DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

All that said, I'm ultimately OK with further separating the neighborhood, because the highway isn't really the problem. The neighborhoods are already cut off by industrial land south of I-70 (see below). So I can live with widening here provided:

1. We admit the widening and the structural issues are separate (we're not widening because the el needs to be replaced).
2. It's not paid for out of money that otherwise could go towards non-highway projects (ie I support bonding off of HOT lane tolls).
3. We actually conduct a study looking at whether we really need all three of those east/west interstates in north Denver. If the answer is yes then so be it, but it shouldn't be a given.

1. We have to replace the bridge because it's old. And when we do, we're widening, no matter what. So I suppose that is correct.

2. I have no idea... but the premise that NO capacity expansion should occur - that money should go to alternative modes - is a separate discussion.

3. Removing the elevated segment and shifting it north (partly new alignment, partly with I-270) was considered. It was rejected, in part because it was actually more expensive, and in part (I think) because a lot of the industrial uses up there don't want to lose highway access.

Removing I-70 completely from I-76 to I-270 would run into the same problem, I think. As much as planner-types dislike highways, there are a lot of folks and businesses who don't want to lose that access.

I'll also add (not in response to Cirrus specifically) - we need industrial uses. We shouldn't assume that just because land is industrial, it's expendable, should be redeveloped, is a waste of space, etc. On downtown's doorstep, sure, that can be redeveloped to a higher use. But we shouldn't think to banish it entirely from the city.

[Cirrus]

Here we go. Should have thought to look here first. Wikipedia list of structures built on top of freeways. There are least 16 states with capped sections of highway.

(Edited my previous post to include this, but copying it here since there are several responses since then.)

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The premise that NO capacity expansion should occur - that money should go to alternative modes - is a separate discussion.

That's not what I meant, but I suppose I wasn't clear. It's not just transit; it's also surface roads. CDOT has a lot of priorities that aren't interstate highways, and if they blow their entire budget on 2 miles of interstate then it means a lot of local arterial & intersection projects aren't going to get the attention they should. Even if every cent goes to roads, neglecting those needs to fund one sexy interstate project is not necessarily the correct decision. HOT lanes do provide an answer to this.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Removing the elevated segment and shifting it north was considered. It was rejected.

OK then.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We shouldn't assume that industrial land is expendable.On downtown's doorstep, sure, but we shouldn't banish it from the city.

Agreed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'll also add (not in response to Cirrus specifically) - we need industrial uses. We shouldn't assume that just because land is industrial, it's expendable, should be redeveloped, is a waste of space, etc. On downtown's doorstep, sure, that can be redeveloped to a higher use. But we shouldn't think to banish it entirely from the city.

Why not? Discriminatory economic policies through land-use are still perfectly acceptable. Only through getting rid of industrial areas can the professional class drive out the less desirable who may, as long as they work two or three jobs, actually make a living wage doing low-skilled and semi-skilled industrial labor such as logistics.

Coffee shops and co-work spaces are sexy. Modern warehouses with two dozen trailer loading docks aren't. Warehouses that generally require good road access, ie highways, and a good chunk of land. It seems that our discussions continue to ignore this little factor. While I-70 needs to be replaced, it's the industrial uses along it that drive a lot of the requirement. Elyria-Swanson and Globeville are, quite frankly, getting a hell of a lot more attention than is necessary in this discussion (though the case for doing this from a social justice standpoint is a driver). The top 3 driving contributors for I-70 are, probably, 1) local logistical traffic, 2) regional logistical traffic, 3) local commuting. One wonders if it would be ultimately more economical to relocate the residential neighborhood than consider it's requirements as being of greater importance. What is the value of doing a project that would remove a psychological barrier in a neighborhood that will continue to be isolated from the rest of Denver?

[bunt_q]

Point of clarification on wong's post. Warehouses are okay so long as they're filled with starving artists. Warehouses that have warehousing, or worse, manufacturing, those are the problem.

[RyanD]

So if we want to move all these warehouses and convert them for other uses where would we relocate them? I think they are fine where they are. Every city needs an industrial area for, well, industrial uses.. Have any of us played SimCity here? We have a huge green spike for 'R' right now.. 'C' is doing okay and we need the 'I' somewhere too.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Have any of us played SimCity here?

Really? Most of us were probably playing simcity when you were just a twinkle in your parents' eyes. As stephen colbert correctly pointed out, that game sent millions of us off packing to planning school!

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

we need industrial uses. We shouldn't assume that just because land is industrial, it's expendable, should be redeveloped, is a waste of space, etc. On downtown's doorstep, sure, that can be redeveloped to a higher use. But we shouldn't think to banish it entirely from the city.

I don't consider industrial uses and land expendable, just less affected and possibly even boosted by highway proximity. Land acquisition could be easier than through a residential area because of the much larger parcel sizes involved. There is also a lot of under utilized and vacant land in that corridor.

The big obstacle in my preferred alignment was the sewage treatment plant which we certainly can't do without.

It's all a moot point anyway since that option has been eliminated from future consideration.

Originally Posted by RyanD

So if we want to move all these warehouses and convert them for other uses where would we relocate them?

Aurora will gladly take in any displaced distribution capacity. They lobby pretty hard for it. There are still plenty of areas within the city limits that have primarily industrial use so I don't think that is currently a problem. Increasing property values and our recently raised taxes will do more to push industry out of Denver County into surrounding municipalities than any gentrification of a few downtown adjacent neighborhoods.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Interzen

The big obstacle in my preferred alignment was the sewage treatment plant which we certainly can't do without.

I think the refinery would be the bigger one. Or the power plant.

Hell, any one of the three would require a multibillion dollar payment.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think the refinery would be the bigger one. Or the power plant.

Hell, any one of the three would require a multibillion dollar payment.

That's a 150 MGD wastewater plant... you'd be in the billions to replace that too. Not to mention the battle of public entites.

We were joking about this in the office the other day... the concept of "dominant eminent domain" - one public entity being able to condemn property of another public entity. If CDOT condemned the WWTP, what would keep Metro Wastewater from condemning the highway right back? Both would be legal.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think the refinery would be the bigger one. Or the power plant.

Hell, any one of the three would require a multibillion dollar payment.

Your right, now that I look back at the map the refinery was also a big obstacle but it seemed like it could be skirted to the north with just the loss off a half dozen tanks. I'm not sure exactly where the power plant is in that tangle.

[mr1138]

I always thought that the north alignment being studied came through slightly south of both the waste water plant and the refinery, somewhere in the region of 56th and just above the cemetery. A new mousetrap would have been built in aprox. the current location of 58th/I25. Its been forever since I've looked at that map though so I could be wrong.

[Interzen]

You are probably right. I was referring to my own independent analysis of routes, not the officially studied one.

[wong21fr]

Remember folks, transportation planners (or as others call them, engineers) are full of shit and cannot conduct estimate costs to save their life and retired political science professors truly understand the costs of rerouting I-70 along the I-270/I-76 route.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Remember folks, transportation planners (or as others call them, engineers) are full of shit and cannot conduct estimate costs to save their life and retired political science professors truly understand the costs of rerouting I-70 along the I-270/I-76 route.

Exactly. And people wonder why I quit practicing planning/engineering to become a lawyer. People may despise us, but we don't have to put up with that kind of shit except from our clients. Really, it's not like there's a lot of subjectivity in a cost estimate. The only way to read that is this guy telling the consultants they suck at their jobs... which makes sense. Who doesn't think they can do planning/engineering just as well as a planner/engineer? There was some letter to the editor yesterday also saying how dams are pointless when it doesn't rain - actually no, that's exactly when they're not pointless. No respect for science and knowledge, none whatsoever. Because every opinion is right anymore, whether or not the facts are correct (do we believe in facts in America?), and we all get 10th place trophies. I'm just waiting for a sociology professor to chime in on some medical story to tell a doctor why his diagnosis and treatment was wrong.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No respect for science and knowledge, none whatsoever. Because every opinion is right anymore, whether or not the facts are correct (do we believe in facts in America?), and we all get 10th place trophies. I'm just waiting for a sociology professor to chime in on some medical story to tell a doctor why his diagnosis and treatment was wrong.

This is exacerbated somewhat by major media outlets simplistic attempts to appear fair and balanced. Suddenly every opinion is equally valid and equally deserving coverage, regardless of how absurd and obviously contradicted some are, and with no consideration for how qualified or not the presenters are.

Unfortunately too many assume this is just a natural result of open debate in the media. It is not. The media, as the moderator, bears the responsibility to call out the patently false and not just parrot the talking points from each position presented.

That's the end of my contribution to the rant against the death of journalism, and with it the loss of respect for expertise.

Edit: I also wanted to add that I took the transportation experts at their word and accepted that the I70 northern reroute was not feasible. That doesn't preclude it from being my preferred option if it had been possible.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

This is exacerbated somewhat by major media outlets simplistic attempts to appear fair and balanced. Suddenly every opinion is equally valid and equally deserving coverage, regardless of how absurd and obviously contradicted some are, and with no consideration for how qualified or not the presenters are.

Unfortunately too many assume this is just a natural result of open debate in the media. It is not. The media, as the moderator, bears the responsibility to call out the patently false and not just parrot the talking points from each position presented.

That's the end of my contribution to the rant against the death of journalism, and with it the loss of respect for expertise.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by Interzen

Edit: I also wanted to add that I took the transportation experts at their word and accepted that the I270/I76 reroute was not feasible. That doesn't preclude it from being my preferred option if it had been possible.

I just want to add. "Not possible" isn't the same as "not preferred." Lots of trade-offs involved.

[Cirrus]

OK. I moved the simcity stuff to the chit chat thread.

[bcp]

sooo...i just received the W line mailer - pretty snazzy! i'm excited to ride this train and plan on going to the event on 4/26.

one thing i noticed was that the map is the same as the current map, same style etc...however, there is a smaller version of JUST the W line and it's in that cool tube / moscow format (not sure what that's called...) but maybe this is a sign that we are moving to a super sweet map format?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Exactly. And people wonder why I quit practicing planning/engineering to become a lawyer. People may despise us, but we don't have to put up with that kind of shit except from our clients. Really, it's not like there's a lot of subjectivity in a cost estimate. The only way to read that is this guy telling the consultants they suck at their jobs... which makes sense. Who doesn't think they can do planning/engineering just as well as a planner/engineer? There was some letter to the editor yesterday also saying how dams are pointless when it doesn't rain - actually no, that's exactly when they're not pointless. No respect for science and knowledge, none whatsoever. Because every opinion is right anymore, whether or not the facts are correct (do we believe in facts in America?), and we all get 10th place trophies. I'm just waiting for a sociology professor to chime in on some medical story to tell a doctor why his diagnosis and treatment was wrong.

Times keep changing, and, continues to.

IMO, in the US all government sectors, particularly those involved in either designing future projects or supervise projects in extant, are becoming steadily more (if that is possible) beaurocratic. The transportation sector, seems among the most ossified.

For example,, while I understand and sympathize somewhat with those at CDOT that are looking for transportation plans 40 even 50 years out, I am struck by the idea of looking two career life times out for capital projects. Imagine making $70,000 or $80,000+ and being involved in 'working' future needs projects to be constructed? or built by 2053 or 2063. I suspect that those that do have to take a 'reflective' view about why they are working there, adapt by doing what is asked with minimal grumbling, and, take their dreaming to other parts of their lives. Organizations such as CDOT, RTD, and, the folks at DIA take the 'long' view, which, by definition must produce design orthodoxy, and, well cultivated political connections. Naturally, those just out of school, and, those who become blog participants during periods when large organizations with construction budgets are somewhat fluid (like during the Environment Statement Phases), tend to become disillusioned with time.

We do not live in an era in the US where radical infrastructural change is desired by those with power and money. Rather, we live in an era of talking heads who echo the party word, i.e., what will be built anyway, regardless of brilliant input from the refined or hack intellectual, at virtually any step in the planning and regulatory compliance process prior to construction. When those with the real power make mistakes in design, zoning, construction, etc., we, the public, are asked to share in the 'group learning experience.'

During conservative*times large organizations become tightly controlled both formally via written hierachy and informally, by spies (those without much talent but possess high survival skills). While youthful palaver is tolerated (John will learn the ropes soon...give him some time), meaningful criticism of what WILL BE DONE that reaches the public is not.

And hey, there are scads of un or underemployed planners, designers, architects, and US engineers that are busy networking as they try to get a job at one of these large organizations, so:

"Don't rock the boat."

Above all, conservative* ages seem to create- at least since the printing press- writers, and, observers who toe the line. The 'great' leaders are eulogized (Phil Anschutz and the brilliance of AEG come to mind- what planning disasters that man has made hundreds of millions on), and, the 'great' projects communicated in a largely, internet and newspaper party line.

*'Conservative' in the definiton expressived in the 3rd meaning of 'conservative' in Webster's Third Internation Dictionary, page 483, " one who adheres to traditional, time tested, long standing methods procedures or views.

****************

IMO Fortunately, while practising law involves earning your metal through countless hours of work that might not be recognized, lawyers tend to work for 'smaller' organizations with case by case agendas, or for large organizations to define specific policy, government compliance, tax, and, tort issues.