Denver Traffic; 3rd Worst in the USA? (Holly: home, quality of life)

[CareFreeAZ]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

I actually think it's every ten years. Mine expires in 2012, at which point I will NOT be 65! I know I have renewed a few times since I moved here in 1980.

The age 65 deal was for Arizona. I have not moved to Colorado yet and should have clarified better that my current license is still in the state of Arizona.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by CareFreeAZ

The age 65 deal was for Arizona. I have not moved to Colorado yet and should have clarified better that my current license is still in the state of Arizona.

I was thinking that after I posted. Sorry for any confusion. I don't know all the rules here. You get one license at 16, I think another at 18, then a different one at 21, as I recall from my kids. The law has changed several times. My kids are only three years apart, and it changed between the two of them getting their licenses.

When I lived in Illinois, they randomly selected people in line to take the written test again when renewing. I had to do it once. I passed, thankfully. I think that is a good idea. Too many of us, myself included, just cruise along (no pun intended) and sometimes forget the finer points of the rules of the road, including some of the things hello-world mentioned, like how to accelerate, decelerate, use the lanes, etc.

[Winter01]

The only time I find the traffic to be really bad is when it snows (even a tiny bit). It has taken me over an hour to get from Castle Rock to the Tech Center in bad weather. Ordinarily it is about 20 - 30 minutes even at peak rush hour times...........this is nothing compared to when I lived in Southern CA. I think it is a matter of perspective and what you are used to. I really do not think the traffic is bad here at all and the completion of TREX and recent expansion of some of our major arteries has really helped a lot. The metro area actually seems very well planned out compared to a lot of major cities I have lived in our visited.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Winter01

The only time I find the traffic to be really bad is when it snows (even a tiny bit). It has taken me over an hour to get from Castle Rock to the Tech Center in bad weather. Ordinarily it is about 20 - 30 minutes even at peak rush hour times...........this is nothing compared to when I lived in Southern CA.

I fear what you are writing is true. Hopefully this next winter will be a little mellower than last winter.

Normally from my home near Monument to Schriever AFB is 50 minutes. On 12/21 during that killer blizzard - three hours to get home. Very frightening.

I think these snow delay minutes aren't that common. Even so, the minutes they waste several times per year are a lot less than the cumulative daily minutes wasted in SoCal traffic.

[awarren09]

During rush hour a drive from arvada to aurora which generally takes 30 min with no traffic can take almost 90 min in traffic. And if you removed the 405 and the 101 Los Angeles traffic wouldn't be that much worse than Denver's.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by awarren09

During rush hour a drive from arvada to aurora which generally takes 30 min with no traffic can take almost 90 min in traffic. And if you removed the 405 and the 101 Los Angeles traffic wouldn't be that much worse than Denver's.

How much time have you spent commuting in SoCal?

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by awarren09

During rush hour a drive from arvada to aurora which generally takes 30 min with no traffic can take almost 90 min in traffic. And if you removed the 405 and the 101 Los Angeles traffic wouldn't be that much worse than Denver's.

Though I can't argue that a terrible traffic day can wreck an Arvada to Aurora trip, I respectfully disagree with your ultimate statement.

I spent almost two hours one night trying to get from La Brea to North Hollywood. I somehow doubt not having the 101 would have improved that trip at all, and a large portion of it was on surface streets. I have had similar experiences trying to get from Hollywood to Santa Monica, almost exclusively on surface streets.

I have yet to experience quite that kind of traffic in Denver, and have spent a good portion of time trying to traverse Colfax, Broadway and Colorado.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by downtownnola

I thought this article was interesting...

http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20866792/ (broken link) (broken link)

No surprise... almost every major California city made the top of the list for the worst traffic. It's also interesting that Denver's traffic is worse than some larger cities like Phoenix, Detroit, Philadelphia and Boston...

IRT the OP, yes, it is interesting that given this data table Denver is the 21st largest MSA yet by someone else's measure it has the 12th worst traffic. Not good.

It's hard for me to separate the twin issues of transportation and energy, they are not severable. As two sides of the same coin, the word "coin" is indeed a relevant analogy as both sides of this coin are expensive propositions.

My perspective on Denver traffic, going forward, is that we have few choices from which to select:
1. Do nothing (almost always option one for any management).
2. Build mostly highways / freeways.
3. Build mostly Fast Tracks light rail and bus transit.

My choice is #3, with minimal road spending to maintain existing lanes and to eliminate unsafe intersections and interchanges.

My rationale is based on a view that we'll be out of oil someday, but just how soon is a matter of contentious debate. I do favor saving as much oil as we can for the sake of truly long term needs (100-1000 years) for petroleum-based lubricants and chemical feedstocks. Let's not burn it all up during the next 25 years in an orgy of gas-guzzling-madness (though that might be a good horror movie -- if we can get Stephen King to his keyboard...where is Rod Serling when we need him....).

Part and parcel of #3 is tight land use and zoning, with more density along commuting and transit corridors. Family size has steadily fallen, it seems our future will see fewer 5BR/3.5ba homes. I think this trend has existed for some time, as properties that are close-in to major metro areas are priced higher than more-distant properties. I lived 25 miles west of DC, and for every mile closer to DC, the same house was $10k more; yes, per mile. My $300k home in western Fairfax County, VA had the same size, age and amenities as $500k homes in Arlington, VA, 20 miles closer to DC. That's $10k per mile, and proves the old canard: "Location Location Location."

If you hate traffic; if you hate the expense of gas, tags, tires, insurance, repairs; if you hate long, unfriendly commutes; if you hate sending your money to OPEC; then VOTE for light rail and support those candidates who feel the same way. I sure do and sure will.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

3. Build mostly Fast Tracks light rail and bus transit.

My choice is #3, with minimal road spending to maintain existing lanes and to eliminate unsafe intersections and interchanges.

They've been trying that for the that 2-3 decades in LA and the traffic has only gotten worse.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

They've been trying that for the that 2-3 decades in LA and the traffic has only gotten worse.

But, have they really made a major effort to overlay a rail system on that mess? IIRC, there is a very small effort to put in place one or two lines, but not a major system with 200-300 miles of rail transit. DC began about 40 years ago to build a 100+ miles system, which is now in place, and without it that city would be unbearable today. The DC Metro handles about 600k riders per day and is a marvel for the utility it provides at minimal space and with virtually no pollutions.