HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5681  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 12:39 AM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Nah. The bixi-based systems also use solar panels and they all run 24/7.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5682  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 1:07 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
In other transportation news:

Quote:
University of Colorado police have arrested a man who allegedly went on a drunken horseback ride through the city of Boulder this afternoon with a dog in his backpack.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...orseback-rider
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5683  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 8:42 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,987
In other other news, I almost obliterated a B-Cycler in a Car2Go today..The B-Cycler ran the stop sign on Franklin and didn't even look, or slow down. Now the question is.. Who would have walked away less injured? Me in the Smart Car, or the cyclist riding the super beefy urban bike?
__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5684  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 9:08 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
In other other news, I almost obliterated a B-Cycler in a Car2Go today..The B-Cycler ran the stop sign on Franklin and didn't even look, or slow down. Now the question is.. Who would have walked away less injured? Me in the Smart Car, or the cyclist riding the super beefy urban bike?
Well, you'd be less injured after you backed up over him accidentally to see if they were ok....
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5685  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 9:21 PM
Denver Dweller Denver Dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 828
Denver wants 2nd lid over sunken I-70

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5686  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 9:48 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Dweller View Post
Give them an inch, and they will take a mile...so whose responsibility does it become to pay for and maintain these lids? Are they then still the property of CDOT, or do they become the land owners property, and therefore their problem to maintain? Make no doubt about it, any kind of lid like this, whether they are a plaza, or whatever, are real headaches in the long run (15+ years) to maintain.

Quote:
“We’re in the planning stage, the pricing and the cost will come later,” Leid said.
Excellent, so they really have no clue how realistic (or more likely unrealistic) this proposal really is...
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5687  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 10:04 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
^
So we'll give CDOT a pass to screw over the neighborhood, again, and not ask them for anything in return? No way. The price of building and expanding massive highways through urban areas has to include mitigation, or the deal's off. If highway departments can't be bothered to make their highways fit the cities they go through, then they can bloody well go around instead of through. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile? We could say the same thing about highway builders.

If we want to argue caps here aren't appropriate because they wouldn't make a difference, that's one thing. If we want to argue it's too expensive and cuts out other better priorities from the budget, that's also fine. But it's silly to argue that CDOT can spend $1.8 billion on a huge highway expansion through an existing area, plus spend millions every year on maintaining all those extra lanes and dealing with all the extra VMT they will induce, but can't be troubled to deal with a few ongoing operations headaches that we know are not deal-breakers in Ohio, Texas, or anywhere else.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5688  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 10:26 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Did you guys read the article? I'm not hearing the nasty confrontational tone that you guys are. This:

Quote:
“The changes are possible,” said Kirk Webb, CDOT’s project manager for the proposed $1.8 billion effort to improve I-70 east of I-25. CDOT’s project focus for I-70 runs from I-25 to Tower Road.
So let's look at this on the merits:

Quote:
The major changes the city wants are:

• Eliminating the Vasquez Boulevard on- and off-ramps to I-70.

• Putting a cap over the Vasquez Boulevard area of the highway — a cap that’s strong enough to support small buildings, such as a coffee shop or restaurants, to attract people to the area.

• Changing the one-way structure of the frontage roads to two-way, neighborhood-friendly roads between I-25 and Colorado Boulevard.
#3 is easy.

#2 - I think it's worth discussing whether the cap needs to be designed for structures, or whether a landscaped cap, with structures immediately around it, might not actually do a better job or protecting and reintegrating the neighborhood.

#1 - I have concerns about this. Vasquez is a major trucking route, and despite the City's desire to have a yoga studio on every corner, there is still a need for the warehousing and light manufacturing that goes on up there. I'd need to see details, but I think there has to be a way to do this while keeping Vasquez and I-70 connected, even if indirectly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5689  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 11:11 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Did you guys read the article? I'm not hearing the nasty confrontational tone that you guys are.
Remember, highways are bad. M'kay?

Quote:
#2 - I think it's worth discussing whether the cap needs to be designed for structures, or whether a landscaped cap, with structures immediately around it, might not actually do a better job or protecting and reintegrating the neighborhood.
It's been mentioned before, but the quality of the housing stock in these neighborhoods is going to make it very difficult to reintegrate these areas by getting people to move in. People just are not going to be clamoring to live here and I don't know how well some retail pads, or maybe a faux-retail street ala Old Pearl Street, spanning I-70 will do this. One cap seemed very nice, especially the way the relocated school and rec center would use it for athletic fields. Two caps seems like throwing money at an insolvable problem.

Quote:
#1 - I have concerns about this. Vasquez is a major trucking route, and despite the City's desire to have a yoga studio on every corner, there is still a need for the warehousing and light manufacturing that goes on up there. I'd need to see details, but I think there has to be a way to do this while keeping Vasquez and I-70 connected, even if indirectly.
I can see the city going the boneheaded route and trying to sell Vasquez' connections to I-270 as an alternative trucking path. The better idea would be to extend the frontage roads to Colorado Blvd and access I-70 from there. This would probably involve a lot more property acquisition, but the City and CDOT seem to be swinging for the fences with the design of this project.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5690  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2013, 11:24 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
I will say, I am curious what the City thinks will take by adding a developable area where the current Vasquez ramps are. You are little on the very edge of an industrial wasteland, separated by Colorado. You've got the train coming in just south - but it's too far TOD; not to mention, there's a ton of land much closer that is better suited for redevelopment. I have no problem with a cap in the right place, but I am struggling to image what could possibly take root.

The west cap ends at Clayton - so only a couple blocks away. Presumably this second cap would replace the existing ramps. Here:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5691  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 12:10 AM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,319
NM...

I don't want to type a gazillion words.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5692  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 12:11 AM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
I'm a little confused I thought the partial cover solution already removed the Vazquez/Steele I70 on/off ramps. http://www.i-70east.com/meetingminut...lternative.pdf

Did they add the Vasquez onto I70 on/off ramps back more recently? Or are they referring to the on/off ramps from Vasquez onto 46th/Frontage ?

Last edited by bobg; Sep 11, 2013 at 12:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5693  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 3:45 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT View Post
NM...

I don't want to type a gazillion words.
A picture is worth at least a thousand of that gazillion. No worries, we'll get real plans up here soon enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5694  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 4:57 AM
LAM's Avatar
LAM LAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
#1 - I have concerns about this. Vasquez is a major trucking route, and despite the City's desire to have a yoga studio on every corner, there is still a need for the warehousing and light manufacturing that goes on up there. I'd need to see details, but I think there has to be a way to do this while keeping Vasquez and I-70 connected, even if indirectly.
I think that short spit of roadway (Vasquez) that looks like it may have been a relic of a cross town highway that was never built, really should just be closed down and the neighborhood can be returned back to the grid. Then all that truck traffic can be redirected to Colorado Blvd (with an improved interchange). I mean really, isn't Vasquez just a short cut anyway? The businesses along there could easily just transit down the east/west roads (48th and 50th) in that area. No need to eliminate the warehousing and such. Of course, i would bulldoze that business that is in the Steele Street right of way just to reconnect Steele St.

Besides, bobg is right, they have pretty much eliminated the interchange anyway. So, what is the point in keeping the road?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5695  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 12:15 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Nevermind.

Last edited by bunt_q; Sep 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5696  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 2:14 PM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAM View Post
I think that short spit of roadway (Vasquez) that looks like it may have been a relic of a cross town highway that was never built, really should just be closed down and the neighborhood can be returned back to the grid. Then all that truck traffic can be redirected to Colorado Blvd (with an improved interchange). I mean really, isn't Vasquez just a short cut anyway? The businesses along there could easily just transit down the east/west roads (48th and 50th) in that area. No need to eliminate the warehousing and such. Of course, i would bulldoze that business that is in the Steele Street right of way just to reconnect Steele St.
Getting rid of Vasquez seems like a good idea to me since it is a bit redundant with Colorado there. Looking at the AADT counts just south of the Colorado\Vasquez split on Colorado they have 26k vehicles (2110 trucks), and that stretch of Vasquez through Denver has 18k vehicles (2180 trucks). Those Colorado/Vasquez vehicle counts are quite low when you compare that to Colorado just south of I70 (53k) and Vasquez in Commerce City (41k). Both Colorado and Vasquez are built to handle much more capacity through Elyria Swansea, so it's just too much road capacity. Additionally that Vasquez stretch cannot be saving that much time over putting a westbound ramp from Colorado onto I70 for those coming from Adams county, and Vasquez is in close enough proximity to Colorado Blvd that going to Colorado would not be a burden for those businesses in Denver.

However I just do not see the benefit side of it. IMO Vasquez should never have been built, but is it worth it to get rid of it now? Over the long run removing Vasquez will save CDOT money in maintenance that's for sure, and I do like grids. I am just not sure how removing Vasquez will improve the residential neighborhood if they are already getting rid of the interchange since Vasquez barely touches the residential portions, and that only occurs near the interchange.

Last edited by bobg; Sep 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5697  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 2:30 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Isn't that the old Highway 85 route, which followed the railroad? There seems to be the idea that Vasquez was rammed on the neighborhood like I-70, but are we sure that's true? Seems that route could be as old as the neighborhood itself.

And as for the "neighborhood" - what neighborhood? In the vicinity of that interchange, you're talking maybe 12 houses? I have no hesitation saying that the convenience of 2,100 trucks is more important than 12 people who bought into a neighborhood that's been industrial since their grandparent's grandparents moved there. I need to see a convincing argument for whatever's being proposed there that doesn't rely solely on our reflexive brainless mantra that neighborhoods=good; internal combustion engines=bad.

EDIT: Sort of like legislators reflexively voting for guns=bad, even when the actual legislation has no practical effect whatsoever. Then they get recalled for it. And Pueblo is represented by a Republican now. It's almost comical, but I almost feel like liberals deserve what they get, voting more on principle than using our brains - making the same mistakes conservatives were making when they ran the show ~15 years ago, assuming that Colorado is a true-blue state forever now. Ha.

Also, Mayor Hancock is threatening to veto the plastic bag tax? His first veto, really? Can we say worst mayor ever?

I'm just grumpy this morning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5698  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 3:12 PM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Isn't that the old Highway 85 route, which followed the railroad? There seems to be the idea that Vasquez was rammed on the neighborhood like I-70, but are we sure that's true? Seems that route could be as old as the neighborhood itself.

And as for the "neighborhood" - what neighborhood? In the vicinity of that interchange, you're talking maybe 12 houses? I have no hesitation saying that the convenience of 2,100 trucks is more important than 12 people who bought into a neighborhood that's been industrial since their grandparent's grandparents moved there. I need to see a convincing argument for whatever's being proposed there that doesn't rely solely on our reflexive brainless mantra that neighborhoods=good; internal combustion engines=bad.

EDIT: Sort of like legislators reflexively voting for guns=bad, even when the actual legislation has no practical effect whatsoever. Then they get recalled for it. And Pueblo is represented by a Republican now. It's almost comical, but I almost feel like liberals deserve what they get, voting more on principle than using our brains - making the same mistakes conservatives were making when they ran the show ~15 years ago, assuming that Colorado is a true-blue state forever now. Ha.

Also, Mayor Hancock is threatening to veto the plastic bag tax? His first veto, really? Can we say worst mayor ever?

I'm just grumpy this morning.
Are we really inconveniencing the truckers? Do we know that for certain? There's no westbound on-ramp on Colorado Blvd when coming from the North. What percentage of those truckers take Vasquez solely because of that?

Historically Vasquez first showed up as a multi-lane road in 1947 as part of route 6 which curved onto the existing 46th. As far as the "neighborhood" goes at I 70 and Steele/Vasquez to the NE is Industrial, but to the SE, SW, and NW is residential, so yes I consider that part to be residential or a neighborhood. However I do not consider building Vasquez the same as building an interstate through an existing neighborhood, and I am not equating the two.

More importantly in my mind do we really need the combined capacity of Vasquez and Colorado Blvd when the vehicle counts are so low, and those roads at most are half a mile apart? It just seems like overkill to have two roads designed to carry so much more than they are (or likely ever will) half a mile apart from each other on a freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5699  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 3:46 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
I'd like to summarize - that area is a complete mess...unless it's meant to be a shipping and warehouse area only...if so, then why on earth pay for another cap?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5700  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 4:48 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobg View Post
More importantly in my mind do we really need the combined capacity of Vasquez and Colorado Blvd when the vehicle counts are so low, and those roads at most are half a mile apart? It just seems like overkill to have two roads designed to carry so much more than they are (or likely ever will) half a mile apart from each other on a freeway.
So even if you want to remove one of the two, presumably Vasquez - that does not to equate to needing a cap. It equates to leaving behind a road removal wasteland. Are we planning to pay for the removal and the cap through some sort of development? And if so, what? What are we going to do with all of that space, apart from cultivate weeds?

Because I have no patience for talk of coffee shops, parks, yoga studios, and similar gentrification-minded development fantasies. Not up there, not unless there's a mysterious infusion of capital on the horizon that I just haven't heard about. If there was ANY private market interest in redeveloping those areas, we'd already have seen evidence of it much, much closer to downtown.

And it's nonsense to think that the big bad highway is the only thing holding back those neighborhoods. I'll remind everyone that there is a highway cutting smack through the middle of Wash Park/South Pearl too.

EDIT: In my mind, redeveloping Elyria-Swansea is more akin to redeveloping Detroit than it is "the next big thing" in Denver. I'd like to be wrong, but I see problems there that the over gentrification engines of Denver never had. (Same applies to southwest Denver, for slightly different reasons. The crappy base housing stock being a major factor, though.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.