DENVER | Transportation Thread

[CharlesCO]

You guys will never know the joy of stairs that collapse from level boarding to high-floor after exiting a subway and transitioning to street level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3bOgESyzkw

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We will never know the joy of decent transit period. RTD makes sure of that.

Why do we need mass transit? We have I-70 version 2.0

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh come on, all the commuters will have decent transit. It's just the folks relegated to 'da bus that get the shaft. It's not RTD's fault you work in the suburbs in a life-style center.

It's still slow. It's only good for commuters whose offices don't provide them parking. That's way our best Denver urbanists are so vehemently anti-parking. They mask it as caring somehow about urban design, but we've all seen parking done well. The real reason is they know our transit can never compete unless we make the car more and more difficult to use.

[bcp]

so....i'm not trying to troll or rub this in...but look at how BRT is being done in chicago on a very colfax style street...this will run 19 miles n/s on a street about 1.5 miles west of the loop (and 5 blocks from yours truly!). it will intersect with like 6 train lines and a bunch of stations...traffic will go down to one lane in some areas, parking will be taken in others.

fun video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7D1uA52LG0

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's still slow. It's only good for commuters whose offices don't provide them parking. That's way our best Denver urbanists are so vehemently anti-parking. They mask it as caring somehow about urban design, but we've all seen parking done well. The real reason is they know our transit can never compete unless we make the car more and more difficult to use.

Sounds like the Calgary model. Which many would view as an effective development model for a city.

[mr1138]

Has anybody read David Owen's "Green Metropolis" and considered his theory that, ultimately, it is all about relative capacity of modes of travel in comparison to each other? He makes the case that transit in a place like NYC works, fundamentally, because the streets reached their max auto capacity a long time ago. It's an argument that makes a lot of sense to me, and is frankly part of why I'm not concerned about parking garages in urban developments.

Stress can be added to street capacity in two ways: A) increase traffic or B) reduce capacity by removing auto lanes. Denver isn't at the point yet where it is serious about reducing capacity or providing alternatives more attractive than driving, so for the time being, parking garages continue to make sense. But make no mistake, each additional garage and development does increase traffic, and at some point it will make driving on city streets unbearable. That may be exactly what we need to tilt the scale in favor of accessing the city center via transit.

A more draconian approach would be to set severe parking maximums (remember that it is the market, not parking minimums that is currently driving this trend), but would be done at the risk of reducing demand for urban development in the first place. I'd rather we see the current approach continue to play out, and eventually, we will have a city where you can live without a car. But as bunt_q continually points out, we don't have that city yet, and the ability to access the mountains and other parts of the metro area remains a major factor in Denver's desirability. I don't think we want to prematurely mess with these dynamics while our real-estate market is as red-hot as it is.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Has anybody read David Owen's "Green Metropolis" and considered his theory that, ultimately, it is all about relative capacity of modes of travel in comparison to each other? He makes the case that transit in a place like NYC works, fundamentally, because the streets reached their max auto capacity a long time ago. It's an argument that makes a lot of sense to me, and is frankly part of why I'm not concerned about parking garages in urban developments.

Stress can be added to street capacity in two ways: A) increase traffic or B) reduce capacity by removing auto lanes. Denver isn't at the point yet where it is serious about reducing capacity or providing alternatives more attractive than driving, so for the time being, parking garages continue to make sense. But make no mistake, each additional garage and development does increase traffic, and at some point it will make driving on city streets unbearable. That may be exactly what we need to tilt the scale in favor of accessing the city center via transit.

A more draconian approach would be to set severe parking maximums (remember that it is the market, not parking minimums that is currently driving this trend), but would be done at the risk of reducing demand for urban development in the first place. I'd rather we see the current approach continue to play out, and eventually, we will have a city where you can live without a car. But as bunt_q continually points out, we don't have that city yet, and the ability to access the mountains and other parts of the metro area remains a major factor in Denver's desirability. I don't think we want to prematurely mess with these dynamics while our real-estate market is as red-hot as it is.

The problem with your plan B, is that it would have to be done metro wide, otherwise you greatly reduce the desirability of the area that has implemented those restrictions, especially to commuters and business with a majority of employees who don't live in areas where transit is *currently* a realistic option. Yes it might be the breaking point for putting in more transit, however areas like the DTC and Inverness would be the ultimate winners in a plan like this because they would still offer easy parking and be able to draw those companies in that would leave downtown in the interim.

Downtown still very much competes with the DTC and Inverness for commercial business, and often times loses out because of the parking situation...I don't know that we would want to do anything to make downtown even less competitive unless there were other viable transit options already in place.

[jubguy3]

I think that with UTA's planned purchase of 180 streetcar S70'S for the post Front Lines 2015 to add capacity for the West University, Yellow, and 5600/Orem/Harriman Pkwy projects and to replace the KinkiSharyo and SD160 trains because they have reached the end of their lives you guys may get a purchase of the order for a reduced cost- it is also very easy to transition to low floor as we operate low floor in high block enabled stations.

EDIT: Both SLC and Denver will never have the collapsible stairs problem. Both are at a uniform height throughout and thats a high floor train anyways.

What I like about high floor cars is that because they are newer they are also wider inside and taller inside so they seem to be able to have more passengers. They are also much much faster to board than high floor and they are even better for passengers that require accessibility ramps. They are a little noisier though

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bcp

so....i'm not trying to troll or rub this in...but look at how BRT is being done in chicago on a very colfax style street...this will run 19 miles n/s on a street about 1.5 miles west of the loop (and 5 blocks from yours truly!). it will intersect with like 6 train lines and a bunch of stations...traffic will go down to one lane in some areas, parking will be taken in others.

fun video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7D1uA52LG0

It's only a Colfax like street because it probably has as much traffic as Colfax. It's not Colfax like in that it isn't the only n/s (or in Colfax's case e/w) route to anywhere in the city that is viable, other than interstates. Not that I wouldn't wholeheartedly support permanent conversion to bus only (to ACTUALLY get BRT. Not this Disney like build one facade and call it a building BRT that we have proposed for Colfax). But Denver being so utterly without any options for getting e/w makes me understand why people would object to taking traffic lanes away just to cater to poor and minorities. We do want them hidden on public transit, certainly, but not at the expense of our cars.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

It's only a Colfax like street because it probably has as much traffic as Colfax. It's not Colfax like in that it isn't the only n/s (or in Colfax's case e/w) route to anywhere in the city that is viable, other than interstates. Not that I wouldn't wholeheartedly support permanent conversion to bus only (to ACTUALLY get BRT. Not this Disney like build one facade and call it a building BRT that we have proposed for Colfax). But Denver being so utterly without any options for getting e/w makes me understand why people would object to taking traffic lanes away just to cater to poor and minorities. We do want them hidden on public transit, certainly, but not at the expense of our cars.

You mean except for the perfectly viable 13th/14th and 17th/18th couplets on both sides of Colfax?

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You mean except for the perfectly viable 13th/14th and 17th/18th couplets on both sides of Colfax?

This is a good point that I haven't heard enough. As an E/W travel route, Colfax alone is miserably slow at most times of day. Anyone who drives that corridor regularly uses 13/14th or maybe if they are already north of Colfax they use 16/17th. What is the load share between the three. I hear that this is one of our busiest corridors but is that including the commutes on 13th/14? I'm pretty sure 13/14th move twice as many cars as Colfax during peak periods.

If they were not such an easy, and well timed alternative, I would go south to 6th/8th before traveling between Broadway and Monaco on Colfax during the day. That couplet also seams like it moves much more cars than Colfax and has well timed lights that keep everything moving.

[bcp]

it's more about how they think about it here...there is a parallel corridor on western ave (would be similar to the distance from colfax to MLK) that is also receiveing the same BRT - and they sell it here by saying "25% of all residents can walk to either of these lines" and that travel time will drop 80% (yup, 80) by dedicating the lanes 24 hours.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You mean except for the perfectly viable 13th/14th and 17th/18th couplets on both sides of Colfax?

Both of those dead end at downtown or other places along the route, and are practically the same corridor just without any businesses (except 17th).

But yeah, I'd be perfectly happy either taking any of those for streetcar or real BRT or taking a couple lanes permanently on Colfax and letting people get used to using those 4 streets a bit more. I wasn't saying the (I assumed objections - or else the plan we got was unforgivably incompetent) objections to permanent traffic lane reductions on Colfax were "right", I just said I could understand where one would make them.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Both of those dead end at downtown or other places along the route.....

I doubt that high a percentage of east Colfax trips start or end west of downtown. If your destination/origin is that far away then I25/I70 becomes the preferred route. Even more so after planned I70 widening. 13th ave is uninterrupted and well engineered from Yosemite on the east all the way to 1 block shy of Colfax on the West (not counting the at grade lightrail crossing near Osage.) 14th is equally smooth from 3 blocks west of Santa Fe all the way east to Yosemite. I would much rather they remain the efficient auto corridor they are today and the transit travel in both directions through the commercially active Colfax.

I just question the logic of off peak sharing of the transit ROW. My suspicion is that this is driven by the desire of residents near the parallel alternative routes to shift traffic to Colfax at night to help quiet the residential neighborhoods. One lane or two I will still avoid Colfax by auto whenever possible even at night.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I doubt that high a percentage of east Colfax trips start or end west of downtown. If your destination/origin is that far away then I25/I70 becomes the preferred route. Even more so after planned I70 widening. .

Have you never stood at the corner of Colfax and Broadway?

And actually if you want to do freeway to go west 6th makes more sense. It's a lot less out of the way from Colfax.

You're still missing the point though. If Colfax is so unimportant for people to get from the west side to the east side and vice versa or from Downtown west.. why did we get such a stupid solution to transit?

So what if you and others convince me of all this irrelevance of Colfax? If that's true then infants using Tommy the Train toys could come up with a better solution than what Denver did. If Colfax is THAT unimportant than everyone who touched the final report needs to be fired and run out of town.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Have you never stood at the corner of Colfax and Broadway?

Frequently, and not counting buses Broadway is almost always moving many more vehicles than Colfax. It just seems as busy because the timing of the lights there gives preference to N/S travel.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Interzen

Frequently, and not counting buses Broadway is almost always moving many more vehicles than Colfax. It just seems as busy because the timing of the lights there gives preference to N/S travel.

Ok you guys win.. Colfax is irrelevant to travel anywhere crossing downtown and the plan to save it's capacity implying so is one of the dumbest things to come out of Denver since hiring Dan O'Doud.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You mean except for the perfectly viable... couplets on both sides of Colfax?

When first I read "couplets" I wondered what on Colfax you were thinking of?
But then I recalled my days of reading Shel Silverstein.


tagteam.harvard.edu

[TakeFive]

momtrends.com
comicvine.com


Ken Steals The Show
in this DBJ coverage related to the 20 year celebration of RTD's first Light Rail Line opening. Ken does a great job of speaking to Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen on Transit Oriented Development. Consequently, every citizen throughout the metro area can see the exciting opportunities on their side of town and feel a sense of pride in our growing transit investment.

October 7th is the official date when in 1994 the original 5.3 mile Central Rail Line started service. From a cost of $116.5 million for that line to today's multibillion dollar investment in Light Rail, Commuter Rail and the Denver Union Station Transit Center... RTD has the story HERE and HERE.

What a Ride - and the Best is yet to Come.

[LAM]

Intro paragraph follows:

The Accessibility Observatory at the University of Minnesota has released the most useful transit commute rankings you're likely to see for some time. "Access Across America: Transit 2014" ranks 46 of the biggest U.S. metros based on how many jobs a resident can access by transit during the morning rush of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Let's jump right into the top 10 then step back and see how the rankings were done:

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. Washington, D.C.
5. Chicago
6. Boston
7. Philadelphia
8. Seattle
9. Denver
10. San Jose

Link to 10/8/2014, Article by Eric Jaffe at The Atlantic CityLab HERE