IntenseDebate - Zane Selvans

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Eric Budd: Occupancy l... · 1 reply · +2 points

Or they can change the law, and then they can afford to live here.

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Delays spark backlash ... · 4 replies · -13 points

The thing is, this isn't some kind of novel experiment. It's been done hundreds of times on streets in dozens of cities all across the country. Go check out the report linked to in the article about the 37 times this kind of treatment has been used in Austin, Texas. We have every reason to think, based both on the experiences of other cities, and the modeling that was done of these corridors, that congestion impacts, even in the peak hours of use, will be very modest. The beginning of the Austin report has a really good explanation of why -- the limiting capacity in corridors like this isn't the number of lanes mid-block (which we've changed), it's turning movements at intersections, which we very specifically decided not to change -- we left the double-left turn lanes in on Folsom, and made a similar recommendation (which was adopted) for Iris at Broadway. And on 63rd, there's little doubt that the road is overbuilt by a large margin. There are no expected travel time impacts there at all. We're collecting data to see if the actual impacts match expectations, but the expectations aren't some wild ass guess. As far as we can tell, it's entirely reasonable (from a technical policy point of view) to go ahead with installing the other corridors.

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Delays spark backlash ... · 8 replies · -9 points

Anybody who wants to see what the "before" data looks like, can check out the July TAB packet, agenda item 4, which is available online here: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Agend... The dataset will be updated as the project progresses, but a single week's worth of data is not going to tell us anything about how this actually impacts traffic in the corridor. That will take months. Understanding how the lane reallocation affects crashes and bike usage in the corridor will take longer, because those data are noisier -- crashes are (relatively) infrequent, so knowing whether any variation we see is statistically significant will take a while (unless the change is gigantic). Bike usage also varies year to year on Folsom, meaning unless it really spikes (and it has in some other cities) it might be a while until we understand the real impact on ridership. I'm sure there'll be new data in this month's TAB packet, which should be out soon.

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Delays spark backlash ... · 2 replies · -11 points

Plenty of "before" data was collected, and published. It's available in last month's TAB packet here: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Agend... The data that DK is declining to share is the last week's worth, since Folsom was changed, because we don't have enough data to really know what the impact of the new street cross section is yet.

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Residents of Boulder\'... · 1 reply · -4 points

Unpriced short-term on-street parking within easy walking distance of a thriving downtown? Commuter permits in the same area that cost a small fraction of the $200/month that a private garage spot fetches (which is close to it's true cost, by the way)? Why do people think parking is (or should be) immune from everyday economics? Also, the $17 you pay annually for a resident permit is a tiny fraction of the cost to the public of creating and maintaining an on-street parking spot (which is closer to $250/yr, ignoring the value of the real-estate it's using). In fact that fee doesn't even cover one car's worth of the cost of administering a neighborhood parking permit district. http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/parking-lo...

8 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - From the Editorial Adv... · 0 replies · +1 points

There's an environmental stewardship angle here, but I don't think it's the main one. Adding parking and inviting additional traffic in a place like downtown doesn't work logistically. The place just can't be served effectively by mass driving as it continues to develop. It won't be a place for drivers in the long run, and that's fine. Vacancy rates are close to zero, rents are high, and the business community down there is thriving -- and those businesses that really do depend on easy driving access should relocate. There are plenty of others that will be happy to take their place. And in the process, we can make the area even better for those who choose not to drive. And everyone but Spence and Mara really should read this Sightline blog post series that makes Don Shoup's work easily digestible: http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/parking-lo...

9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Mike Ryder: U.S. 36 an... · 1 reply · -4 points

It's just one additional lane in each direction (the managed lanes) and we were never promised light rail -- NW Rail is heavy commuter rail, on the BNSF right of way (not along US36).

9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Audrey DeBarros: More ... · 2 replies · +3 points

Here's a table of the sales tax revenues collected for RTD by the various US 36 corridor communities, over the last decade. There's a 0.6% RTD tax, and then FasTracks is another 0.4% on top of that. Throughout the entire corridor, FasTracks revenues were approximately $27 million in 2014, of which roughly 1/3 came from the city of Boulder:
http://zaneselvans.org/dropbox/RTD_SalesTax_Reven...

9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Steve Fenberg, New Era... · 2 replies · -11 points

Wooooooo! About time Steve ran for something. Looking forward to bringing down the average age of the state legislature.

9 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder considers expa... · 1 reply · -10 points

Only if you're thinking of Manhattan... circa 1830.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Zane Selvans

People I'm following

Zane Selvans