DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except that Sports Authority Field is not owned by the Broncos; it is owned by a public entity. And not only a public entity, but nearly the exact same type of public entity as RTD. It's the exact same thing, actually.

The same applies for Coors Field. Also owned by a public entity, like RTD.

Who owns Pepsi Center?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

What RTD OUGHT to do is remove names from stations that reference named venues. So no Sports Authority Field stop.. no Pepsi Center stop... Name them Nuggets/Avalance venues stop and Denver Broncos stadium stop.

Then demand payment for advertising by naming the places properly.

If each station were labeled by route and stop number- example W, for West line, and a number, so Auraria West might be W1, people (and tourists) would use the number code.

RTD, IMO, can sell station names, and put up huge ad signage, as long as the naming convention has a set up like Chevrolet at Broadway, or Walmart at Englewood, with a prefix numbering system is used that uniform throughout the system.

Anything- within reason- to increase cash flow, as long as service is steadily improved.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Who owns Pepsi Center?

I think WalMart's ghost money..

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bobg

Rendering

I've driven south on Broadway for many years, and this is definitely not a week day photo. Looks like Broadway might on Sunday around noon.

To appreciate Broadway, one has to include Lincoln and see both during rush hours and also during regular business hours on weekdays.

This rendering has some "propaganda." Notice the lady pushing the baby carriage across the intersection, as well as the mother walking with her child on the cross walk. (If improvements were made people would want to raise families there...)

Originally Posted by bobg

If I were to walk the length of S. Broadway from about the main Denver Public Library to the I-25 overpass, I would see a mix of strip malls and small businesses that abut the sidewalk. I would notice that some of the most healthy street life is located between E 3rd and about Bayaud, where a large number of small business line the street with everything from retail to restaurants and water holes.

These people depend on customer parking along the side of the street, with insufficient behind store space available. Side street parking particularly between Broadway and Lincoln is often very sparse. The flex lane parking is woefully insufficient for the business demands.

Perhaps starting with an improved bus right-of-way, and, working with business owners to build a few multi-story parking facilities. There is a huge amount of traffic that uses Broadway/Lincoln it is the only major north-south route between I-25 and University.*

I like the idea of moving the bus lane 1 lane further west.

I think that the bicycle land does not need to be 15 feet wide (that's 5,000 cars per rush hour at least.) From the East side to the first car travel land is up to 39 feet wide. Perhaps 6 feet wide, might be sellable.

I think a better use of the 23' (drawing #1) feet on the east side of Broadway would be to put in a bus lane GOING north with flex parking (11 feet for the Transit Lane, and 8 feet for a second flex lane.

Outside of a few hours during rush hours (hits particularly hard when evening rush traffic is moving south), the bus line is open to traffic. As is, then, South Broadway has 5 lanes of south bound traffic non-rush hour, and, 4 lanes during non-rush hours. 3 lanes during rush would not cut it.

(The problem from a traffic standpoint is Lincoln. Lincoln can be horrid.)

*Logan ST is exaggerated in Google Maps. This picture is a typical example. I think local owners would get upset if the divider was removed, and parking reduced to compensate for reducing lanes and traffic flow on Broadway. https://www.google.com/maps/place/94...a1ce4df8?hl=en )

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Who owns Pepsi Center?

The Illuminati. Obviously.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

This rendering has some "propaganda." Notice the lady pushing the baby carriage across the intersection, as well as the mother walking with her child on the cross walk. (If improvements were made people would want to raise families there...)

I feel like you're making fun of yourself here.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

This rendering has some "propaganda." Notice the lady pushing the baby carriage across the intersection, as well as the mother walking with her child on the cross walk. (If improvements were made people would want to raise families there...)

I believe they are trying to show that more people would be walking. They also put what appears to be a 7 ft tall businesswoman on the SE corner of 11th and Broadway. I do not think they meant to imply by adding bike lanes and solidifying a transit lane that the average height of women would go up by over a foot.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

If I were to walk the length of S. Broadway from about the main Denver Public Library to the I-25 overpass, I would see a mix of strip malls and small businesses that abut the sidewalk. I would notice that some of the most healthy street life is located between E 3rd and about Bayaud, where a large number of small business line the street with everything from retail to restaurants and water holes.


These people depend on customer parking along the side of the street, with insufficient behind store space available. Side street parking particularly between Broadway and Lincoln is often very sparse. The flex lane parking is woefully insufficient for the business demands.

Ignoring the fact that those businesses would be out of business already if they were dependent on the few cars that could currently park on Broadway/Lincoln, the flex lanes give zero indication that they are eliminating parking.

As far as I can tell the flex lanes are putting other things in areas that are typically wasted because it's not legal/safe to put parking there (or it's currently a bus stop). If the businesses can survive with the current parking I don't see the issue. Anecdotally I have a few friends who own businesses on S broadway and all of them are more concerned about bicycle/transit access right now then they are car parking. The target demo of most S Broadway businesses is substantially less likely to want to drive to S Broadway.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I think that the bicycle land does not need to be 15 feet wide (that's 5,000 cars per rush hour at least.) From the East side to the first car travel land is up to 39 feet wide. Perhaps 6 feet wide, might be sellable.

A 12 foot cycletrack is sellable to those living in the CCD. Besides 12 feet (not 15 the extra 3 is for car parking with door zones) is about 6.5% of the total ROW on that stretch of Lincoln/Broadway. I am not sure on the modal splits but given the amount of commuting cyclists in the area it would not surprise me if that 6.5% was pretty close. Additionally, it's wholly asinine to build a one way bike lane down Broadway without giving a safe and direct return along the same corridor (whether it be Lincoln or Broadway).

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Outside of a few hours during rush hours (hits particularly hard when evening rush traffic is moving south), the bus line is open to traffic. As is, then, South Broadway has 5 lanes of south bound traffic non-rush hour, and, 4 lanes during non-rush hours. 3 lanes during rush would not cut it.

I have almost no doubt that 3 lanes should 'cut it'.However, they will study it, and likely model it when they do a corridor study. So until that time it's just speculation. It's also highly likely you have a different definition of 'cut it' on that corridor.

[bunt_q]

I generally agree with everything bob had to say there, with one exception. Broadway and Lincoln are regional corridors, and are important for people all over the metro area, including the CCD south of there, for getting in and out of downtown. So for that reason, this is a corridor where I don't think the neighborhood gets any special claim on what happens with those streets. The neighborhood's definition of what "cuts it" is not the one that matters IMHO. Frankly, the transportation corridor existed before most of the people who live there now moved in. So in this case, I have no qualms listening to what people in Littleton might think is important for Broadway and Lincoln. Everybody has a right to easy access to Civic Center.

Of course, a real transit connection between Union Station and points south, via Civic Center, would solve that concern. But alas, there were 100,000 people in Civic Center Park last night, and it was pretty apparent that 90,000 of them drove there.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I generally agree with everything bob had to say there, with one exception. Broadway and Lincoln are regional corridors, and are important for people all over the metro area, including the CCD south of there, for getting in and out of downtown. So for that reason, this is a corridor where I don't think the neighborhood gets any special claim on what happens with those streets. The neighborhood's definition of what "cuts it" is not the one that matters IMHO. Frankly, the transportation corridor existed before most of the people who live there now moved in. So in this case, I have no qualms listening to what people in Littleton might think is important for Broadway and Lincoln. Everybody has a right to easy access to Civic Center.

Of course, a real transit connection between Union Station and points south, via Civic Center, would solve that concern. But alas, there were 100,000 people in Civic Center Park last night, and it was pretty apparent that 90,000 of them drove there.

Regional concerns merit some consideration. However regional needs do not usurp the needs of the city. Nor should they be the sole determining factor with the ultimate alignment of that street. The current alignment is clearly heavily skewed toward the region, and any alteration to it will strike a balance more towards the city and less towards the rest of the region. That's okay it clearly needs a tweak and IMO so far what is being proposed strikes a better balance between the neighborhood, city, and region.

As far as people having a right to easy access anywhere that's somewhat absurd. Everyone's definition of easy is different, and in the context that I think you mean it I have never seen a guaranteed average driving speed in the US (or state) constitution.

[bunt_q]

Oh don't be ridiculous that's clearly not what I mean by "right." But you're also taking a very narrow view of the "city." It's not just the region, although that does merit consideration if downtown wants to succeed. Also since all of our state government services sit there. But a fair amount of the City of Denver is also south of there - Baker and Wash Park West are not the city. I think you guys forget sometimes just how small a percentage of Denver's population is central Denver. Look at the council districts map. The "city" your talking about benefiting is really two neighborhoods - with fairly minuscule development potential - at the expense of the rest of the city's mobility.

[Cirrus]

Regional concerns do merit consideration, but that does not mean anyone should expect to treat Broadway like a through highway. It means some level of compromise, that Broadway should not be traffic calmed so much that only locals can practically use it, but it does not mean drivers get everything they want and the neighborhood gets nothing.

Making Broadway a woonerf would go too far. Taking out a couple of lanes would not.

[bunt_q]

Agreed, I was just sticking up for Wizened a little bit. Whatever happens there, and however the solution that "cuts it" for auto traffic is defined, needs to be done for the right reasons, that's all. And what the two neighborhoods immediately touching on the 1st/Broadway area want matters very little to me. Or at least, no more than what any other neighborhoods wants and needs in there. I'd give them the 12 feet they need for a cycle track in that corridor, no problem, so long as we get a regional transit corridor (or the space carved out for one someday). There's room for everything there, even the lowest priorities.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

To appreciate Broadway, one has to include Lincoln and see both during rush hours and also during regular business hours on weekdays.

This rendering has some "propaganda." Notice the lady pushing the baby carriage across the intersection, as well as the mother walking with her child on the cross walk. (If improvements were made people would want to raise families there...)

I imagine it's been quite some time since you've actually walked around these neighborhoods. Go to the farmers market at Lincoln and Ellsworth on a Wedneday evening and you will see two dozen kids age 2-6 running around, none of whom drove there and most of whom crossed broadway in their strollers.

I would notice that some of the most healthy street life is located between E 3rd and about Bayaud, where a large number of small business line the street with everything from retail to restaurants and water holes.

It is exactly these businesses that are less car dependent and serve the local neighborhoods (check out how many bikes are locked up outside illegal petes or bardos or sputniks). Many of them would be well served by a protected bike lane and more frequent bus service and wouldn't sweat the loss of a car travel lane.

There is a huge amount of traffic that uses Broadway/Lincoln it is the only major north-south route between I-25 and University.

It is for this reason that the city needs to make this route function for everybody, not just single car commuters. I have no qualms about making the drive from civic center to highlands ranch somewhat more inconvenient if it improves quality of life and transportation choices in denver proper.

[bunt_q]

You're full of crap if you expect me to believe that sputniks or hornet or most of those businesses are serving and surviving off of baker and west wash park traffic. That's total BS.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're full of crap if you expect me to believe that sputniks or hornet or most of those businesses are serving and surviving off of baker and west wash park traffic. That's total BS.

Not the hornet, but I am sure the businesses I mentioned draw a significant amount of business from people living less than 2 miles away and a large percentage of them do not drive there.

Regardless, when discussing infrastructure investment, we should be planning for the retail district we envision 20 years from now (far less auto dependent) and not necessarily how it exists today.

[bunt_q]

Much less auto dependent based on what? Major transit investments that as of now aren't even planned? Greatly increased density within, say, a mile of 1st and Broadway that isn't presently zoned for and certainly isn't being developed? Apart from the streets themselves, all evidence is that that area will be almost exactly the same 20 years from now as it is today. Planning isn't magic - we can generally tell what areas will grow and how. Take West Highland as your model for how any established neighborhood is likely to grow in the coming decades. There will be infill on Broadway itself, but in sheer numbers it'll be completely insignificant. The Mayam and the Hornet and most others along there would be completely rational in still wanting to protect parking. Right now they'll support everything, but when the time comes that actual hard decisions have to be made, that'll change, it always does. There is simply no evidence that future Denver will be any less auto dependent than today's Denver. It's wishful thinking, nothing more.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There will be infill on Broadway itself, but in sheer numbers it'll be completely insignificant.

I'm not so sure. The strip malls between Alameda and I-25 account for more than 15 square blocks, easy. That's an entire neighborhood. It's twice as much land as the CPV, three times as much if you include the industrial land west of the light rail tracks. Four or maybe five times as much if you go all the way down to Mississippi. And it'll be ripe for wholesale redevelopment in another decade or two. That's a major, major land bank.

If it redevelops tomorrow then yeah, probably not very high density. But if it holds out another 20 years, that could be a different story. There's enough land there for another Cherry Creek. The bones are there for it to become Denver's best & most urban uptown, if the demand ever materializes.

[bunt_q]

South of Alameda is a different story, but it's pretty far from the existing businesses - like the Golden Triangle. If anything, having the two large development areas on either end of the corridor is going to increase the need for local-ish auto travel, not reduce it. (Absent a transit solution.)

It's not unlike the Brighton corridor too - that's becoming a mess of auto traffic. This high density, just on the edge, development is creating/will create massive traffic. I'm not arguing against complete streets here, but absent a larger mobility plan (not RTD's bad jokes), the arguments for accommodating the automobile are getting stronger each day, not less pertinent. The type of urban development we are doing is not the kind that reduces auto use, it's too spread out/disconnected.

The comparison to another Cherry Creek supports my point. I'm not sure we want another couple Cherry Creeks without viable transit - that sounds terrible. The thought of that makes me want to be an anti-growth NIMBY. (And I'm not convinced intra-Denver transit will ever happen - it's too ambitious, too expensive for us.)

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There is simply no evidence that future Denver will be any less auto dependent than today's Denver. It's wishful thinking, nothing more.

This is a false statement. "Denver" is moving steadily to provide residents with more options. Of course when you live in a dense neighborhood most basic day to day things are close by and you can walk.

Suburban sprawl: well, that's another story. Those places will most likely continue to be a slave to the automobile and all the joys that go along with that.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

This is a false statement. "Denver" is moving steadily to provide residents with more options. Of course when you live in a dense neighborhood most basic day to day things are close by and you can walk.

Suburban sprawl: well, that's another story. Those places will most likely continue to be a slave to the automobile and all the joys that go along with that.

Except we're only building a couple dense neighborhoods that really accomplish that. And for every moderately dense unit we are building, even in Denver proper, we are building two units that nobody will argue are not auto dependent.

What options are being provided? Bike lanes in neighborhoods with little to no growth? No, you are wrong, we're doing a lot of window dressing, but nothing at all to materially impact how people move around this city.

Nobody here can say with a straight face that they expect 2030 VMT in the City and County of Denver to be lower than total VMT today. Not a chance. Whatever inroads alternative modes are making are more than made up for by population growth.