Downtown doesn’t have the infrastructure to support eliminating cars
Re: “Anti-car approach bad for downtown Denver businesses,” April 3 commentary
Having lived in Vienna, Austria, where there is a complex public transportation system and a very large pedestrian area void of all cars, I can agree completely with the authors Steve Weil and Jake Linzinmeir that eliminating parking and car access to the downtown areas will really affect the business and the arts within the central downtown of Denver.
In Vienna, you can catch a tram, bus or the underground within a few steps of the huge pedestrian mall. These modes of public transportation also run about every 5-7 minutes. Denver cannot approach this type of public transportation without enormous and disruptive investments.
I use the RTD for baseball games, but the rail runs every 30 minutes. So, I have to agree with the writers, Denver downtown will suffer greatly by banning or working to eliminate cars. As the population grows and the suburbs expand, downtown becomes more likely to suffer. Eliminating cars is not the solution.
Dennis C. Jackson, Broomfield
Speed cameras about safety or revenue?
Re: “More speed cameras and fines are coming,” April 2 news story
Why don’t CDOT and the other government entities involved in instigating traffic speed cameras just admit that this “solution” is mostly geared to raising revenue from Colorado (and other) citizens? It has been widely reported that when third-party contractors propose furnishing such systems at various governmental and committee meetings, much of the discussion focuses on financial projections for yields and revenue sharing.
Camera proponents who cite traffic accident frequency and deaths never seem to factor in such things as numbers of cars in traffic, disruptions from confusing construction lanes and barricades, miles driven, cell phone and integrated “car play” devices on board most new vehicles, or the like.
Sending out tickets to the 4,000 drivers who were pictured speeding in tests this March on rural Interstate 25 would evidently raise almost $300,000 in ticket revenue, but would we really be any safer?
Peter Ehrlich, Denver
Proposed legislation would keep dialysis patients connected to care
As someone who has been on dialysis for over two decades, I know that access to consistent, affordable care is not optional; itap life or death.
Kidney disease almost cost me my life. I spent over a month in the hospital when I was first diagnosed, and dialysis is what allowed me to rebuild my strength and survive. A previous kidney transplant eventually failed, and today I’m back on dialysis and at the top of Colorado’s transplant list.
Dialysis takes a massive physical and mental toll. Some days, simply getting through treatment feels like a full-time job.
Despite the challenges, I try to stay positive. After recovering, I was able to return to my music, a reminder that life doesn’t stop with a diagnosis. Still, keeping a regular work schedule is nearly impossible, which is why strong patient protections and coverage are so important.
Thatap why I’m grateful Colorado Reps. Jason Crow, Joe Neguse and Brittany Pettersen support the . This bipartisan legislation protects people with kidney disease from private insurance pushing dialysis patients off their plan prematurely. This bill ensures patients can keep their private health coverage for the full 30-month period, so they are medically and financially prepared. I urge Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and the rest of Colorado’s congressional delegation to also stand with dialysis patients by cosponsoring this important legislation.
Michael Peoples, Aurora
Seeking a refund for the loss of Denver7
Re: “Xfinity drops Denver7,” April 3 news story
Will Comcast reduce fees to customers due to the loss of programming that they paid for?
Robert Alter, Westminster
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
