DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yeah, everything north of Montview is basically history, including the golf course. The plan has relatively high density development all the way up to the Parkway. Long-range planning.

Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.

[trubador]

the tech park is very long planning. Still waiting for the next part of Fitzsimons village to be developed.

http://www.fitzsimons-village.com/

on a better note, the gas station near the corner of colfax and Fitzsimons Parkway is being torn down as we speak. There is still a storage unit place and a uhaul rental, but it looks like they are ready to get started on that part of the tracks.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.

In general, I tend to agree. I do think it was a mistake running lines in corridors that are basically void of actual people and creating demand through folks driving to stations. I think we should have spent the money on fewer lines in places people live.

But I do understand the political nature of the decision (even though it shouldn't be an issue, and not everyone is entitled to high quality transit in the metro) and believe that we will eventually fill up the corridors with people (TOD). It's just going to take a lot longer than most folks want. And in the mean time, it has the potential of taking away money from places people already live (i.e. The City of Denver decides to put in a bunch of sidewalks around an isolate station hoping to catalyze development, when a low income neighborhood that's been around for 70 years doesn't have that same infrastructure). In order for Denver (or other communities) to really see the benefits of high quality transit, they're probably going to have to start paying for it (Boulder style, and probably more-so). But we've talked about this a million times. Most folks on here understand this.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.

Add to that, the sheer design mechanics which is reflected in time of travel and ease of use.

Users have to feel that taking public transit of any kind is advantageous, whether that be defined in a time to cost equation, or by personal taste.

Systems need to be very functional in terms of ease of use, and, freedom of choice. Ease of use includes platform level boarding, well designed transfer points, direct routes, safety, and, frequency for trains, and, much the same for buses. Freedom of choice reflects transit vehicle frequency, hours of operation, and, well designed transfer points.

Many of these factors are psychological: passengers hate to transfer unnecessarily in all forms of public transit- riders do not like transfer points that appear contrived; riders like to believe that the travel is fast. For example, express travel through stations is a huge psychological plus. Another is no low speeds in the middle of nowhere.

How fast the system triggers TOD is dependent in large part on how good the transit system actually is, as maybe is the only meaningful criteria with which to judge a public system is by how many people use it.

I also believe that property development is not the primary function of public transportation. Systems that compromise speed, time of travel, and, route to developers political and financial power pay the price in lower ridership.

[Cirrus]

It still seems to me, a decade after we last had this discussion, that the thing holding back TOD in Denver is simply that downtown Denver still isn't anywhere close to being built out. For people who want the urban lifestyle there's neither any reason nor incentive to go elsewhere. Except Boulder, I guess. Has that changed? Seems like not yet, from my desk 1600 miles away. Eventually it will change though, and when it does the best peripheral stations will start to see more TOD. I'm fine with planning for some of that now.

But even then, the best TODs happen where urban development already has a foothold, but the transit can make it happen at a higher density. So bunt's point is still true.

Ultimately you make the compromises you must to get things built. I'm OK with that. But it's frustrating to have so many here, especially with some real home-run destinations left off the map.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.

Everyone who plans anything in Denver should be required to go to the park connecting the 16th st millennium bridge with the S Platte River bridge downtown.

Or here just click:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.75604...02763&t=h&z=20


This is what happens when you give a moron a drafting table and a pencil. (a well meaning, completely competent, highly trained moron I'm sure - to counter the instant offense I'm going to give to DenverInfill). You can even see how most pedestrians try for a little bit to follow the sidewalk out of respect for the path (or maybe it's because of the large brick barrier put there to intentionally delay pedestrians - no reason to take your car when the city bends over backward to do that sort of bullsh*t is there?). But of course they quickly realize how stupid the layout is and walk straight toward their destination, ruining the grass, attracting signs imploring (no wait ordering) them to "stay on the path GRRRRRRR." They couldn't dream of putting the walking path where it needs to be. Actually the walking path IS where it needs to be, it just hasn't been paved under by the city.

Nothing so obviously demonstrates the mistake planners make (often are forced to make, I'll admit) better than this. Although in fairness to the planners we take great lengths not to offend on this board, it's particle physics difficult to realize people might take the shortest distance between two points while they walk.

[seventwenty]

Ken's made his position clear about that path.

[DenverInfill]

^ Exactly, I've made my point known about this issue. And no offense taken, Brain, as the park was designed by landscape architects, not planners. I would have made it a straight plaza directly between the two bridges.

[bobg]

While we are on the subject of where pedestrians intuitively walk.

Last time I was at the 17th St promenade at DUS the cross walks were only at the narrow portion on the other side of the skylights at Wewatta and Chestnut. So instead of a wide pedestrian crossing they will have to zig-zag at each crosswalk to get to/from the wide open sidewalk on 17th between Wewatta and Chestnut. I have a feeling these crossings may lead to more utilization of that narrow sidewalk on the 17th street side of the bus skylights than the more open wider sidewalk.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

^ Exactly, I've made my point know about this issue. And no offense taken, Brain, as the park was designed by landscape architects, not planners. I would have made it a straight plaza directly between the two bridges.

The one time I actually try to temper my snark proactively lol.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Everyone who plans anything in Denver should be required to go to the park connecting the 16th st millennium bridge with the S Platte River bridge downtown.

Or here just click:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.75604...02763&t=h&z=20


This is what happens when you give a moron a drafting table and a pencil. (a well meaning, completely competent, highly trained moron I'm sure - to counter the instant offense I'm going to give to DenverInfill). You can even see how most pedestrians try for a little bit to follow the sidewalk out of respect for the path (or maybe it's because of the large brick barrier put there to intentionally delay pedestrians - no reason to take your car when the city bends over backward to do that sort of bullsh*t is there?). But of course they quickly realize how stupid the layout is and walk straight toward their destination, ruining the grass, attracting signs imploring (no wait ordering) them to "stay on the path GRRRRRRR." They couldn't dream of putting the walking path where it needs to be. Actually the walking path IS where it needs to be, it just hasn't been paved under by the city.

Nothing so obviously demonstrates the mistake planners make (often are forced to make, I'll admit) better than this. Although in fairness to the planners we take great lengths not to offend on this board, it's particle physics difficult to realize people might take the shortest distance between two points while they walk.

Eh, Parks Planners are a different breed. Lots of architects in that bunch.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

It's high time (no pun intended :-) Denver raised meter rates, starting collecting on Sundays, and added meters into close-in neighborhoods like Lohi.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Eh, Parks Planners are a different breed. Lots of architects in that bunch.

Ironic that in all my dealings with Parks and Rec, I've never met an architect there, nor am I sure what they would be doing there. Unless, you are confused about the term Landscape Architect.

[PLANSIT]

No confusion, but, yes, LAs.

Point being, sometimes the form outweighs the function.

[Cirrus]

I remember this one time during my freshman year at CU, at the point where planners & architects were still in combined classes, one of the architecture professors giving us a slideshow showed us this picture of a path along the side of hedge. The path did a little curvy jog away from the hedge briefly, then went back to the hedge's side. The prof just loved it. Told us what a great example it is. How the curve's unexpectedness artfully highlights the dichotomy of a concrete path over soft greenery. Just marvelous, he said.

The straight line along the side of the hedge, following the shortest distance, had an unpaved desire path straight through it.

And it was in that moment that I knew I'd made the correct decision to take the planning track instead of the architecture track.

[mr1138]

Luckily not all CU professors are created equal. Most of mine have been downright scornful of doing anything "artful" or "arbitrary." I think Prof. Barbour (I'm assuming many on here know John) would have quite a lot to say about architects who "willfully impose" forms on a landscape. To quote from an email he sent me just yesterday, "[well designed] forms come not from a presumption about forms themselves, but as a result of forces -- ecological, human, and so forth. The designer's job, as well as the planner's, is not to assign forms -- that way disaster always lies -- but to correctly identify the underlying forces and to mold forms to work in harmony with these forces." I couldn't agree with him more, and I think this lesson definitely applies in the case of that path.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by LAM

Ironic that in all my dealings with Parks and Rec, I've never met an architect there, nor am I sure what they would be doing there. Unless, you are confused about the term Landscape Architect.

I've never met a city department that did their own projects. That's what consultants are for.

As far as CU professors... Times and fashions change, but architects do not. Read what you just wrote from that email, real people do not talk like that. Yoda talks like that. Whoever writes that is somebody who will curve the path just as soon as being artful is considered fashionable again.

[wong21fr]

A) What's the project budget?

B) How much will the design cost?

C) Value-engineer the crap out of said design until it's within the budget with the inclusion of contingency.

D) Pray that someone doesn't revise the DCF model and lower the discount rate making project non-economic.

E) Repeat soul-crushing experience.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I've never met a city department that did their own projects. That's what consultants are for.

Aspen does...but they still hire consultants when the jobs get larger.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Aspen does...but they still hire consultants when the jobs get larger.

Independent consultants (and their companies) in any business get well paid, in part to be the fall "guy," Consultants take the responsibility for bad ideas away from those on salary and from politicians.

Too often, of course, very capable consultants are not permitted to recommend what they believe the best solution is, or, at least, must tone down the presentation of the "best solution" in the inevitable "pick one of the 3 or four best alternatives" menu, presented either in house or to the public.
This is the price consultants pay, particularly when they are hired to develop plans or recommend existing plans for government agencies, in exchange for the good compensation they receive.

The saving grace of being hired as a consultant for public projects, is that once the study project is accepted by the hiring authority, the consultant is no longer responsible for the contained recommendations.*

Consultants that are hired by private industry to evaluate potential profitability are a different "animal." Such consultants live and die by how much profit, or reduced expenses, their recommendations, if acted upon, generate. In addition, in order to survive for any length of time as a consultant for private industry, one obviously has to have at least some of his or her recommendations acted upon.

The line, of course, blurs between private industry and government agency as private contractors and property developers can hire consultants to design plans that extract maximum profit from the execution of public projects.

In other words, consultants in specific areas VERY often are aware that what they are recommending is not the best solution, as often can be proven through off-the record conversations.

*I am not talking about 1099 workers who are doing a specific job, whose technical expertise is unavailable in house.