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 May 3, 2011 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock (Post 5263579)
maybe one day, the parking lots around new rail stations, will be redeveloped into medium-high density mixed-use projects. I agree though, RTD's stations all tend to be "suburban." They seem to push the first ring of TOD out farther away from the station. I think conservatives passing state laws, have had something to do with this.

I think SnyderBock is correct.

I suspect, too, that planning now is Conservative in the sense of staying with the 'familiar'. By familiar, I mean the modern classic 'Belmar' ideal or the 4-5 story apartment concept seen in the Gates area redevelopement sketches is considered avante garde.

BCP's observations reflect, IMO, what many who blog here believe. Many of the entries that I read reflect the desire to innovate, to really look around at what others have done, and take the best and 'discard the rest.'

Most of us have seen other parts of the world- at the very least through the internet- and have looked at the glorious transportation and housing mix of France, Germany, Austria, Japan, and the Nordic republics. It is not that we don't know; it is just that we are are not in the position to make the decisions needed-YET.

But your time will come, and, you- all of you- will have to fix the mistakes your more powerful elders made. You will not comdemn them in public, but, you will work tirelessly to make life better.

Sounds like a toast with a good beer, and, I suppose it is.

bcp May 3, 2011 6:17 PM

once a parking lot, in denver especially, it has a great chance of staying that way. its too bad that we plan and say "in 30 years this will be awesome!!" instead of sellin the land to private developers and letting them make the decision once the station is up and running...in fact, if that had done this we might have some decent sized projects underway soon since some stations will begin opening in about 24 months.

Cirrus May 3, 2011 7:35 PM

^
Selling the land off parcel by parcel results in better TODs anyway, because you get a diverse neighborhood rather than a single homogeneous development.

bcp May 4, 2011 1:24 AM

agreed...but we don't see much of this from RTD...worse yet, their plans don't show the expectation of dense, mixed-use development around stations, they tend to show parking lots at the urban stations. shame shame...

Wizened Variations May 4, 2011 2:42 AM

IMO BCP and Cirrus are "right on the money"
 
Such development seems to be the rule rather than the exception when limited partnerships build out underdeveloped properties in the US.

I suppose the economy of scale combined with the savings resulting from one environmental statement, one zoning package, one general contractor, etc., tend to make this happen.

Sometime the passage of time changes these developments, and, small entrepreneurs develope pieces of these large properties. Often, however, ANOTHER limited partnership buys the now decayed property and a NEW blandness results (a classic example of this in Denver was how Cinderella City in Englewood, CO, was redeveloped into the new TOD around Englewood Light Rail Station. (Ironically the only interesting space in the redevelopment is the area surrounding the one building-now city hall- left from the old mall)).

bcp May 4, 2011 6:00 PM

i'm not arguing for ONE developer for an entire TOD...of course, if one buys all the land then so be it. but if they would sell off parcels / lots then the free market would do its job...right now, the option seems limited.

The Dirt May 4, 2011 8:23 PM

Definitely good idea. I thought that the whole benefit of build a rail network over more highways was that you can have TODs around the stations, which would create inherent demand and maintain high ridership. Creating, what are basically park-n-rides, you're far more prone to external forces that can dictate ridership, such as fuel prices and road congestion. This is making RTD look like a bunch of amateurs.

bunt_q May 4, 2011 9:36 PM

RTD's not a bunch of amateurs, they just have different priorities. RTD is, first and foremost, a commuter-based transit agency. It's not a development agency, and has little interest in driving TOD, apart from saying all the right things. Cities need to be the driving force for development because they benefit the most.

Let's take a quick look at what RTD's benefit could be in terms of ridership. I think it's easier for RTD to understand the ridership that park-n-rides support.

1,000 parking spaces require ~7 acres. If RTD gets, say, 80% utilization, they're making way for an additional 800 riders per day (1,600, technically). And it takes pressure off of feeder buses, which don't work all that well anyways.

What else could you do with 7 acres? Well, that depends on two things - what the market will bear and what the city will allow. The first is sort of unpredictable, and RTD can't really be faulted for at least wanting parking in the interim, given how slowly TODs take off even under the best of circumstances. But what about the second? Let's assume unlimited market demand - what will cities allow?

I can't think of an area where RTD can look out and say a city is really going to allow more than ~30 dua. So that's 210 units, being optimistic. At 100 dua (700 units), you still wouldn't support the ridership to match the park-n-ride. Our employment and other destinations are too dispersed to assume more than 1 rider per resident per day on average, even being optimistic. So it's hard to make an argument to RTD (a commuter-based transit agency) that they should do more on their parcels. Unless cities want to work with them to support parking and development, and significantly higher densities.

As for what happens on non-RTD-owned parcels around stations... again, look to what the cities are doing, not RTD.

PLANSIT May 5, 2011 1:06 AM

And if you want to know what Denver is doing you can go here.

Station Area Plans, GDPs and, and site specific Master Plans are in the works for many of Denver's existing and future stations.

seventwenty May 5, 2011 2:37 AM

RTD gets federal OK for FasTracks north route

Quote:

The line’s current cost is estimated at $904.3 million, but RTD has just $90 million available for the project.
“We have $90 million for the North line. That will take it from downtown Denver to the National Western Stock Show Complex,” Tonilas said. “We need additional funds to go beyond the stock show complex.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/ne...ess+Journal%29

Wizened Variations May 5, 2011 2:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5266395)
RTD's not a bunch of amateurs, they just have different priorities. RTD is, first and foremost, a commuter-based transit agency. It's not a development agency, and has little interest in driving TOD, apart from saying all the right things. Cities need to be the driving force for development because they benefit the most.

Very true, sir!

Organizations, particularly governmental types, often have a 'mission.' This is not the private sector corportation type 'mission statement', but an objective defined either by legislative fiat or by governmental directive at some level.

RTD currently has two objectives: the first to provide public transporation in real time. This involves payrolls, maintanence, and operating budgets. The second is the Fastracks build out which involves white collar staff, politicians, general contractors, and, consultants.

Consequently, the inertia of the RTD organization involves a complex, continually changing matrix of job security, public service, government financing of possible deficits, soliciting future funds, and, interacting with the public.

This influences the design of TODS, etc., as RTD naturally, prefers to a) deal with organizations and people that get 'things done', b) rationalize work done by their internal white collar staff (i.e., most of the objections raised to what either is or will be built are considered to have already been resolved via compromise internally), and c) to provide job security for a large blue collar work force.

Consequently, the TODs that emerge will be the result of power brokering between RTD and the local/county governments (with their real estate backers). Therefore these real world compromises will tend to be 1) what has worked locally in previous power brokerages and 2) will be conservative as no involved politician wants to risk being voted out of office due to the withdrawal of financial support of high end backers.

IMO, this tends to makes the TOD designs that are emerging to be both isolated from their existing surrounding communitees and parking lot centric. Parking lots adjacent to train stations both provide convenience (commuter voter support) and provide a buffer for existing businesses/residences.

While this is rational from an academic study standpoint, the public has to live with the results.

So public analysis and criticism is absolutely essential (not the public meeting drivel where the audience is presented with what is to be built and taught about how correct the 'proposed solution' IS.)

Cirrus May 5, 2011 2:32 PM

Whoa whoa whoa. Those 7 acres of RTD land aren't just any 7 acres. They're the key 7 acres. You can't do a TOD if you have to skip over a 7 acre parking lot before you get to anything else. If RTD can't or won't plan for development on its 7 acre property, they are essentially closing off all surrounding non-RTD land from availability for TOD. That's a big deal. The standard definition for "transit adjacent" is 1/4 mile. If my math is correct, a circle with a 1/4 mile radius would consist of about 125 acres. Thus, RTD's 7 acre parking lot is potentially stopping up to 125 acres worth of development. At bunt's formula for ridership, that's worth 3750 riders on the low end for density, or 12,500 riders on the high end.

I agree that the cities have to be involved too, maybe even take the lead. I also agree that it's perfectly OK to put a parking lot there in the interim, since you're not going to open a TOD at every station in the system on the exact day the trains start running. But I don't think it's accurate to say that RTD doesn't need to be involved. Unless RTD is willing to give up ownership of land surrounding stations and only retain control of tracks and platforms, then RTD has to be involved with land use planning.

bunt_q May 5, 2011 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5267296)

I agree that the cities have to be involved too, maybe even take the lead. I also agree that it's perfectly OK to put a parking lot there in the interim, since you're not going to open a TOD at every station in the system on the exact day the trains start running. But I don't think it's accurate to say that RTD doesn't need to be involved. Unless RTD is willing to give up ownership of land surrounding stations and only retain control of tracks and platforms, then RTD has to be involved with land use planning.

Every TOD we actually have (and granted, that's not many, and they're not great) does just that - skips over the immediately adjacent park-n-ride, with development around it. You're not going to get RTD out of the parking business, that's too integrally tied to their core mission (suburban commuter transit). Enter the city and developers - somebody has got to give RTD a real proposal with integrated public parking for the transit. I'm not sure that's happened yet. The developers are content to make folks walk the extra 500 feet, so we're back to the city.

Personally, I think less focus on the transit bit of the 'TOD' might actually make this stuff happen faster. Belmar has been successful, and Lakewood has been an integral part of that, and there's no transit anywhere nearby. Put a Belmar or two within 1/4 mile of a station - with or without and RTD lot in between - and we'd be getting somewhere. I think RTD and the transit are a distraction from the core development arithmetic, and may be slowing us down. Maybe we should think of transit as an amenity that boosts a development that otherwise has to stand on its own. I think cities are expecting transit to provide some sort of magical impetus that isn't there.

Cirrus May 5, 2011 3:21 PM

The impetus will be there once there's more of a critical mass of transit users. So far Denver hasn't crossed the threshold, but I suspect it will sooner or later.

Quote:

Every TOD we actually have (and granted, that's not many, and they're not great) skips over the immediately adjacent park-n-ride, with development around it. You're not going to get RTD out of the parking business, that's too integrally tied to their core mission (suburban commuter transit).
Right. So far our TODs suck at least partially because RTD thinks it has to be in the parking business all the time. Exactly. But it doesn't have to be that way. There are lots of other regional transit agencies that don't think that way. If RTD is too rigidly focused on suburban drivers to play ball, that is a weakness of RTD, not an inherent problem with transit agencies in general.

By the way, it's not an all or nothing question. If you put bigger parking facilities at 1/2 your stations and TOD at the other half, you're doing better than if you put small parking facilities at every station. TOD doesn't have to preclude you from serving drivers too. Drivers are willing to drive to a farther away station with more parking. Once you're in your car anyway, driving 4 miles instead of 2 to get to the 2nd closest station instead of the absolute closest makes little difference.

wong21fr May 5, 2011 3:26 PM

^There's a couple I can think of where RTD did get on board with private developers to handle to cost of structured parking so the TOD's could be built close to the station:

1) The Lincoln Station on the SW line
2) The Arapahoe Station on the SW line
3) That's about it.

RTD doesn't seem to have any problem with TOD-ing up their stations, just as long as they get their structured parking to offset the loss of the lots. It comes down to when the private market thinks the opportunity cost is low enough to do so. I don't expect RTD to go out and have every station that has TOD plans decades down the road to be initially constructed with a full build-out in mind. If RTD had better funding that would be a different story.

EngiNerd May 5, 2011 3:46 PM

Right now RTD also has proposals out for garages at the Wadsworth and Sheridan stations on the West Line. From what I have seen, there is no TOD or mixed use proposed with these stations...so more of the same, parking and push the TOD out from there.

bunt_q May 5, 2011 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5267355)
By the way, it's not an all or nothing question. If you put bigger parking facilities at 1/2 your stations and TOD at the other half, you're doing better than if you put small parking facilities at every station. TOD doesn't have to preclude you from serving drivers too. Drivers are willing to drive to a farther away station with more parking. Once you're in your car anyway, driving 4 miles instead of 2 to get to the 2nd closest station instead of the absolute closest makes little difference.

But then you have to explain to skeptical voters why their station has zero parking. I don't really expect much more from RTD, I still think we need to push cities to push harder if TOD is going to happen. The mechanics of RTD and the elected board are such that parking will always win out. Even if I know what's best, I'm still going to advocate for some parking at every station if I run for the Board out of necessity. Not enough parking? (A) a sign of success and (B) you, voter, need to wake up earlier. No parking at all? RTD screwed up to cater to developers.

Cirrus May 5, 2011 4:34 PM

Who says you can't park at a station surrounded by TOD? Sure you can park, you just have to park in a garage built by a developer to serve the neighborhood in addition to the station, and you might have to walk a block or two between the lot and the platform. Big deal. Even if you demand on parking at every station, you don't have to always put it in a surface lot located smack between the station and any development. You just don't.

For the record, I'm not advocating against pick-up-drop-off areas. Even TOD stations definitely need those, although they can be pretty small.

bunt_q May 5, 2011 4:40 PM

Oh yes definitely. That's what we want, shared structures built by developers. RTD is open to those too. I just don't think many developers are stepping up to do that. Maybe it is the critical mass of transit riders that's missing. Maybe it's the allowable density too. Too early to know for Fastracks until the market rebounds.

Cirrus May 5, 2011 5:07 PM

I dunno. I'm a little conflicted on what sort of demand there might be.

On the one hand, I think Denver will likely have trouble producing really good TODs until downtown is more filled in. With so many parking lots still downtown, there's still an awful lot of development capacity there to meet the needs of people who want to live the urban lifestyle. Until downtown starts having trouble producing enough supply, I'm not sure how much market there could be for genuinely urban living outside of the core.

On the other hand, if there's demand for stuff like Bradburn up on 120th Avenue, then there should be demand to build the same thing next to a transit stop. Bradburn is hardly the CPV, but it's something.

How is Bradburn doing these days?


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.