DENVER | Transportation Thread

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Thanks again everyone. I think I have a clearer idea about this now, though I agree that it might have a hard time getting buy-in. At this point, it sounds like there may be some resistance to the traditional configuration due to a variety of concerns - signal timing, intersection geometry, among other things.

I was able to pin down the one modern example of this that serves as a precedent, though it is actually in Sweden.

My personal thought is that American driver culture isn't nearly law-abiding enough for this to work, and cars would probably end up in all kinds of unexpected places in the "Bus Only" lane. It reminds me a bit of the double-white stripes separating the express lanes from the regular lanes on US36, and anyone who drives on there can see how well people respect that rule. Northern Europeans have a sort of natural respect for rules and order, whereas I get the sense that Americans believe these rules are meant to be broken. If they didn't want people entering and exiting the lanes in-between the intended merge sections, they should have built a wall. The fact that there are signs everywhere saying "do not cross solid white stripes" should indicate that the design was broken from the beginning (on a side note, I certainly hope CDOT doesn't have the hubris to try this ridiculous design again on the new I-70).

As I said before, this is still in a blue-sky discussion phase, so it wouldn't be appropriate of me to name names while nothing concrete has been advocated for yet. I'd be happy to keep everyone posted once there are some concrete alternatives on the table that have been made public.

The double white lines is the same way it's done in California for carpool lanes. I very rarely saw anyone crossing over.

[twister244]

As someone who commutes frequently to Boulder from Denver (when taking the bus isn't logistically feasible for me), I see people crossing the white lines all the time. Personally, I am not a big fan of carpool. We had them on a couple highways when I lived in Minneapolis, and the outcome always seems to be the same. You have the regular lanes at a stand still, while the carpool lane is mostly open with less cars. If the idea here is to reduce omissions, it isn't working when you have congested traffic narrowed to a handful of lanes. For most people, car pooling just isn't doable. It's great on paper, but if you need to run errands after work, etc, the idea falls apart. Plus, I have yet to see any police enforcing crossing of white lines. I would rather see more effort put into TOD, thus eliminating the need for a car in the first place.

[mr1138]

I know it's controversial, but I don't think these lanes are really supposed to be about carpooling much at all anymore. That was a very 80s-90s idea, and you're right, it didn't pan out. I really get the sense that it is now becoming more about treating ROW space as a commodity - the idea being that YES, the Express Lanes should appear to be less busy than the GP lanes at rush hour (they are meant to be priced so that they don't ever jam up, the GP lanes can and do still clog up at peak hours). I don't think it's about reducing overall emissions at all, but about how and who should pay for additional roadway capacity. The idea of induced demand comes into play - congestion may appear to produce more emissions than free-flowing traffic, but in reality it usually doesn't, because the overall capacity drops. Wider roadways that everyone can use for free just result in more cars and more emissions.

As for the crossing the white line issue; I don't know if it's just a cultural thing or what. LA obviously has a VERY different driving culture from us. Part of me thinks enforcement could be easily fixed with a second set of cameras in each segment and wouldn't necessarily need some kind of fancy tracking system to know exactly where somebody has violated the lines. All you have to do is check if somebody got photographed more than once in the same segment of express lanes. If there is only one photograph of a car within a given segment of lane, then that automobile must have crossed the lines out of turn. It doesn't really matter exactly where. They should receive a fine.

[TakeFive]

The issue is simple. As I've long preached it's all about funding - or lack thereof.

As I've previously noted, having 30+ years of dedicated funding from metro taxpayers to then match with ADOT and Federal funds has enabled Phoenix to build all the freeway miles it needs and the freeways are all free although ofc taxpayers have already paid for the lanes.

The whole "induced demand" argument seems silly to me. If you had a static population model I'd buy it but the notion that if you don't build it they won't come has been proven wrong over and over again.

With a paucity of funding CDOT has utilized P3's bcuz that's all they are able to do. I'm all for transit - if people can take advantage of it. So far as any road versus transit argument I'm agnostic and leave that to each place to decide.

[Cirrus]

Shoulders on both sides of a barrier aren't absolutely necessary. It may require a design exception but there are plenty of precedents. You've still got the double maintenance problem, though.


I-635 in TX. From Google Street View.

I wonder about just having a bigger buffer. I don't have any direct experience with this, but I bet it would discourage a marginally larger chunk of people from crossing. Enough to be worth the cost?


I-84 in CT. From Google Street View.

Colored pavement would probably help too (probably purple for tolls), but AFAIK nobody has tried it yet to designate tolling. This example is a shoulder that opens to traffic during high demand:

I-66 in VA. From Google Street View.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The whole "induced demand" argument seems silly to me. If you had a static population model I'd buy it but the notion that if you don't build it they won't come has been proven wrong over and over again.

Induced demand has nothing at all to do with whether people come to your region or not. Nobody serious argues that you can stop overall regional growth by not building highways (clueless NIMBYs might). Induced demand is about where and when and how far people drive and they live in your region. In the long term it can be about where and how growth happens (but not how much of it happens overall).

And dude, Phoenix is on the very short list of least urban, most car-dependent metropoli in America. It's... uh... extremely unconvincing to cite Phoenix as an example while arguing induced demand doesn't matter.

For the record, I'm not saying induced demand is solely responsible for Phoenix's sprawly pattern. There are lot of explanations, all working together and building on each other. The newness, the service-oriented economy that doesn't need a big office downtown, the huge number of retirees, etc etc. It's not all about highways. But the highways play their part.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Induced demand has nothing at all to do with whether people come to your region or not. Nobody serious argues that you can stop overall regional growth by not building highways (clueless NIMBYs might).

Actually, "induced demand" is argued by many whether it be at CityLab or Streetsblog (for example) as if growth was irrelevant. They act as if the increased demand results merely from and becuz of "building it."

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Induced demand is about where and when and how far people drive and they live in your region. In the long term it can be about where and how growth happens (but not how much of it happens overall).

Can't recall that more extensive description but I see your point and wouldn't disagree. It goes, I'd assume, to a debate between density and sprawl. I don't have a specific position on that except I wonder if Coastal density is necessary or even desirable for Denver. I am for increasing density however.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

And dude, Phoenix is on the very short list of least urban, most car-dependent metropoli in America. It's... uh... extremely unconvincing to cite Phoenix as an example while arguing induced demand doesn't matter.

My reference to Phoenix had nothing to do with my point about induced demand. It's why they were in separate paragraphs.

I only used Phoenix as an exceptional example for the value of 30 plus years of a healthy dedicated revenue stream for transportation. They wanted freeways and taxpayers wanted freeway so that's what they built.

Phoenix intentionally chose a multi-nodal model; that was the politics of it. There are some geographical reasons why it made at least some sense but no question developers were the power brokers. Your points are also well taken.

Urbanism is taking off with a three headed triangle between the downtowns of Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale. That said they do still love their freeways.

[rct]

Interesting article about potential front range Amtrak.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/31...trak-railroad/

[COS]

Surely they understand that a "viable rail link" would need to have an average speed well over 70mph in order to convince people that rail is better than I-25 for the stretch from Trinidad to Denver. By the time this would be built, I-25 would only have a couple small stretches of slowdowns isolated to rush hours in Colorado Springs. If we as Coloradans vote to fund Amtrak rather than a modern "bullet" rail, we're just throwing away money.

[mr1138]

I wish I had more time to write out a well thought-out response, but I have been following the follow-up conversation. I think Cirrus basically makes the right points. The point I would make is that there are so many variables that would need to be considered to really, truly test the theory of Induced Demand, and I don't think there is really any condition where it can be definitively proven or dis-proven in a scientifically controlled sort of way.

That said, I think that anybody who is claiming that the bottom line of the theory is "don't build it, and they won't come," misunderstands what induced demand is really about. The best explanation of it I have heard came from the book Green Metropolis, where David Owen points out that the NYC subway system carries as many people as it does, because Manhattan's density has put its roadways at capacity since nearly the birth of the automobile.

In fact, Manhattan may be the only place I can think of where all the variables are in place to really test the theory (even there, there are probably other factors I'm not considering in the moment). The problem in a place like Denver, or Phoenix for that matter, is that the highways really aren't at capacity at all points of the workday. Even when it is at its worst, and commuters think it's complete gridlock, there is still capacity for the peak-hour period to extend longer into the morning and/or evening and take advantage of extra capacity during those hours. But as I just pointed out in the main development thread, the transit system we have invested in IS slowly but surely attracting apartment and office development. Development that arguably would not have ended up there if we had chosen to funnel light-rail funds into more freeways instead. So Cirrus' point that these decisions can affect where and how development occurs would seem to be easily demonstrated by the development patterns we currently see.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I wish I had more time to write out a well thought-out response, but I have been following the follow-up conversation. I think Cirrus basically makes the right points. The point I would make is that there are so many variables that would need to be considered to really, truly test the theory of Induced Demand, and I don't think there is really any condition where it can be definitively proven or dis-proven in a scientifically controlled sort of way.

That said, I think that anybody who is claiming that the bottom line of the theory is "don't build it, and they won't come," misunderstands what induced demand is really about. The best explanation of it I have heard came from the book Green Metropolis, where David Owen points out that the NYC subway system carries as many people as it does, because Manhattan's density has put its roadways at capacity since nearly the birth of the automobile.

In fact, Manhattan may be the only place I can think of where all the variables are in place to really test the theory (even there, there are probably other factors I'm not considering in the moment). The problem in a place like Denver, or Phoenix for that matter, is that the highways really aren't at capacity at all points of the workday. Even when it is at its worst, and commuters think it's complete gridlock, there is still capacity for the peak-hour period to extend longer into the morning and/or evening and take advantage of extra capacity during those hours. But as I just pointed out in the main development thread, the transit system we have invested in IS slowly but surely attracting apartment and office development. Development that arguably would not have ended up there if we had chosen to funnel light-rail funds into more freeways instead. So Cirrus' point that these decisions can affect where and how development occurs would seem to be easily demonstrated by the development patterns we currently see.

I think the bigger issue is that Denver is a fast-growing metro area. If we refuse to add freeway lanes, traffic will get worse. We add a lane here and there, and a couple years later, those new lanes are full. But tens of thousands more people moved in. The city of Denver is becoming denser by the day.

I grew up in Kansas City, a city that hasn't grown much since I left 30 years ago. I can see where they added lanes to freeways years ago, and today, traffic isn't bad on those freeways. But a million people haven't move to the KC metro area in the past 30 years, as is the case with metro Denver.

[EngiNerd]

Has this been posted yet?

https://drcog.org/planning-great-region/metro-vision

The counties and municipalities of the Denver region have shared a vision for the future of the metro area for more than 60 years. Working together to make life better for our communities and residents, that vison has taken various forms over the years—most recently as a regional plan known as Metro Vision. The DRCOG Board of Directors adopted the first Metro Vision plan (Metro Vision 2020) in 1997, and has continued the dialogue about how best to achieve the plan’s evolving vision ever since.

The DRCOG Board adopted a revised Metro Vision plan in January 2017. Metro Vision guides DRCOG’s work and establishes a shared aspirational vision with our many partners. The region’s priorities are shown from top-level themes that describe the region’s shared vision down to actions that regional partners and local communities can take to move the region toward our desired future.

Full Report in the PDF below for your reading pleasure.
https://drcog.org/sites/drcog/files/...2017_FINAL.pdf

https://drcog.org/sites/drcog/files/...35%20Goals.pdf

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by COS

Surely they understand that a "viable rail link" would need to have an average speed well over 70mph in order to convince people that rail is better than I-25 for the stretch from Trinidad to Denver. By the time this would be built, I-25 would only have a couple small stretches of slowdowns isolated to rush hours in Colorado Springs. If we as Coloradans vote to fund Amtrak rather than a modern "bullet" rail, we're just throwing away money.

Except that "bullet" rail (or any high speed option) is so financially and politically expensive (esp. per capita, since we don't have the population densities of places like CA or the east coast) that it's essentially not going to happen anytime soon. There's also not a whole lot of backing of this outside of transportation and urban enthusiast. You have to first get people used to the idea that a choo-choo is a viable intrastate transportation alternative to private automobiles and buses. We've only just begun to run a regular bus line from Ft. Collins to Denver. We need to build on that and work incrementally towards better and better options. I'd rather get BRT in the next 10 years, conventional rail in the next 25 years, and HSR down the road rather than just HSR down the road.

[Cirrus]

Intercity rail doesn't need to be faster than a car. It needs to be more convenient overall, when you factor in cost, parking, timing, speed, last-mile connections, all that stuff.

The real factor holding back Front Range rail isn't speed. It's that aside from Denver and Boulder, the downtowns don't have enough pull for a car-free trip to be more convenient than a car trip, so the demand is low. Intercity transit's great strength is its ability to connect walkable downtowns without forcing riders to the inconvenience and expense of storing a parked car while they're traveling. But if you have to use a car at both ends of the trip anyway then you may as well just drive the whole way. If you need a car at one end but not the other, it's a maybe.

A slow train could be worth it, but only if it's relatively affordable and if it goes to the downtowns. If it's in the median of I-25 then it's pointless to spend the money on rail and you'll get more for your dollar by extending HOT lanes and running buses in them.

[EngiNerd]

Intercity rail also works well where the city centers are so out of reach financially as a place to live that the average working family has to live way outside the city limits or in another city altogether, and travel inwards for work. Denver isn't to that point like the coastal cities, or even Chicago, but it could hit that breaking point sometime down the line.

[COS]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Except that "bullet" rail (or any high speed option) is so financially and politically expensive (esp. per capita, since we don't have the population densities of places like CA or the east coast) that it's essentially not going to happen anytime soon. There's also not a whole lot of backing of this outside of transportation and urban enthusiast. You have to first get people used to the idea that a choo-choo is a viable intrastate transportation alternative to private automobiles and buses. We've only just begun to run a regular bus line from Ft. Collins to Denver. We need to build on that and work incrementally towards better and better options. I'd rather get BRT in the next 10 years, conventional rail in the next 25 years, and HSR down the road rather than just HSR down the road.

I get your points, but that line of thought makes me wonder if the BRT and conventional rail steps might even hurt the argument for HSR in the future. If the taxpayers see either intermediate application as a failure, then we'll have spent a bunch of money on ensuring HSR will never be approved. Would the better option for CDOT be to put money and effort into developing stronger municipal transit operations in cities like Ft Collins and COS in order to make the intercity transit argument stronger?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

That said, I think that anybody who is claiming that the bottom line of the theory is "don't build it, and they won't come," misunderstands what induced demand is really about.

That's good to hear.

Originally Posted by mr1138

The best explanation of it I have heard came from the book Green Metropolis, where David Owen points out that the NYC subway system carries as many people as it does, because Manhattan's density has put its roadways at capacity since nearly the birth of the automobile.

Understand, I'm not arguing against the "textbook" version of Induced Demand bcuz I have no idea what that even says.

Let me better reframe the issue. If I had to guess I'd say somewhere among the U.S. DOT regs etc. is a discussion about congestion being a valid reason or need for freeway expansion. Consequently "urbanists" will point to an endless list of cases where adding freeway lanes did NOT solve congestion. Well D'oh; who do they claim said adding freeway lane capacity will (forever) solve congestion?

Use T-REX as an example. When it was completed did it "induce" or attract additional drivers? I would hope so; they didn't build the dang lanes just to sit there or merely spread out the pre-existing traffic. And if it took some stress off nearby grid-locked arterial roads is not that a good thing?

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I think the bigger issue is that Denver is a fast-growing metro area. If we refuse to add freeway lanes, traffic will get worse. We add a lane here and there, and a couple years later, those new lanes are full. But tens of thousands more people moved in. The city of Denver is becoming denser by the day.

I grew up in Kansas City, a city that hasn't grown much since I left 30 years ago. I can see where they added lanes to freeways years ago, and today, traffic isn't bad on those freeways. But a million people haven't move to the KC metro area in the past 30 years, as is the case with metro Denver.

Great/relevant comment. KC would come close enough to my point of having a "static population" model. Here the added capacity likely induced some additional drivers but on the whole traffic was much more manageable. In fact they got out in front of a slower growing metro area such that it has remained manageable.

"Urbanists" will conclude that bcuz adding lanes doesn't solve congestion that lanes should never be added. Transit should be the solution always and everywhere.

As I posted on a CityLab thread, in the early 1980's I met with a developer of one of the early DTC mid-rises. He showed me a model of light rail running along the east side of I-25. It only took 25 years to get light rail thanks to T-REX, or it would have been even longer.

In summation, like President Obama, I'm an "all of the above" kind of guy.

[TakeFive]

G.O. Bonds Update

Originally Posted by Interzen

The exchange I referred to was at the Bruce Randolph School meeting. My take was that the vocal and testy ones were individuals and small groups from the immediately surrounding neighborhoods. I figure they had projects passed over last round 10 years ago and don't want to be passed over again and wait 10 more years. There could have been some park hill anti-drainage project NIMBY types too but mostly citizens wanting to ensure their pet project was given attention. [/URL]

BTW, I'm all for grass roots/neighborhood advocacy. Not sure how realistic they were but perhaps at least some of their desires can be met.

I happen to find a spreadsheet that lists all the requests made by each council person for consideration in their districts.

According to Liz Gelardi in a Jan 23, 2017 article at 7Denver News, we learn the following from City Council President Albus Brooks:

Among the first issues the council says it hopes to address this year is how to pay for more than $1 billion in infrastructure needs and requests.

City Council President Albus Brooks said Monday the council is looking at a potential sales tax or bond in order to raise some of the money needed.

Among the chief projects the city hopes to fund is the Colfax Avenue redevelopment.

“We’re excited about that,” Brooks said. “We’ve got all the bids together and there’s going to be a lot of funds put into that to re-imagine the street.”

[duderino]

Hey all, I saw on here once somebody posted an old Denver Plan showing freeways cutting straight through downtown, from the 60's or 70's or 80's. I was trying to search for it, but couldn't find it. Can anybody help me out? Or more generally, how do you all track that kind of thing down?

Thanks in advance.

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by duderino

Hey all, I saw on here once somebody posted an old Denver Plan showing freeways cutting straight through downtown, from the 60's or 70's or 80's. I was trying to search for it, but couldn't find it. Can anybody help me out? Or more generally, how do you all track that kind of thing down?

Thanks in advance.

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show....php?p=6063552

I didn't think it was that bad of an idea. The picture is maybe probably just not quite accurate. It's interesting to consider how the core might have developed differently if something like it had been built.