SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Mountain West (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   DENVER | Transportation Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=150276)

Wizened Variations Apr 13, 2011 3:32 PM

I agree with Bunt
 
Also, I really think we (and all major U.S. cities) need to start taking BRT seriously. I do not believe we need to hold out for the gold plated infrastructure option. We treat and fund infrastructure as a poor country would (which arguably, we are quickly becoming). Time to start looking at the options a poorer country would look at.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely right on.

From here on out, the US should start planning for many millions more without automobiles- not because people don't want a car, but because in real dollars, the cost will become too high.

Skeptics might say that this is trying to predict the future, and, IMO 'yes it is', much like good family financing includes medical 'rainy day' coverage. And, in this same vein, as the 'family' gets older (think infrastructure) the cost of new insurance (replacement infrastructure) skyrockets.

The issue is not real estate development, political trophies, or public works tools. Instead, the issue IMO is to relentlessly pursue small solutions whether BRT, regular bus, trunk train lines, light rail, etc.

I do not see the Nation facing reality, Bunt, on this yet. I just hope we start soon, before we morph into real poverty without the ways to move ourselves emplace.

SnyderBock Apr 13, 2011 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 5238846)
Actually, both 104th and 120th make a lot of sense. Fine, add those onto the list as well! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

Right, I was thinking of covering places with rail in place, to give them incentive to vote. But it does make sense to add some in the north. I talked with some family in Denver and they said Belleview needed bus service, more than anywhere in the metro area. They said it's hard to go east-west between Mississippi and Bowls and Bowls only runs once per hour and is too far south. When they drive east-west, it's almost always either Belleview or Hampden. So I covered both.

bunt_q Apr 13, 2011 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock (Post 5240256)
Right, I was thinking of covering places with rail in place, to give them incentive to vote. But it does make sense to add some in the north. I talked with some family in Denver and they said Belleview needed bus service, more than anywhere in the metro area. They said it's hard to go east-west between Mississippi and Bowls and Bowls only runs once per hour and is too far south. When they drive east-west, it's almost always either Belleview or Hampden. So I covered both.

You have family that uses the bus down there? Or do they want a bus to get other people off the road? Haha, reminds me of the classic old Onion article - Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/)

I guess I'm confused where you're talking about, east or west metro. Belleview isn't even a through street, at least not all the way from west to east. On the west side of the metro (where Hampden is a freeway), there's no east-west traffic problem at all. And Belleview only runs from Wadsworth to C-470... that can't be what you're talking about. Between Santa Fe and the Tech Center (Cherry Creek Res) is what I assume you're talking about (but Bowles doesn't go through there). And Belleview from there skirts Cherry Hills Village, which is probably the lowest density (and richest) part of the whole metro, so really the worst possible place you could put good bus service. You drive Belleview there, and you see horses, haha. Traffic may be relatively bad on Hampden there east-west, where it stops being a highway between Santa Fe and I-25. But it's not a good bus corridor either, and you'd have to go up to Evans to find an alternative... south of there, nothing goes through. Maybe a Downtown Littleton to Arapahoe jog?

Southeast Aurora might be an interesting improves bus corridor too, probably with some additional park-n-rides. From E-470 up Smoky Hill and E. Hampden (or Quincy), both feeding into Nine Mile?

Cirrus Apr 13, 2011 10:25 PM

I'm all for putting lots of big stinky buses on Belleview, for absolutely no other reason but to punish Cherry Hills Village for screwing over the entire southern metro area by putting their low-density mansions close to the tech center.

Oh, want to know why traffic is bad? Because those a-holes took up all the land close to the biggest job center in the state, so everyone else has to drive in from far away rather than live close by.

It's seriously completely backwards from good planning. 1/2 mile from the center of the tech center the damn City of Cherry Hills Village has zoning at 1 unit per every 2.5 acres. Here's the zoning map; see for yourself.

They're screwing us over, and we should punish them for it. We need to build a trash dump somewhere down there.

glowrock Apr 13, 2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5240317)
You have family that uses the bus down there? Or do they want a bus to get other people off the road? Haha, reminds me of the classic old Onion article - Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others (http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/)

I guess I'm confused where you're talking about, east or west metro. Belleview isn't even a through street, at least not all the way from west to east. On the west side of the metro (where Hampden is a freeway), there's no east-west traffic problem at all. And Belleview only runs from Wadsworth to C-470... that can't be what you're talking about. Between Santa Fe and the Tech Center (Cherry Creek Res) is what I assume you're talking about (but Bowles doesn't go through there). And Belleview from there skirts Cherry Hills Village, which is probably the lowest density (and richest) part of the whole metro, so really the worst possible place you could put good bus service. You drive Belleview there, and you see horses, haha. Traffic may be relatively bad on Hampden there east-west, where it stops being a highway between Santa Fe and I-25. But it's not a good bus corridor either, and you'd have to go up to Evans to find an alternative... south of there, nothing goes through. Maybe a Downtown Littleton to Arapahoe jog?

Southeast Aurora might be an interesting improves bus corridor too, probably with some additional park-n-rides. From E-470 up Smoky Hill and E. Hampden (or Quincy), both feeding into Nine Mile?

Absolutely, yes! Especially in the case of Smoky Hill!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Cirrus Apr 13, 2011 10:28 PM

Anyway, if you really wanted to plan a MetroRapid-type system, the way to start would be to get a list of the busiest RTD bus lines. Take the dozen-or-so busiest and put them at the top of your list for upgrades.

Do we have that info? I'd like to see ridership for bus lines anyway. Interesting stuff.

bunt_q Apr 13, 2011 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5240360)
Anyway, if you really wanted to plan a MetroRapid-type system, the way to start would be to get a list of the busiest RTD bus lines. Take the dozen-or-so busiest and put them at the top of your list for upgrades.

Do we have that info? I'd like to see ridership for bus lines anyway. Interesting stuff.

How about a nuke plant? We could screw Cherry Hills Village and Pueblo in one fell swoop.

RTD, to my knowledge, doesn't put the bus ridership info on the website yet. Last I knew, the numbers were still in a stone age database system that wasn't compatible with anything (probably not even DOS). But it's out there.

For a start, though, we can look at where we have limited routes. Those would be our first-tier MetroRapid-like urban routes.

Also, we could look at where a number of express routes come together and use the same roads (especially when overlapping with a limited route, or a well-trafficked local route). I suppose you could do a trunk BRT, if not dedicated ROW, then at least signal priority, and let those routes branch out after that. Enough suburban commuter routes and a local route together might add up to something worthwhile for round two.

CharlesCO Apr 13, 2011 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5240351)
I'm all for putting lots of big stinky buses on Belleview, for absolutely no other reason but to punish Cherry Hills Village for screwing over the entire southern metro area by putting their low-density mansions close to the tech center.

Oh, want to know why traffic is bad? Because those a-holes took up all the land close to the biggest job center in the state, so everyone else has to drive in from far away rather than live close by.

It's seriously completely backwards from good planning. 1/2 mile from the center of the tech center the damn City of Cherry Hills Village has zoning at 1 unit per every 2.5 acres. Here's the zoning map; see for yourself.

They're screwing us over, and we should punish them for it. We need to build a trash dump somewhere down there.

Yes, it's low density near high density, but much of it existed long before the DTC did, and CHV was the edge of town before then. My grandfather bought 2.5 acres in what was then known as Camenisch Gardens in 1966 for $25,000. There were no business parks to the south. University Boulevard wasn't even fully paved. The DTC has since become an important corridor for business and economics, and that's great, but is a business park on the edge of town next to high end low density neighborhoods that good an example of smart urban planning anyway? Denver would have been better off channelling all the office growth of the DTC to areas closer to, or in downtown (Golden Triangle, CBD, etc.) anyway. Yes, I understand that it's much easier to say that in 2011 than to have actually done it in the 80s and 90s, but I don't think the DTC is a good exhibition of well-designed urban planning.

Sure, CHV density sucks from an urbanist perspective, but it's anachronistic to suggest that CHV grew after the DTC did.

Wizened Variations Apr 13, 2011 11:46 PM

Lol
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5240402)
How about a nuke plant? We could screw Cherry Hills Village and Pueblo in one fell swoop.

Ten words for getting up off the floor recovering from laughter!

You are a modern Jonathan Swift!

My favorite bus corridor is along Colorado Blvd, north from the light rail station to Colfax. This is home to the mighty #40, which serves one of the busiest urban streets in Denver. Doubling the frequency would help proposed Leedsdale developments as well as make the old CU med complex much more interconnected. To make the Mighty 40 work even better, link the bus to timed buses running down 14th and 15th Streets- much faster than running up and down Colfax- giving riders north of 6th or so, an alternative to back tracking south on Colorado Blvd, and, then catching the light rail to Lodo. Sure the bus would be slow during the morning and afternoon rush, but the corridor accesses a large number of businesses and a sizable population.

Cirrus Apr 14, 2011 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesCO
much of it existed long before the DTC did

Why do you think DTC has been so much more successful than any of the other 2 dozen tech parks in the metro area (or downtown, for that matter)? Because the corporate execs wanted their offices close to their houses so they'd have a short commute... Thus condemning all their workers to long commutes, and the city to clogged traffic.

Whether the chicken or the egg came first really doesn't matter. The two are inextricably linked.

It's not specific to Denver. It's the same issue with many of the country's largest edge cities.

CharlesCO Apr 14, 2011 2:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5240555)
Why do you think DTC has been so much more successful than any of the other 2 dozen tech parks in the metro area (or downtown, for that matter)? Because the corporate execs wanted their offices close to their houses so they'd have a short commute... Thus condemning all their workers to long commutes, and the city to clogged traffic.

That's understandable. But if we agree that corporate execs such as John Malone and Bill Daniels created this problem, then I don't think it's the low density Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village that are the issue. The problem is the business parks in the DTC built by these corporate execs, unnecessarily creating high density (relatively speaking) on the edge of residential areas.

SnyderBock Apr 14, 2011 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5240317)
You have family that uses the bus down there? Or do they want a bus to get other people off the road?...

Yeah, they don't own a car, they use the buses to get around. I called and asked for more detail. They only meant Belleview between Federal/Lowell area trying to get to Broadway is a huge pain. And if it was an express bus from Broadway to DTC with perhaps only one stop in between at University, they would like that. This would allow them to get to the zero bus much faster and more conveniently, from where they can go north or south as needed and also allow them to get out to the DTC LRT station at Belleview if needed. It's the furthest south street which connects the SE LRT with the SW LRT, connecting with the zero along the way, crosses the South Platte River and connects with the Federal bus.

Cirrus Apr 14, 2011 5:30 AM

Quote:

The problem is the business parks in the DTC built by these corporate execs, unnecessarily creating high density (relatively speaking) on the edge of residential areas.
Downtown is on the edge of residential areas too. The difference is that downtown is on the edge of appropriately dense residential areas which cluster the maximum number of workers as close to their jobs as possible, unlike DTC which pushes them as far away as possible.

The proximity of residential areas is not a problem for DTC. The problem is that the residential areas it is proximate to are extremely low density.

EngiNerd Apr 14, 2011 6:57 PM

The big difference is Downtown Denver developed as a result of the surrounding density, whereas the Tech Center was developed artificially, in the middle of a low density area, and did nothing to promote density. The areas developed in two fundamentally different ways. CHV and/or its low density had nothing to do with how the Tech Center came to be, so I don't see how "screwing them over" accomplishes anything. The area was low density and farmland before the Tech Center was built and remains so today.

Wizened Variations Apr 14, 2011 7:05 PM

You don't mess with the rich...even in Denver
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5240906)
Downtown is on the edge of residential areas too. The difference is that downtown is on the edge of appropriately dense residential areas which cluster the maximum number of workers as close to their jobs as possible, unlike DTC which pushes them as far away as possible.

The proximity of residential areas is not a problem for DTC. The problem is that the residential areas it is proximate to are extremely low density.

The elite will always have cars and have hired help 'chauffeured' to their door. What's $25.00 a gallon gas when your affordable mortgage payment is $25,000 a month?

The poshness of the Cherry Hills communities transportation wise is very visible on Quincy, which a) goes over I-25 without on and off ramps, and, b) intersects Tamarac which, going south, becomes DTC Parkway. The TRex project was a compromise to adding value to the real estate east of I-25 while not running the rail on the east side of I-25. South of the Yale Street Station, access is under or over I-25. Another sign of the influence of wealth………

The only work around, best tested in South Africa during the Apartheid days, is to a) have express trains that bypass worker bee stations, and b) have segregated platforms with police enforcement.

And dirty buses? H**l no! Hydrogen powered custom services which pickup you up at your door? Possibly, as long as the drivers are neatly groomed, don't stink, and know how to say “Yes, sir,” and “Yes, ma’am”

Ok, Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village will never want to be a part of any PUBLIC transportation system.

Put systems where the worker bees live and connect them with communal hive(s): areas like Aurora, Lakewood, Denver East, etc. Help the burgeoning poor commute, not just to downtown, Boulder, and, the tech center, but to employment centers like malls, military bases, city and county government buildings, and factories (if there are any left…).

One last point: Areas like Cherry Hills Village have their counterparts worldwide, and, I bet most are set up much the same way.

Cirrus Apr 14, 2011 7:23 PM

Yes, as I said it is not specific to Denver. But we as planners should not be letting them get away with it. At least make them pay property taxes out the nose to the city to cover the damage they're doing... Oh wait! They don't have to, because they formed their own little jurisdiction so they wouldn't have to pay Denver taxes to help solve the problems they created!

When bunt_q is governor I expect to see a municipal reform bill that retrocedes bullshit jurisdictions like Lakeside and Cherry Hills Village into Denver, so they can darn well pay their fair share to the region.

CharlesCO Apr 14, 2011 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd (Post 5241494)
The big difference is Downtown Denver developed as a result of the surrounding density, whereas the Tech Center was developed artificially, in the middle of a low density area, and did nothing to promote density. The areas developed in two fundamentally different ways. CHV and/or its low density had nothing to do with how the Tech Center came to be, so I don't see how "screwing them over" accomplishes anything. The area was low density and farmland before the Tech Center was built and remains so today.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Artificially grown business parks on the edge of town don't help anybody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5241530)
When bunt_q is governor I expect to see a municipal reform bill that retrocedes bullshit jurisdictions like Lakeside and Cherry Hills Village into Denver, so they can darn well pay their fair share to the region.

I actually would support that. Cherry Hills Village City Council doesn't do anything. And while we're consolidating municipalities back into Denver, can we repeal the Poundstone Amendment too? :)

CharlesCO Apr 14, 2011 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations (Post 5241504)
Ok, Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village will never want to be a part of any PUBLIC transportation system.

As a proud citizen of Cherry Hills Village :yuck:, I would actually love to see a light rail line down Hampden from the Southmoor station to Englewood. I doubt it will ever be a possibility for another 20 or 30 years but I can still dream, right? :P

glowrock Apr 14, 2011 7:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5241530)
Yes, as I said it is not specific to Denver. But we as planners should not be letting them get away with it. At least make them pay property taxes out the nose to the city to cover the damage their doing... Oh wait! They don't have to, because they formed their own little jurisdiction so they wouldn't have to pay Denver taxes to help solve the problems they created!

When bunt_q is governor I expect to see a municipal reform bill that retrocedes bullshit jurisdictions like Lakeside and Cherry Hills Village into Denver, so they can darn well pay their fair share to the region.

AND get rid of the bullshit "agricultural property" property tax designations for having a bale of hay get mowed from their 2 acre lawns once a year! :D

Aaron (Glowrock)

bunt_q Apr 14, 2011 8:20 PM

Somebody want to put this into a bulleted list for me, for the campaign? I'm afraid I might forget to end the kentucky blue-hay exemption if I don't write this down now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.