DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by enjo13

You have that in pretty much all of the west Highlands. There is a lot more to the neighborhood than Highlands square. I live 5 blocks from a grocery store, a couple of liquor stores, a fitness center, a laundromat, asian takeout, and within 10 blocks of something like 30+ bars and restaurants. Hell I often bike to a Target.

That's not unique either. The folks in Baker or Capitol Hill can certainly claim the same thing. It seems to me that neighborhoods (and the services they rely on) spring up organically in a lot of ways. Focus on the infrastructure (like intra-city rail) and sensible zoning (IE: lots of retail opportunities within neighborhoods) and the rest will almost take care of itself.

I agree that the west side of highland is pretty good. The east side and LoHi will likely improve as the number of residents increases. I'm just lamenting all the residential only projects or the ones with a tiny token retail space on one corner in an area that could truly support much more.

The neighborhoods you listed are some of my favorites in the city. They are all remnants from when most of the city was mixed use and walkable, and before the car reigned supreme.

Even those neighborhoods used to be much better. Walk around Baker for a while and you will see evidence of a corner store every couple blocks and other small commercial buildings scattered throughout, most of which are now converted to residences.

My problem is I'm impatient. With the recent migration back into the city, I expect the newly minted urbanites to instantly shed their suburban habits. On the up side much of the downtown population boom is from millennials, not far removed from their college days where mixed mode travel was likely the norm and cars often impractical.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by rla82

Using transit requires an adjustment to how you get around and how you think about navigating the city. It will not take you, the individual, door to door like your car will. There is no rational way for a system to accomplish that for millions of people, yet we continue to hold it to the same expectations as our cars.

Okay... so if we are to accept that transit is simply a less efficient mode of transport that serves the greater good, I suppose then we should quit worrying about car dependency and embrace it. Because it is simply unacceptable to say people should get out of their cars, and they should not expect that it won't take them twice as long to get from place to place, because they should adapt their lifestyles accordingly. A very depressing view on what transit can achieve for the city. Although, in fairness, what you described is also how 95% of Americans view transit. Which is why most people make the "wrong" choice and drive their cars from door to door.

Originally Posted by Interzen

Even those neighborhoods used to be much better. Walk around Baker for a while and you will see evidence of a corner store every couple blocks and other small commercial buildings scattered throughout, most of which are now converted to residences.

My problem is I'm impatient. With the recent migration back into the city, I expect the newly minted urbanites to instantly shed their suburban habits.

And here we have someone saying that we urbanites should embrace small business, and we should welcome the privilege of paying twice as much for toilet paper as we would have in the suburbs. All part of how we should change our lifestyles to conform to what an idealized view of the city demands, rather than expect the city to change to accommodate the people who live in it. (And perish the thought that there is anything the suburbs might have gotten right.) Shame those newly minted urbanites have free will to make all sorts of bad decisions. Maybe we should work on shedding that too. We should all embrace tight pants and scooters because it's what the city wants of us.

[rla82]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Okay... so if we are to accept that transit is simply a less efficient mode of transport that serves the greater good, I suppose then we should quit worrying about car dependency and embrace it. Because it is simply unacceptable to say people should get out of their cars, and they should not expect that it won't take them twice as long to get from place to place, because they should adapt their lifestyles accordingly. A very depressing view on what transit can achieve for the city. Although, in fairness, what you described is also how 95% of Americans view transit. Which is why most people make the "wrong" choice and drive their cars from door to door.

I'm not implying we should accept the status quo and "embrace" car dependency and car-dependent design for cities. There are numerous ways to design cities that are less friendly to cars, shifting the balance of what is most convenient. The most effective way to get people out of their cars is to stop making it so easy/cheap to drive and park. My point about transit is we constantly complain about Denver's transit system and that it doesn't do what we want it to, but that's really the wrong conversation to be having. It's the wrong conversation because our arguments center on how it doesn't do things like take us door-to-door or it doesn't function as a DD for young people or it doesn't connect inner city neighborhoods enough. While we can DEFINITELY improve RTD in many ways, it DOES do many things quite well if you change how you think about navigating the city.

[bunt_q]

RTD most certainly does not work effectively, unless by "changing the way we view the city" you actually mean lowering our expectations about how much of our life should be consumed by the process of getting from door to door. Which ultimately is how we all travel - from one door to another. Making one mode less convenient, so that the other mode becomes more competitive is not the answer. Although, I disturbingly hear that argument more and more from people, including very smart urbanists. I think it's a losing argument - make the car less convenient so that mediocre transit looks better.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by rla82

All of this discussion about transit is great, but it demands that this be said. We have to stop thinking about transit only by how it can physically and functionally compete with cars. It can't and it won't. Using transit requires an adjustment to how you get around and how you think about navigating the city. It will not take you, the individual, door to door like your car will. There is no rational way for a system to accomplish that for millions of people, yet we continue to hold it to the same expectations as our cars. Denver has one of the most robust transit systems for a mid-sized city in the U.S., especially if you live anywhere within a couple miles of downtown.

Well for the users that currently use the system your right. But if you want greater ridership and more confidence it needs to be improved. Whats wrong with having high expectations? I for one am not 'complaining' just pointing out faults in the system that have affected my use of it. Also, I don't think anyone is comparing routes between cars/transit just social habits. People won't use it unless its convenient or they are a transit junkie.

Overall once this fast tracks is done and the further suburban lifestyle is enabled by it, we need to re-work the inner city routes.... Its really time we 'connect' the core in a meaningful, efficient and car competitive way or else we run the risk of an overly congested downtown. I think the car should be dis-advantaged down town. Lights should be weighted for buses/trains/bikes/peds with cars as an after thought.

I hear your points. And in the suburbs your right. There really is no way to fix the suburbs with transit or to compare transit to a car.... The density and thoughtfulness in the design is not there. The suburbs were basically designed by sheep. They are just not built with Transit in mind. We can make it better, but what we have and what is under works is about as good as its going to get for a long time. But downtown, and in any of the original 'grided' neighborhoods there is much improvement that can be made.

Lastly, the only true competitor to public transit is private transit. So why shouldn't we compare them? They are means to the same end and a city 'could' work with both or either of them. I believe our system should be competitive against cars and in the inner core.... Advantageous, which it already 'sometimes' is, just not nearly enough.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Shame those newly minted urbanites have free will to make all sorts of bad decisions. Maybe we should work on shedding that too. We should all embrace tight pants and scooters because it's what the city wants of us.

You totally misinterpreted my statement regarding newly minted urbanites. I was critisizing my own impatience, not giving them time to figure out that there are new options in their new environment and they don't need to get in the car. Also my impatience for those options to increase and tip the balance.

I'm totally on your side when it comes to encouraging people to leave their cars at home by making it more convenient not by telling them what I think is best. It is however a two sided coin. As long as we have 3 and 4 lane per direction arteries dedicated to cars so you can cross the entire city in less than 15 minutes, and surface parking every other block, you are going to have a hard time convincing people they should find an alternatives no matter how convenient those alternatives become.

Having grown up in New England, between Boston and New York, I chuckled to my self when you complained that 15th was way too congested to remove a lane and dedicate it for bicycle use. What was the most time it has ever taken you to travel 15th from Colfax to I25 during the 1.5 hours that it is actually busy? my guess is 5 minutes.

[Cirrus]

We don't need to actively attack cars; we just need to make other things a higher priority sometimes. When we're faced with the choice of providing easy driving or easy something else, we need to answer "easy something else is more important" at least some of the time. That will make it less convenient to drive sometimes, but the rhetorical difference matters. We're not attacking drivers, we're simply not giving them every single thing they want all the time, to the detriment of everyone else, no matter what.

In other words, we need to move on from the glowrock model of transit planning, which says "transit is great as long as it doesn't ever get in the way of cars." Getting in the way of cars doesn't need to be our goal, but it has to be OK when it happens occasionally.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We don't need to actively attack cars; we just need to make other things a higher priority sometimes. When we're faced with the choice of providing easy driving or easy something else, we need to answer "easy something else is more important" at least some of the time. That will make it less convenient to drive sometimes, but the rhetorical difference matters. We're not attacking drivers, we're simply not giving them every single thing they want all the time, to the detriment of everyone else, no matter what.

In other words, we need to move on from the glowrock model of transit planning, which says "transit is great as long as it doesn't ever get in the way of cars." Getting in the way of cars doesn't need to be our goal, but it has to be OK when it happens occasionally.

You do much better at conveying my view than I do. That is exactly my sentiment and I didn't mean that we should cut lanes needlessly without putting them to "better" use. Thanks for stating it so well.

[bunt_q]

With the goal being to make transit better, yes. Of course, if your starting point is also "transit will never be as good," then that loses a bit of its potency. Transit won't ever serve Littleton very well, we all accept this. But for somebody to say transit needn't be able to move people between Highland and Cap Hill as quickly and efficiently as a car can today - that is ludicrous (accepting mediocrity).

I hate to make a Europe comparison, but they don't accept those density levels despite it being more difficult to get around. They do it so they can sustain systems that actually make it easier to get around.

[Interzen]

Let me amend that by saying I think it might be OK to get in the way of cars in certain instances where the current level of car usage is detrimental to other modes and significantly degrades the pedestrian experience.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

With the goal being to make transit better, yes. Of course, if your starting point is also "transit will never be as good," then that loses a bit of its potency. Transit won't ever serve Littleton very well, we all accept this. But for somebody to say transit needn't be able to move people between Highland and Cap Hill as quickly and efficiently as a car can today - that is ludicrous (accepting mediocrity).

I hate to make a Europe comparison, but they don't accept those density levels despite it being more difficult to get around. They do it so they can sustain systems that actually make it easier to get around.

I agree with most of what you just said. In fact my point is that as density increases and parking becomes more of a chore, and after some of the public right of way is converted to mass transit use and other alternative modes of travel, the convenience factor will will shift to favor alternatives other than automobiles containing one or two people. I still believe it will be a bit less convenient than a car is today simply by the fact that you will still need to walk a little further and deal with the weather a bit more.

[Interzen]

I want to expand on my last post a little more. Talking specifically about intra-city travel, not commuting in from a suburb; Right now I can walk 20 ft to my car drive with little to no traffic impedance to almost any point in the city at a rate of about 25-30 mph and find parking within a block or two of my destination if not in a dedicated lot.

Unless I live 20 ft from a transit stop, on a line that also passes my chosen destination, a transit trip will always require more walking than the car and more time waiting for the next bus/train/trolly then waiting again if transferring. One advantage for transit might be a stop closer to my destination than I would find parking but not always.

The only way I can envision the transit trip being faster is if it traveled at an average rate faster than 25-30 mph including time spent at stops. Remember I'm talking about moving around downtown, not Fastracks.

Even if it can be made to match the total trip time for a car today, you still have to account for other inconveniences like timing the schedule or waiting for the next trolly etc, all of which I'm willing to accept, but you are talking about making it as convenient as a car is today and I think no matter how good it can be made it will fall slightly short.

On the other hand, when compared to the car trip of the near future the equation will likely change.

[Cirrus]

There are 2 issues:

Time spent traveling between destinations:
This is time on the road. If transit is in mixed traffic with cars and there are no special provisions then transit is at a disadvantage, because it has stops every so often. But if transit is in its own right-of-way then it will usually perform better than cars because there's no traffic. But even in mixed traffic there are lots of ways to make transit perform better. HOV/managed lanes are one way. Others include transit lanes, signal priority (computer systems that gives buses more green lights), queue jumpers (special lanes that let buses go to the head of the line at red lights), and more. If you mean it, you can speed up transit to be faster than cars.

Time lost at either end:
For transit this is walking to/from the stop and waiting for the bus/train to arrive. For cars it is finding parking and then walking to/from it. The main factor that determines which has the advantage here is parking availability. If you can pull up and park right in front of any destination then you will probably drive, but if not then transit will often be better. This is why the 16th Street Mall shuttle is so popular, because it would be ridiculous to get your car out of a garage at, say, Champa Street and then drive it to Market Street only to park it again. It would take longer to go down into the garage and get your car than it would to just hop on the shuttle. Even if you have to walk a block or 2 it would still be faster, and certainly cheaper.

Ultimately, the more dense and more walkable a place becomes, the more convenient transit/walking/biking are instead of driving. Eventually there's a tipping point where it's more convenient for most trips to NOT use a car. 16th Street is past that tipping point, but not many other places in Denver are yet. But it's a chicken and egg issue, because without good transit it's very hard (some say impossible) to build dense walkable places.

[Interzen]

Thanks Cirrus. I was starting to feel guilty spamming the development thread with a transportation discussion but that's where it evolved.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There are 2 issues:

Time spent traveling between destinations:
This is time on the road. If transit is in mixed traffic with cars and there are no special provisions then transit is at a disadvantage, because it has stops every so often. But if transit is in its own right-of-way then it will usually perform better than cars because there's no traffic. But even in mixed traffic there are lots of ways to make transit perform better. HOV/managed lanes are one way. Others include transit lanes, signal priority (computer systems that gives buses more green lights), queue jumpers (special lanes that let buses go to the head of the line at red lights), and more. If you mean it, you can speed up transit to be faster than cars.

Time lost at either end:
For transit this is walking to/from the stop and waiting for the bus/train to arrive. For cars it is finding parking and then walking to/from it. The main factor that determines which has the advantage here is parking availability. If you can pull up and park right in front of any destination then you will probably drive, but if not then transit will often be better. This is why the 16th Street Mall shuttle is so popular, because it would be ridiculous to get your car out of a garage at, say, Champa Street and then drive it to Market Street only to park it again. It would take longer to go down into the garage and get your car than it would to just hop on the shuttle. Even if you have to walk a block or 2 it would still be faster, and certainly cheaper.

Ultimately, the more dense and more walkable a place becomes, the more convenient transit/walking/biking are instead of driving. Eventually there's a tipping point where it's more convenient for most trips to NOT use a car. 16th Street is past that tipping point, but not many other places in Denver are yet. But it's a chicken and egg issue, because without good transit it's very hard (some say impossible) to build dense walkable places.

I don't think we currently have major traffic or parking issues yet but I know they are coming. I can often ride the wave of well timed green lights on my preferred major routes for miles right through the heart of the city without having to stop at a single light.

I'm curious, do either you or bunt_q have figures for the fastest existing separated right of way transit system in operation? I'm particularly interested in a frequent stop configuration including loading/unloading times. what is the maximum travel rate we could hope for, say along Broadway, that doesn't place stops more than a quarter to half mile apart, so the walking time is competitive.

It seems like frequent acceleration/deceleration cycles combined with passenger unloading/loading would limit average travel time per mile even if there is no traffic interaction.

Just how fast can such a system get a passenger say 5 miles down the track

[Cirrus]

Off the top of my head I don't know, but within the American context LA's Orange Line BRT is where I'd start looking.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Off the top of my head I don't know, but within the American context LA's Orange Line BRT is where I'd start looking.

That's an impressive system. Several of the stops are over a mile apart though, and the average distance between stops is .875 miles. Not quite a local service.

based on 48 minutes to travel the entire corridor of 14 miles, I get an average of 17.5 miles per hour. Still a little slower than driving around downtown Denver except in very a few specific times and locations. I know there are many other factors besides time, I just wanted a base line for comparison.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Interzen

That's an impressive system. Several of the stops are over a mile apart though, and the average distance between stops is .875 miles. Not quite a local service.

based on 48 minutes to travel the entire corridor of 14 miles, I get an average of 17.5 miles per hour. Still a little slower than driving around downtown Denver except in very a few specific times and locations. I know there are many other factors besides time, I just wanted a base line for comparison.

So that's just under 9 blocks between stations, on average. Which means it's an average of just under 4.5 blocks to mid-points between stations. 4.5 blocks is an easy walk. It's basically a half mile. so that puts any destination that lies with in 1/2 mile of the train tracks, also with in 1/2 mile of at least one station.

I would call that local service.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

So that's just under 9 blocks between stations, on average. Which means it's an average of just under 4.5 blocks to mid-points between stations. 4.5 blocks is an easy walk. It's basically a half mile. so that puts any destination that lies with in 1/2 mile of the train tracks, also with in 1/2 mile of at least one station.

I would call that local service.

Good point. I forgot one would only be walking a maximum of half the distance unless your destination was off the line in question on a point perpendicular to the midpoint between stations. Thanks for correcting me.

Edit: I guess the maximum distance for any destination within .5 miles from the track based on .875 miles between stops would be .62 miles to the nearest station, if you could walk directly and pass through buildings.

If you have to stay on a grid then the maximum would be .9375 miles, but over 50% of destinations by area would still be within 1/2 mile walk. Not bad.

[Octavian]

Looks like the I-70 communities are stacking the deck in favor of Maglev.

http://www.coloradodot.info/projects...03_14_13-final

[The Dirt]

Damn, and here I was thinking that we might get something along I-70 within my lifetime.