DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Sam Hill]

Speaking of being on the news, anyone else notice Denver Infill's latest post was added to Denverite's news feed a couple days ago? I bet that'll increase Denver Infill's traffic.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Yep. All the seats are usually taken with some standing room. However, RTD can't get their switches, signals, or trains working properly and I've been over 5 minutes late to my destination over 50% of my commutes this month. People are getting pissed and I'm sure many of them have resorted to just dealing with I-25.

By the way, I was on the news talking about RTD. They followed me on my commute which happened to be 10 minutes late that day. Here's the story:

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...encys-problems

That's fairly crazy. I missed this Jan piece. I caught and posted about your Dec piece.

I wonder if these issues don't result partly from the fact there are now three lines running along that route with the addition of the R Line which runs south of I-225. Although north of I-225 the H Line has been the 3rd line all along. The FTA declined RTD's request to cut back R Line service since the SE Extension received an FTA grant.

[improvisedliving]

As a long time lurker I thought I should chime in on the transit conversation.

I would agree that transit within the core is appalling , except for a few key routes. Its really slow and not isolated from traffic well enough to provide any sort of advantages. For this reason many have tried it and gave up, resorting to their cars. This basically what I see now with no one I know using transit. This includes myself, but I replaced it easily within DT with a bike instead of car like most. The difference is that I am a confident rider which many cannot claim themselves.

I lived downtown for the last 7 years but recently moved to Westminster, which as been an amazing move, btw! I can take the FF routes or B line and get to Union faster than I could from Uptown via transit. And as an avid utilitarian cyclist the bike infrastructure out here is amazing for reaching any of theses stations and something Denver could benefit from, although in a more urban format.

In essence I believe the best thing downtown Denver can do for the money is provide a full protected bike network, because honestly that is the fastest, healthiest, cost effective, space effective and not to mention most fun way to get around downtown (period). Once fully protected, people will use it. Its just not safe enough yet for 90% of us, my friends included.

The largest argument against this idea is that it snows here. But everyone seems to forget that snow ruins pretty much every mode, except rail... And honestly we have a very mild winter compared to most with few snow days, not many. Denver has some of the best weather in the world!

This obviously cannot replace transit, as many cannot ride physically, but it could help offset traffic within the core, which would intern help transit. I know I may sound crazy, but I truly believe, based experiences elsewhere that if we build it, people will use it. Especially with e-scooters and e-bikes taking foot around the world!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Yep. All the seats are usually taken with some standing room. However, RTD can't get their switches, signals, or trains working properly and I've been over 5 minutes late to my destination over 50% of my commutes this month. People are getting pissed and I'm sure many of them have resorted to just dealing with I-25.

Remember when RTD talked about adding a third track south of downtown and adding a pocket track on the downtown loop to increase the carrying capacity and resiliency of the system?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by improvisedliving

In essence I believe the best thing downtown Denver can do for the money is provide a full protected bike network, because honestly that is the fastest, healthiest, cost effective, space effective and not to mention most fun way to get around downtown (period). Once fully protected, people will use it. Its just not safe enough yet for 90% of us, my friends included.

I'm all for alternatives but you gotta balance this all out. The bottom line is you aren't going to please everybody. If you invest all your time and money into bike infrastructure, it's going to piss of the transit people and vise versa. However, I think Denver needs to step up their funding game, especially with DOTI in place now.

That being said - sure, fund bikes lanes, I'm cool with that. But remember, you're only catering to a maximum of 5% mode share, and 5% is high-balling it for Denver. You start throwing money at transit around the core, like my gondola idea and other suitable alternatives, you're going to start seeing a much higher mode share than the bike lanes. It just costs a boat load more money than bike infrastructure. Remember, not everybody bikes. There are elderly, people who don't own bikes (RIP B-Cycle), and people who aren't physically able to ride a bike. Gotta cater to ALL people not just a little group of them.

This is where balance comes in. I hope that as budgeting comes through, the city allocates for each mode share and doesn't just go all in on something. This is my current fear because this is 'cheap and easy' and the way Denver has always done it, see RTD. I really want to see them going aggressive on transit and all alternatives.

[mhays]

I'd argue the peak for bike riders is much higher. Even if the average commute share citywide got to 5%, that would suggest:
--Some areas would be much higher, potentially including the core.
--The 5% would be comprised of core daily riders (let's say 4%) and occasional riders (maybe another 5% = 1%).
--Add recreational weekend riders.

I'd also say 5% is a low bar for commuting. As the no-car and car-lite culture becomes more common, infill continues, more lanes are added, etc., a flat city like Denver should be able to exceed that.

On the hospital topic, it's good that they provide transit passes, but what else are they doing to encourage staff to use other means?

Seattle Children's is five miles from the core and lacks great transit. They've fairly agressively tried to reduce SOV commuting, in part to avoid adding parking on a tight campus. In addition to free transit passes, they provide daily bonuses for alternate commuting, free bikes to bike commuters, and a shuttle network. These measures "reduced the SOV rate from 73 percent in 1995 to 38 percent in 2015, avoided the construction of a $20 million parking garage..." https://practicegreenhealth.org/tool...oyee-commuting

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle Children's is five miles from the core and lacks great transit. They've fairly agressively tried to reduce SOV commuting, in part to avoid adding parking on a tight campus. In addition to free transit passes, they provide daily bonuses for alternate commuting, free bikes to bike commuters, and a shuttle network. These measures "reduced the SOV rate from 73 percent in 1995 to 38 percent in 2015, avoided the construction of a $20 million parking garage..." https://practicegreenhealth.org/tool...oyee-commuting

On a cursory glance, the hospital has four bus lines servicing it (with stations right at the hospital). Two of the lines provide 15 minute or faster headways and run until 1A at the earliest.

Denver Health has two bus lines, one with 15 minute headway, and the other one stops running at 9P (going with the metric of stations being right at the hospital). Granted, there's are two bust stops about a 1/2 mile walk from the hospital that have multiple bus lines servicing it, but that's a 1/2 mile of not exactly the most pedestrian friendly area.

That you ascribe it that it "lacks great transit" speaks worlds to what great transit is in Seattle versus Denver.

[Sam Hill]

I suppose 5% mode share could be exceeded, but I have my doubts. Most people don't take biking seriously as a form of transportation. Seems it's more of a hobbyist thing.

[mhays]

I agree that it speaks to the value of a decent web of bus lines, plus sheltered stops.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd argue the peak for bike riders is much higher. Even if the average commute share citywide got to 5%, that would suggest:
--Some areas would be much higher, potentially including the core.
--The 5% would be comprised of core daily riders (let's say 4%) and occasional riders (maybe another 5% = 1%).
--Add recreational weekend riders.

I'd also say 5% is a low bar for commuting. As the no-car and car-lite culture becomes more common, infill continues, more lanes are added, etc., a flat city like Denver should be able to exceed that.

For downtown Denver, bikes have a healthy 9% commute share. Ryan was using a city-wide mode share.

Denver will be adding miles of protected bike lanes primarily in neighborhoods closer to downtown. Once you get out into the Denver suburbs commuting by bike is not a thing. Denver is blessed with some nice off-road trails that are used for commuting to downtown but more for recreation in the burbs. You can, I'm sure a few do, bike into downtown from further out.

Speaking of off-road trails this is my favorite.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mhays

On the hospital topic, it's good that they provide transit passes, but what else are they doing to encourage staff to use other means?

The parking situation in and of itself is already a great disincentive for driving. There's not much more the hospital can do that would have a greater effect than that. And the fact people are still choosing to drive despite having access to transit passes speaks volumes about how inconvenient it is to take RTD to Denver Health for most people.

(The parking situation really is bad. The earlier characterizations of there being plenty of street parking within 4 blocks is simply false. On certain days, like during street sweeping, it can be a nightmare.)

The addition of this parking garage will eliminate that disincentive to an extent, and I imagine more employees will choose to drive at that point. That's unfortunate. Since we're talking about a hospital I think it's fair to say the retention of employees and patients might be more important, but still, it's unfortunate.

Just one more tiny example of RTD losing ground - which it seems to be doing a lot of these days. (That article Ryan cited was depressing and didn't give me much hope for RTD. Maybe the city of Denver needs to take the reins when it comes to "last mile" and help RTD out.)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Just one more tiny example of RTD losing ground - which it seems to be doing a lot of these days. (That article Ryan cited was depressing and didn't give me much hope for RTD. Maybe the city of Denver needs to take the reins when it comes to "last mile" and help RTD out.)

Colorado state lawmakers may make major changes at RTD

DENVER — A draft bill expected to be introduced this month in the Colorado state legislature would dramatically change the way the Regional Transportation District (RTD) is governed, as lawmakers respond to constituents frustrated with problems at the multi-county transit agency.

The bill, drafted by State Sen. Jack Tate (R-Centennial) will add seats to the agency’s elected board, require audits of some of the agency’s financials and add transparency measures.

Personally, I'm not sure anything in this proposal would do more than add complexity and confusion. But legislators gotta legislate.

The city "taking the reins" would be constructive. It's just a question of how much they want to ask the voters to fund?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

The proposed legislation would actually eliminate the current requirement that RTD receive 30% of its revenue from fares. As a consequence, RTD might be able to lower its nation-leading fare cost, which would hopefully increase demand.

As for the city, I'm glad that DOTI has created the bus only lanes on 15th and 17th Street. Doing the same on 18th and 19th should help the Metro Ride, which is probably the best transit option connecting Union Station (the center of our rail system) with the central business district.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[SIZE="3"]
The city "taking the reins" would be constructive. It's just a question of how much they want to ask the voters to fund?

I haven't "run the numbers" but why would they do this if the goal is not to give the governor's office the ability to seize control of the RTD board with these appointed members?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by jhwk

I haven't "run the numbers" but why would they do this if the goal is not to give the governor's office the ability to seize control of the RTD board with these appointed members?

How in the hell does the governor's office seize control of a 15 member board by adding four members, two of the non-voting?

It's an asinine, faux accountability measure, by the impotent state legislature. An advocate for the disability and another for the undeserved? Please. One of the reasons that RTD is in this mess is because it paid waaaay too much attention to the underserved with it's new fare subsidy and corresponding jack up of the fares for general passengers. A program that's growing slowly because apparently the advocates didn't think through on whether the people who could use would actually apply for it. Another reason is the board's submissive actions when it comes to disability advocates that has seen seat count reduced on light rail vehicles by 10% and the stroller policy on buses.

It's pretty clear that the RTD board considers transit to be a mobility option of last resort which means it's not about effective service first, but about ineffective service spread as widely as possible.


Now the minimum farebox collection revision? That's a policy tool that's worth discussing. As well as the pay and entitlement audit.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

The proposed legislation would actually eliminate the current requirement that RTD receive 30% of its revenue from fares. As a consequence, RTD might be able to lower its nation-leading fare cost, which would hopefully increase demand.

When RTD redid fares the restructuring was designed to be net revenue neutral since they offered deeper discounts for some classes. The meme of being expensive is a bit of a misnomer as they actually collected $1.47 per boarding in 2018.

In any case doing away with the 30% requirement is fine. They're currently at 18% of operating costs. What they need most is routes that have lots of people on them as apposed to routes that have a few riders. Lower farebox recovery also means less revenue for needed bus service.

I just checked San Diego's performance and their recovery has been going down as well. From 2010 to 2014 buses farebox recovery averaged 30%; it dropped to 26% in 2017 and 23% in 2018. Their light rail started out at 55% recovery in 2010 and is down to 45% in 2018. 2014 is when transit ridership started trending down from sea to shining sea.

Originally Posted by jhwk

I haven't "run the numbers" but why would they do this if the goal is not to give the governor's office the ability to seize control of the RTD board with these appointed members?

Nah, I don't sense that. Some of the motivation was a desire to better serve those with disabilities or the 'under-served' supposedly.

[HighRanch]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

When RTD redid fares the restructuring was designed to be net revenue neutral since they offered deeper discounts for some classes. The meme of being expensive is a bit of a misnomer as they actually collected $1.47 per boarding in 2018.

In any case doing away with the 30% requirement is fine. They're currently at 18% of operating costs. What they need most is routes that have lots of people on them as apposed to routes that have a few riders. Lower farebox recovery also means less revenue for needed bus service.

I just checked San Diego's performance and their recovery has been going down as well. From 2010 to 2014 buses farebox recovery averaged 30%; it dropped to 26% in 2017 and 23% in 2018. Their light rail started out at 55% recovery in 2010 and is down to 45% in 2018. 2014 is when transit ridership started trending down from sea to shining sea.


Nah, I don't sense that. Some of the motivation was a desire to better serve those with disabilities or the 'under-served' supposedly.

Why is this transportation discussion in the development thread.
Can someone please move this to a more appropriate location and lets get back to development!

[improvisedliving]

Originally Posted by RyanD

That being said - sure, fund bikes lanes, I'm cool with that. But remember, you're only catering to a maximum of 5% mode share, and 5% is high-balling it for Denver. You start throwing money at transit around the core, like my gondola idea and other suitable alternatives, you're going to start seeing a much higher mode share than the bike lanes. It just costs a boat load more money than bike infrastructure. Remember, not everybody bikes. There are elderly, people who don't own bikes (RIP B-Cycle), and people who aren't physically able to ride a bike. Gotta cater to ALL people not just a little group of them.

This is where balance comes in. I hope that as budgeting comes through, the city allocates for each mode share and doesn't just go all in on something. This is my current fear because this is 'cheap and easy' and the way Denver has always done it, see RTD. I really want to see them going aggressive on transit and all alternatives.

No doubt, but you realize we could fund the entire network for peanuts, literally all you need is paint and some bollards to fill the gaps. Unfortunatley we will likely over engineer such an idea, as can be seen with the broadway bike lane that (is/should/will/maybe come some day). So I realize its not realistic, in that it will ever happen, but it would work...

A lot of its already there, it just not connected... I agree this will maybe capture 5% - 10% more if lucky, but that is a lot of cars! And cars are not small when we consider the downtown footprint.

Also, the idea elderly don't ride is changing fast with e-bikes. My parents both ride ebikes now, I never would imagined ever seeing them on a bike a few years ago!! Especially my mom! She loves it though, on the two downtown trails we have that is.... You wouldn't catch her on any of the streets.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by HighRanch

Why is this transportation discussion in the development thread.
Can someone please move this to a more appropriate location and lets get back to development!

RTD is becoming a bane to mobility in Denver which affects how people are moving in a quickly developing city. This is honestly turning into a severe crisis. I'm letting this stay in the development thread so it gets the exposure it needs. We can't have all of this development and have RTD doing what RTD does these days.

Originally Posted by improvisedliving

No doubt, but you realize we could fund the entire network for peanuts, literally all you need is paint and some bollards to fill the gaps. Unfortunatley we will likely over engineer such an idea, as can be seen with the broadway bike lane that (is/should/will/maybe come some day). So I realize its not realistic, in that it will ever happen, but it would work...

Again, I'm all for this. I just don't want us to forget about hard transit in the process. Denver seems to always get distracted on the easy, shiny things. We need a challenge too and transit is a big one that we also need to focus on while swooning with the easy / shiny things.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by improvisedliving

No doubt, but you realize we could fund the entire network for peanuts, literally all you need is paint and some bollards to fill the gaps. Unfortunatley we will likely over engineer such an idea, as can be seen with the broadway bike lane that (is/should/will/maybe come some day). So I realize its not realistic, in that it will ever happen, but it would work...

As easy as it sounds, unfortunately it really isn't, even with Denver's strong-mayor system, he's still is no czar.

In essence "there's a process for that". Not sure specifically what routes you're thinking of but with respect to So Broadway the city is in the process of planning a 'Complete Streets' do-over and from what I hear from the neighborhood presentations people are (mostly) pleased and excited. In addition to going through the required steps there's also the funding hurdle to overcome but it should be well worth the wait.

Basically whenever you get into the neighborhoods there's a process that includes public presentations where's there's always varying opinions. It's something that's really necessary to get the non-bike riders on board.

The city, including its bike fans, have (already) gone through an extensive (multi-year) process and more lanes will be rolling out. There's been questions about where 'protected' bike lanes should be preferred. For 'comfortable' riders like yourself it doesn't matter but to grow the bike community they become more important - especially in downtown.

I understand when you can read many places how simple putting lipstick on a pig can be, it gets frustrating. But that's not the real world. Complications like street re-paving etc come up as well.