Re: “Transit advocates push $4.2 billion plan<\/a>,” March 26 news story<\/p>\n Having been involved in transportation projects most of my architectural career, I have had the opportunity to experience public transportation throughout the world. I believe that makes me qualified to criticize the conclusion that ridership will improve if frequency of service improves.<\/p>\n That is just throwing good money down the drain.<\/p>\n If something does not work, it can’t be solved by doing more of it. Ridership is down because nobody is riding! Ridership doesn’t improve when the length of the trip is so much longer than driving. And because urban sprawl is ubiquitous, it is impossible for bus and rail transit to serve the countless destinations throughout the metro area conveniently.<\/p>\n Transit in Denver worked better when downtown workers were back in the office, but with remote work, there are just not enough employees going downtown. And ridership in the suburbs has never increased because it is impossible to get every trip close to the rider’s final destination.<\/p>\n The other problem is parking costs. Until parking becomes more difficult and more costly, transit will be viewed as the last choice.<\/p>\n Lastly, transit is perceived to be unsafe. Whether this is perception or reality, RTD must improve its reputation as a safe alternative. COVID-19 did not help because the public became adverse to crowded spaces, and transit has not overcome this problem.<\/p>\n The bottom line is that ridership won’t improve simply by increasing frequency. If nobody is riding, having more frequent empty buses is not solving anything.<\/p>\n Richard von Luhrte, Denver<\/em><\/p>\n As a citizen advocating for livable streets, I am concerned that Denver is rushing to eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide. The city’s so-called “Modernizing Parking Requirements<\/a>” plan is framed as a win for affordability and sustainability, but the fine print tells a different story.<\/p>\n The city’s background report\u00a0relies heavily on selective data and glowing anecdotes from other cities\u00a0while overlooking the real community impacts, including\u00a0overflow parking in neighborhoods, reduced accessibility for working families and seniors, and the potential for developer abuse. It assumes that developers will “do the right thing” without parking mandates. But when was the last time that happened without strong community protections?<\/p>\n This change applies even in areas with little or no reliable transit — yet the city dismisses concerns about car-dependent households. Meanwhile, the plan leans on “market-based” solutions, putting profits over people.<\/p>\n I’m not against growth. I support smart, balanced development. But that must include safeguards to ensure residents aren’t left circling the block for parking — or left behind entirely.<\/p>\n Let’s build a Denver that works for\u00a0everyone. Don’t\u00a0eliminate minimum parking requirements solely\u00a0to make life easier for developers.<\/p>\nDon’t eliminate developers’ parking requirements<\/h4>\n