effort, and hopefully (to me) the snowball will continue rolling. and hopefully it doesn't just serve to exurbanize the area further (now that it's already a sprawling, somewhat decentralized metro area), while challenging the city proper (which has plenty of redeeming qualities and potential).

Originally Posted by suzco

Talk about one step forward, two steps back. From the Boulder Daily Camera, a recent column by Sylvia Pettem about the history of Denver-Boulder transportation. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...rains-thrived/

"revolutionary"? yeah



thought this might be interesting:
http://promo.realestate.yahoo.com/am...te_cities.html

[summerlin lady]

What are the best cities to live near Denver. Have 4 small children, need good schools, low crime. Not really expensive, I heard Louisville is rated the best place to live? How far is that from Denver?

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by summerlin lady

What are the best cities to live near Denver. Have 4 small children, need good schools, low crime. Not really expensive, I heard Louisville is rated the best place to live? How far is that from Denver?

Roughly 25 miles.