DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Ever the optimist. I'll remind you, they had to fight for three story buildings at the Arvada "TOD."

Yeah, TOD was a bit of a stretch and even the 3-story in that location qualifies as more density - at this time.

I've always thought the Gold Line made the least sense though, especially beyond Olde Town. It might take a few years for the locals to acclimate to the benefit of stronger density but I suspect it will happen. There is a TOD in the works at Pecos Junction.

No, it won't happen over time. It's not changing now - we're suburbanizing our land use just as quickly as ever. Possibly more so as folks get priced out. The last mile problem certainly doesn't get easier as you move farther out... Which is why mode share regionally isn't changing much. "Driving less" is not the same as taking other modes. It's largely folks just forgoing a trip altogether. I text my friend instead of visiting them; I buy on Amazon rather than running to Best Buy; and so on.

Not sure of your reference to "suburbanizing" but there's plenty of opportunity for both. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

Consider the West line; if one good company, say an aerospace or defense contractor would decide to move to the Federal Center and want half a million square feet for R&D/office space, that area could blow up nicely. I could see much of the stretch along Wadsworth between Belmar and the light rail station adding density over time.

Regatta Plaza redevelopment at Nine Mile Station should be nice and dense. There's good potential at the Colfax Station and the Peoria Station for dense development. And of course Stapleton. Just to name a few.

I don't doubt there will be more suburban development. Lots of land out by DIA and the Aurora Reservoir etc. That doesn't mean there won't also be increasing demand for living closer in along one of the transit lines. If you're going to add a million more people to Denver's population they'll have to go somewhere.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Consider the West line; if one good company, say an aerospace or defense contractor would decide to move to the Federal Center and want half a million square feet for R&D/office space, that area could blow up nicely.

And that would serve what riders, exactly? Reverse commuters? People driving to an intermediate station who want to take a train to a suburban office (where parking will no doubt be plentiful), and likely shuttle to their office?

1/2 mile, that's what you get. Walkability on both ends, or else you don't have workable transit. You're saying the right things, but with an incomplete picture. It's why we have not a single successful example of TOD in Denver.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I could see much of the stretch along Wadsworth between Belmar and the light rail station adding density over time.

And anything south of ~10th Avenue will still not be remotely walkable to transit. So folks will drive. Go ahead and densify Wadsworth, you'll have LA style density, and LA style traffic. (Which I am fine with, but let's not kid ourselves that we are creating anything that's not auto dependent.)

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Regatta Plaza redevelopment at Nine Mile Station should be nice and dense.

No, it is not.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's good potential at the Colfax Station and the Peoria Station for dense development. And of course Stapleton. Just to name a few.

Colfax, no. A line that doesn't go anywhere without a transfer is not a line anybody but transit dependent populations will use. Forget the 225 line. It will never generate meaningful TOD.

It might generate density, because it'll give municipalities an excuse to slightly upzone, where they would otherwise get a fight. We see that a lot. But let's not confuse transit ADJACENT development with transit oriented development.

Peoria, maybe, If Aurora has commitment. They don't. We'll get Belmar density at best. That's worthless on a metropolitan scale.

Stapleton. Ha. Sure.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If you're going to add a million more people to Denver's population they'll have to go somewhere.

They'll live all over. But we have absolutely zero evidence that we're going to house them in transit oriented developments in any meaningful numbers. We haven't done it yet, after 15 years of experience with good light rail transit. I am not sure why you think we are going to start now. (Particularly without for sale multifamily in the mix.)

You can drink the kool aid - most everybody in Denver has. Just don't look too closely at the numbers.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of Colfax Station

per RDT-Fastracks

'Rising Sun' arch to be feature of Colfax Station on R Line
per RTD-Fastracks

The iconic arch was designed to resemble the "Rising Sun," a feature of the city of Aurora's logo. This will become the city's signature station and stands near to where the city's original "Gateway to the West" sign once stood.

The 252-foot-long arch was fabricated by Schuff Steel Company, Midwest Division-the same company that fabricated steel for the white canopies at Union Station.

Sounds rather interesting; who knows but I'll give Aurora an 'A' for effort.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They'll live all over. But we have absolutely zero evidence that we're going to house them in transit oriented developments in any meaningful numbers. We haven't done it yet, after 15 years of experience with good light rail transit. I am not sure why you think we are going to start now. (Particularly without for sale multifamily in the mix.)

You can drink the kool aid - most everybody in Denver has. Just don't look too closely at the numbers.

You're too hung up with specific expectations. I'm not predicting DC density or even Tysons Corner density. We'll get Denver density.

Density doesn't have to be (strictly) TOD. Buses, we got buses and now-a-days they come in all shapes and styles, even low floor.

I've waited decades to witness the kind of infill density that downtown is now getting. Things can and do change. I also recently suggested that in 2020 there could be frustration with the "not great" ridership numbers with most of the new Fastracks lines. But that doesn't mean that by 2030 things won't be dramatically different.

Meeting you part way though I don't see Denver becoming big city dense, at least not over the next 30 years. I foresee a west of the Mississippi hybrid model that will none-the-less take good advantage of transit. It's why I advocate for both CDOT and transit funding. I also assume that when gas costs go over $7/8 a gallon (or whatever) that transit will be an even more attractive option.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You're too hung up with specific expectations. I'm not predicting DC density or even Tysons Corner density. We'll get Denver density.

Density doesn't have to be (strictly) TOD. Buses, we got buses and now-a-days they come in all shapes and styles, even low floor.

I've waited decades to witness the kind of infill density that downtown is now getting. Things can and do change. I also recently suggested that in 2020 there could be frustration with the "not great" ridership numbers with most of the new Fastracks lines. But that doesn't mean that by 2030 things won't be dramatically different.

Meeting you part way though I don't see Denver becoming big city dense, at least not over the next 30 years. I foresee a west of the Mississippi hybrid model that will none-the-less take good advantage of transit. It's why I advocate for both CDOT and transit funding. I also assume that when gas costs go over $7/8 a gallon (or whatever) that transit will be an even more attractive option.

[Scottk]

Speaking of TOD, I really like what Lone Tree is doing. Sure, most of the development isn't particularly walkable, but that is great progress for that part of town

[Cirrus]

The new Boulder Junction bus depot for the FlatIron Flyer opened a couple of weeks ago. I posted some pictures from RTD in the Front Range development thread.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You're too hung up with specific expectations. I'm not predicting DC density or even Tysons Corner density. We'll get Denver density.

I've waited decades to witness the kind of infill density that downtown is now getting. Things can and do change. I also recently suggested that in 2020 there could be frustration with the "not great" ridership numbers with most of the new Fastracks lines. But that doesn't mean that by 2030 things won't be dramatically different.

You are saying inconsistent things. Transit needs certain levels of density, no matter where on the earth you happen to be. If Denver density doesn't work for transit, then transit won't work in Denver.

So yes, actually, if we can't get Tysons density (which might work for transit) then things in 2030 will NOT be drastically different. Because land use drives transit usage.

2030 is not that far off. Compare today to 2000. Do you see anything drastically different in terms of transportation anywhere in the metro area? (Despite the entire light rail infrastructure of the southern metro area having been in place for over a decade now.) No, you don't. It's because we haven't touched land use in any meaningful way. There has been NOT A SINGLE TOD built on the southwest line. Transit ridership is basically what it what when it opened 15 years ago because it is park-n-ride constrained.

I don't have any expectations - I don't expect change in our transportation balance. I am just pointing out that you are wrong when you do expect it, based on the observations you are making.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There has been NOT A SINGLE TOD built on the southwest line.

Courtesy of multifamilybiz.com

Alta Aspen Grove

A new gated community at the Mineral Light Rail and Regional Bus station in the upscale Littleon submarket. This community will have easy access to over 300,000 sf. Lifestyle to include 13 different restaurant services. On the west side, we have a 500 acre preserve that ties into the Platte River and over 1,000 miles of the Denver bike and walking trail system

per Wood Partners web site

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Courtesy Parikh Stevens Architects

What is that in front of that apartment building?

Isn't there also some TOD at the Englewood Station? What about Alexan City Center?
Actually the SW Line is not an easy line for nearby TOD admittedly.

I think the point you're missing is that RTD region residents voted for this system. I assume everybody knew it didn't have DC or even Tysons Corner density nor was likely to get there anytime soon.

The last few years Denver has been growing a lot and traffic is getting worse. I would expect that over time there will be increased density in many transit corridors. Whether it meets your expectations is not my concern. Fifteen years ago downtown didn't look anything like it does now. Things can change.

[bunt_q]

That's a building, not a TOD. But sure, we can build one of those at every station. And are transit ridership will go up by .01% That's exciting.

And people did not vote for land use or zoning. Nor did they even vote for specifics really with Fastracks, beyond corridors.

I really get the impression that you do not know the first thing about how transportation or land use work. By 15 years ago anybody who knew anything could have told you pretty much how downtown was going to look today. Come to think of it, I was actually working on the Central Platte Valley light rail line 15 years ago at this time, and none of this was a mystery except in the details. I know you like to sound all deep and contemplative and philosophical, but there's no invisible hand here, it's all very well controlled and regulated. This stuff isn't rocket science and it takes a long time. Which means there are not many if any stations where you can expect to see large scale development that we don't already know about today.

EDIT: You also do not recognize the difference between development that is adjacent to transit, and transit oriented development. There are probably 10 Alta projects going on in the area. Just because one of them is occurring at Aspen Grove does not mean they are doing transit oriented development. It means they found a site that permits multifamily residential development and they are building on it. It might have been zoned that way because of the proximity to the transit station, or perhaps not. But it's definitely not a development pattern that materially is any different from the nine other similar projects not built on transit lines. Likewise, the lack of transit did not stop Belmar from succeeding.

[Scottk]

Don't forget that Littleton is actually planning TOD at the mineral station.

https://www.littletongov.org/modules...ocumentid=3812



I couldn't find the article I posted a few months ago, but Littleton is planning on moving ahead with the recommendations in the above report

[seventwenty]

Littleton also voted to make every TIF approval subject to the voters, so we will see what happens.

[TakeFive]

bunt... You raise many legitimate concerns; ones I've raised as well, certainly for the near term.

I've suggested the potential for increased density some of which would be TOD related, some which would not be directly TOD. I'm not sure of your definition but I really don't care to argue exactly what qualifies as a TOD.

Every crystal ball I've owned and there have been many I've smashed against the wall as they weren't worth poo. If you got hold of one that's a dandy then good for you. It's fair to say I have a more positive view, you a more negative view. Let's leave it at that.

[seventwenty]

Denver Post E-Board wrings their collective hands about the 16th St Mall, saying nothing in the process.

[TakeFive]

Every BRT should be this cool

Courtesy The Fairway Residences

Real Dinosaur eggs

Photo credit: Smith / Aspen Journalism

Oops

Photo credit: Colorado State Patrol via Aspen Public Radio

[seventwenty]

Post reporting that people like Bustang

The state-owned and operated bus system was launched in July, and its initial popularity is prompting calls for expansion.

...

So far, the north and south Bustang routes average about 140 riders a day, and the west line has about 60 a day — with 30 each way, said Amy Ford, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Transportation.

"We've been real pleased," said Ford. "Ridership on both the north and south routes are decent, and after about seven weeks of operation, it is steadily growing."

CDOT expects ridership to go up. In fact, CDOT is staging a second bus to handle overflow for the west line.

Bustang weekend service begins Friday between Denver Union Station and the Colorado State University campus.

[bunt_q]

This is why the complete streets crowd (led by cyclists) has an uphill battle in Denver. It's because they are completely tone deaf. Cirrus always says there's no war on the car. He's wrong. Rather than focusing on how to improve mobility, these people are focused on making driving harder so that our other, today truly mediocre, mode options prove more attractive.

Friday's quote from streets(bikes)blog:

Anything you can do to make not driving more attractive has to happen... I still think it’s too convenient to drive in our city....

http://denver.streetsblog.org/2015/0...nvers-streets/

Sooner or later these urbanist carpetbaggers from the coasts will realize that we out west do not think like them. We're proactive and want to make things better - we want to make it easier to get around for all people by all modes. It is not in our nature to purposefully make one mode - particularly our established one - less effective so that others can compete. That's old thinking.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Cirrus always says there's no war on the car. He's wrong.

It's possible to admit that we can't give all competing interests 100% of what they want all the time, without it being a war on some of them. Sometimes that means telling bicyclists they have to compromise on a bike lane a block away. Sometimes it means telling transit riders they have to compromise on a bus instead of a train. And sometimes it means telling car drivers they have to compromise on only having 3 lanes rather than 4, so there's room for a bus lane.

So there is a war on the notion that car drivers should get what they want 100% of the time. But that is not the same as a general war on cars. It's a simple fact of geometry that if you have a 50' street and right now all 50' of it are designed to prioritize cars, making it more multimodal will require at least a short term trade-off. Advocating for that does not make one anti-car, nor does it logically follow that such advocates hate cars or want to eliminate cars or want to make cars impractical to use.

The only controversial thing about it is that for decades we never asked car drivers to compromise for other modes (or asked them so rarely it didn't matter), and now sometimes we do.

And just like when you start to charge for a previously free commodity, or just like when the secular government starts to tell a religious majority that "religious freedom" doesn't mean the right to discriminate against minorities, some people who felt entitled to getting 100% of what they want will feel attacked for being asked to compromise on only getting 99% of it.

But that doesn't mean asking them to accept only 99% of what they want is a war on them.

You know that. You agree with that statement.

Originally Posted by bunt_q;7156127 today

We're proactive and want to make things better - we want to make it easier to get around for all people by all modes.

Aren't you frequently complaining about how our transportation planning environment suffers from a failure to admit that hard decisions sometimes have to be made, and that we do too much "everybody gets what they want" and not enough actual prioritization? I could search the archives to quote our last discussion about the problems with US-36 corridor transit planning, but I'm pretty sure we all remember it (and were all on the same page about its shortcomings).

"We want to make it easier for everyone" is all well and good until you have divvy up that 50' of road space, and right now one mode is getting all 50' of it. That's why we have plans. That's why we require everyone to compromise sometimes.

This is not a controversial thing to say. It's not a fact of life you disagree with.

[TakeFive]

I'm amazed and confused when I see a Ted Cruz take the ideological "religious freedom" side when he is among the smartest in the room and knows darn well the critical difference between the public (government) sector and the private sector which he completely ignores. /sigh

More context to bunt's highlighted quote:

The mindset right now is to design for the worst three or four hours of the day, typically. Anything you can do to make not driving more attractive has to happen... I still think it’s too convenient to drive in our city. Now, besides maybe a three-hour window... it’s pretty easy to drive.

I've read this apparently new, novel talking point about rush hour several times recently as if....

Stephen Lee Davis in his T4America piece wanted to compare rush hour with traffic in the middle of the night as if....

this is somehow enlightening. It seems the logical conclusion one might draw if this is critical is to make all bike lanes (in downtown) null & void during rush hours then?

(dusting off my conservative hat)

[Scottk]

Off topic question for bunt:

Are there any plans for when the tolled section of I-70 inevitably becomes a 2 lane shitshow during a snow storm?

I can imagine a lot of people getting pissed off about being tolled, when really they are just trying to follow traffic and avoid sliding off the road.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28...see-price-hike