DENVER | Transportation Thread

[transistor]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Cherry Creek Reservoir is a cesspool of human activity and lower middle class filth. It's only saving grace that it's about the only readily accessible public firing range in the Denver area.

This is unfortunately very accurate.

[TakeFive]

MOAR Denver Love

Credit: David Zalubowski ASSOCIATED PRESS via Idaho Statesman
A Regional Transportation District light-rail train passes beneath the Hyatt Convention Center hotel in downtown Denver

"Treasure Valley should study Denver’s model for transit funding"
JUNE 18, 2016 BY MARK DALY - Idaho Statesman

To examine what may lie ahead for Idaho’s public transit system, let’s look east. Denver’s Regional Transportation District Adopted Budget 2016 is a fascinating read for those interested in this topic and willing to digest a 250-page award-winning report. RTD’s vision is to deliver regional, multimodal transportation and infrastructure that increases transit market share “significantly and continually.”

The article does look at both sides but ends on a positive note.

Public transit is not cheap:
....

Ridership is flat to slightly down, despite population growth in the Denver area, and labor costs and fringe benefits are rising much faster than the rate of inflation. Car-friendly think tanks like the Cato Institute are not big fans of public transit.

Yet RTD is a model for the entire United States. Denver has made a massive investment.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Thank you. My question was more rhetorical as I've stated previously why it does well. My bigger point though was that it seems to have none of the textbook qualities for a "proper" station. Don't underestimate the value of the ladies at the beach though. Just remember to bring your bike.

It's because you are counting the sub-humans who drive. If you close your eyes and ignore anybody with a car - or perhaps only count them as three-fifths of a person - then Nine Mile is a drastically underperforming station. Only cyclists and pedestrians matter (plus a few token bus folks to check the "poor people" box) - the rest of us who deign to drive must be... gasp... Trump voters.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by transistor

This is unfortunately very accurate.

Interesting actually.

If/when I rode over there it was more often early/mid-morning when it wasn't crowded. Occasionally I'd ride in the evening. If I happen to ride there on a weekend I more typically rode around to the SW side and sometimes through my old neighborhood.

In any case it's hard for me to discriminate among people wearing bikini's and swim suits. With maybe rare exception, all children are cute to me.

That said, when I left Denver, Common's Park was still a wonderful place to picnic, maybe some wine and cheese before heading over to Coors Field. So I can't really speak to the current state of things.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's because you are counting the sub-humans who drive. If you close your eyes and ignore anybody with a car - or perhaps only count them as three-fifths of a person - then Nine Mile is a drastically underperforming station. Only cyclists and pedestrians matter (plus a few token bus folks to check the "poor people" box) - the rest of us who deign to drive must be... gasp... Trump voters.

That sounds reeeaaalll close.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I actually feel somewhat freed to think outside the box by not being constrained by the conventional textbook wisdom that many of you are burdened by.

If by "conventional textbook wisdom" you mean "ridership statistics" then OK, you've got me.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of places like airports "that people don't actually go to every day" - except for the ~35,000 people that work at DIA of course

You're right, as an employment center it's potentially a big transit destination. But 35k workers who almost all commute during off-peak hours are not enough to anchor an entire transit line. If they were 35k workers commuting at rush hour then yes, maybe, but that isn't how airports work. In any event, I did not say that transit systems shouldn't serve places like airports. They should. I said they need to serve other less sexy types of places too, which is a thing that DART does poorly.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I happen to think that Denver has a distinct advantage over most cities from the fact that people metro-wide have transit access to the three main sports venues and four major professional sports teams...There's a value add here that goes beyond daily turnstile counts.

You're right there's a value to that beyond turnstile counts. There's a dual value: Making the city livable via transit, and providing a special event that teaches people how to use the system, so they can become more regular riders later.

Again, I did not say transit systems shouldn't serve those places. I said transit systems need to serve dense neighbohoods too. Ideally you get both. The problem is only when transit systems focus so much on serving the special destinations that they forget to take care of their core user base.

Here's an analogy: Lots of people go to McDonalds and buy ice cream. That's great! McDonalds ice cream is tasty and it's a wonderful thing that McDonalds has it. But imagine if some McDonalds out there decided to cut french fries, hamburgers, and chicken from its menu in order to focus exclusively on ice cream. That would be a big mistake. Cities that have great airport and stadium connections but shitty connections to dense neighborhoods are like a McDonalds that only sells ice cream.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Let's look look at Nine Mile Station...it seems to have none of the textbook qualities for a "proper" station

Nine Mile's high ridership is predictable and totally "by the book." It gets high ridership because it's an end-line station serving a vast residential area. It gets high ridership because there are hundreds of thousands of people for whom Nine Mile is the closest station. When the R line opens and the H line is extended to Florida, Nine Mile's ridership will most likely decline or at least stagnate, because many of its riders will begin to use other stations that are closer to their homes.

Park-and-ride stations are good ideas when they serve vast areas. They're bad ideas when their "catchment" zone is small. Thus, end-line stations should usually be big park-and-rides, while mid-line stations should usually not be. That *is* textbook planning.

Crucially, however, note that Nine Mile is serving residential areas. People aren't using Nine Mile to reach Kennedy Golf Course or Cherry Creek Reservoir. They're using to get to and from their homes. Nine Mile gets most of its ridership because it's the most convenient station to lots of housing.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

"Treasure Valley should study Denver’s model for transit funding"

Denver absolutely is a national model for transit funding. The P3 model that's delivering the EMU lines was the first of its kind in the US for transit. Now lots of cities are either emulating it or at least considering emulating it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Denver absolutely is a national model for transit funding. The P3 model that's delivering the EMU lines was the first of its kind in the US for transit. Now lots of cities are either emulating it or at least considering emulating it.

We're a national model for all sorts of creative infrastructure funding. You can thank TABOR for that. It's nothing to do with transit per se.

(It also keeps me employed. )

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The P3 model that's delivering the EMU lines was the first of its kind in the US for transit. Now lots of cities are either emulating it or at least considering emulating it.

Not always good to be first.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Not always good to be first.

A concessionaire is only as good as the agency contracting with it. It took RTD a decade to figure out credit cards, and going on two decades to figure out farecards, still with no resolution. 19th century trolleys RTD can almost handle. If the Concessionaire figures out how to make EMU run on-time in under 5 years, it'll be ten steps better than anything RTD could have produced on its own.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Not always good to be first.

Yes, more delays and that doesn't even count today's NatGas leak which wasn't the fault of RTD of course.

I don't know if anybody paid attention but I zeroed in on the problem back in my June 9th post.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

A concessionaire is only as good as the agency contracting with it. It took RTD a decade to figure out credit cards, and going on two decades to figure out farecards, still with no resolution. 19th century trolleys RTD can almost handle. If the Concessionaire figures out how to make EMU run on-time in under 5 years, it'll be ten steps better than anything RTD could have produced on its own.

I always marvel at your unabashed adoration for RTD.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Yes, more delays and that doesn't even count today's NatGas leak which wasn't the fault of RTD of course.

I don't know if anybody paid attention but I zeroed in on the problem back in my June 9th post.

Nothing in that date range regarding you saying what the issue is- unless you are talking of a mention of first of its kind rollout that is Trump-esque vague. PCS is part of it, but the other seems to be an electrical transmission system that wasn't designed to handle the operating conditions. Time for the concessionaire to sue the design firm for failure to meet project scope.

I always marvel at your unabashed adoration for RTD.

Bunt on the RTD board would be one of the finest gifts from the heavens we would ever receive.

[The Dirt]

Oh I would pay serious money to see that.

[TakeFive]

What the Hell is density exactly and who needs it?
Basically cities west of the Mississippi ain't got it, at least according to Big City textbook wisdom.
So what does that mean for transit?
Apparently it means that those conservative think tanks that say big investments in rail transit are stupid, are smarter than most people.
Ah, hah.

Go west young man go west; that's where the livin is best.
I assume we're all familiar with the post-WWII development era?

What about density and Denver?
Capital Hill baby, Capitol Hill is where the density is.

So would East Colfax be a good transit corridor?
Yes, at least from the Capitol out to Colorado Blvd. Then forgetaboutit, at least until you cross into Aurora where density picks up again out to about Sable Blvd.

What about South Broadway?
Same story. From downtown to I-25 is good but then the density drops off dramatically after that.

So maybe some form of rail transit between the Capitol and Colorado Blvd. on Colfax and South Broadway from Colfax to I-25 would be good, then?
Yeah i would think so. Now if you could just go back a few decades to when the Feds were financing up to 80% of such projects that would be even better.

How about Aurora?
That's an interesting case. Going back to the 1970's when the Metro area growth escalated Aurora became popular bcuz of the presence of Cherry Creek School District. Aurora actually allocated an uncommon amount of land for more dense development.

And how big are those buildings?
There's actually a shit-ton of two-story townhomes and ironically other cities looked down their noses at All That Dumb Density. In fact, I'd assume that many of wong's "lower middle class filth" are at least homeowners.

Take Nine Mile Station.
If you use Parker Road as an axis and draw a 180 degree arc... wait, make that a clock and draw the arc from 8 O'clock to 3 O'clock and you've got some of the best density in the whole metro area - based on how density was defined in metro Denver and yes, there's more than just townhomes. My best guess is that a whole lot of the ridership comes from 1 O'clock to 3 O'clock.

As metro denver developed there was the typical multi-family zoning along freeways and major corridors of course. I can think of pockets or clusters of this at Bear Valley, along Wadsworth, Union Blvd, 104th Ave. Monaco Parkway... I could name many more.

What about Denver proper and is there one corridor that would jump out as being more dense?
As Denver developed both SE Denver and SW Denver became nice single family neighborhoods for the most part. The one corridor that stands out for more consistent density would be Speer Blvd. to Leetsdale Dr. to Parker Road out to I-225. Whoaa, would that be hugely expensive to run rail down.

Is it possible maybe that with FasTracks this would guide a lot of future dense development?
Oh yes, of course. In fact that's the whole purpose for why FasTracks was built in the first place. It's just that many, including "experts" can't seem to wrap their minds around this or wonder why it isn't happening lickity split.

[EngiNerd]

http://gis.drcog.org/datacatalog/sit...ionDensity.pdf

[TakeFive]

EngiNerd... I like that. Not sure the relevance of "2010-2014" though?

Helps make my point(s), actually. Obviously downtown and the nearby neighborhoods have been on a density building boom over he last 5 years or so. It's not difficult to discern where Cherry Creek School District lies. I think I can see where Bear Valley is also.

My post was obviously more historical and more granular but to the extent you want to map general density - as it would be defined for Denver - that does a nice overall job.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

EngiNerd... I like that. Not sure the relevance of "2010-2014" though?

Helps make my point(s), actually. Obviously downtown and the nearby neighborhoods have been on a density building boom over he last 5 years or so. It's not difficult to discern where Cherry Creek School District lies. I think I can see where Bear Valley is also.

My post was obviously more historical and more granular but to the extent you want to map general density - as it would be defined for Denver - that does a nice overall job.

CC school district lies in some dense areas in the case of Overland and Smokey Hill feeder areas, but it also lies in substantially sparsely populated areas as is the case with Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village (among others). I don't see any correlation there at all.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

CC school district lies in some dense areas in the case of Overland and Smokey Hill feeder areas, but it also lies in substantially sparsely populated areas as is the case with Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village (among others). I don't see any correlation there at all.

With respect to my OP I was specifically talking about CCSD in Aurora as my subtopic became Aurora. But no question that from roughly Hampden south to County Line and Broadway east to about Peoria, south of Belleview or better Arapahoe Rd. where it's more relevant, density is quite low (generally) aside from a few pockets or clusters. It's why CCSD which has 6 HS's (currently) has only one HS west of the Reservoir albeit very large CCHS. The other 5 are all in Aurora with a 6th planned for just off Quincy out by the Aurora Reservoir. I've also said that Smoky Hill Road was a dividing line between more dense zoning to the north and more genteel property to the south of Smoky HIll Road.

But you also bring up a good point in that within Denver there is a number of neighborhood/areas with nicer homes on expected larger lots depending partly when they were built and the preferences at that time which that density map doesn't have the kind of detail to show.

[bunt_q]

Somebody should overlay our rail network on that map. It sure looks like we've done our darnedest to build completely around the density. And that, folks, is why we have park-n-rides.

[TakeFive]

"All my bags are packed
I'm ready to go
I'm standin' here outside your door
I hate to wake you up to say goodbye
But the dawn is breakin'
It's early morn
The taxi's waitin'
He's blowin' his horn" John Denver

Credit: Fly Denver

"DIA passenger traffic soaring"
Jul 21, 2016 by Cathy Proctor - Denver Business Journal

Denver International Airport is racking up records — with May being the busiest May in the airport’s 21-year history, the ninth consecutive month of record-setting traffic through the airport.

DIA officials said the airport hosted a total of 4,901,890 passengers in May, up 8.2 percent over the 4,532,025 passengers who passed through in May 2015.

Peaking my interest, I did some additional checking. April traffic counts were up 3.6 percent; February was up more than 10 percent (Leap Year); January had a 7.6 percent increase. Denver needed a good snapback year and it's good to see that they're getting it.

Other than for bragging rights it's not that important but Denver did lose their long standing 5th busiest status to JFK last year as JFK traffic was up a robust 6.8 percent to 56.8 million passengers in 2015 compared to Denver's 54 million passengers up only 1 percent (according to Wikepedia)

Moody's rates DIA's financial outlook; says airport debt 'decreasing rapidly'
Jul 13, 2016 by Cathy Proctor - Denver Business Journal

Moody’s Investors Service likes what it sees at Denver International Airport.

The ratings agency on Monday issued a notice that it has “affirmed” the A1 rating on DIA’s $3.2 billion worth of revenue bonds and the A2 rating on the airport’s roughly $715 million worth of outstanding subordinate revenue bonds.

The agency said the ratings “reflect the airport’s monopoly position on the diverse and growing Denver service area that has provided well above average O&G [origination and destination] traffic growth in recent years.”

While on the one hand $4 billion seems like still a lot of debt, if you consider the replacement cost is prolly over $25 billion then it seems very reasonable.

Moody’s said the level of bond debt DIA currently holds — about $4 billion, or $203 per passenger in 2015 — is considered “moderate” compared to similarly large, hub airports and is “decreasing rapidly” as debts racked up by the construction of the airport are paid off.

One of these days I intend to put together a post that shows some of the humongous amounts that other airports are having to spend just to keep up with the times.

[Cirrus]

There's a scale issue. Density within walking distance of stations is different from density that isn't. These broad-scale discussions and maps can tell us about one but not the other. They both matter, but one produces park-and-rides and one doesn't.

[TakeFive]

Friday Follies?


Photo: Thomas Hosemann/Stadtwerke Augsburg via Daily Mail

"German city embeds traffic lights in PAVEMENTS so texting 'zombies' don't have to raise their heads when crossing the road"
26 April 2016 By Sarah Griffiths For MailOnline

Being distracted by your phone while crossing the road could cost you your life, with 'texting zombies' four times more likely not to spot oncoming traffic.

Now, in a bid to keep phone addicts safe, a German city has embedded lights into the road at a pedestrian crossing so texters needn't raise their heads to tell when it's safe to cross.

Is there even any bunt level analysis for this?

A recent survey of European cities including Berlin found one fifth of pedestrians are distracted by their phones, with a study conducted by the University of Washington suggesting it's as high as one in three in the US.

The US Department of Transportation has linked phone use to an increase in pedestrian deaths.