DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[RyanD]

Glad I saved you a CORA request. It’s a tough one but not a problem that can’t be worked especially when we are leaving that much density on the table. Greystar is a developer that would have probably pulled the trigger, and we would have had a 40+ story tower, with all of that housing we are always short of, underway.

[i4isoar]

Re 650 17th Street

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, it's nice to see that awful parking lot finally gave way to a skyscraper. I kinda like the look of it - it looks like a miniaturized Republic Plaza, but it's still pretty tall, just a little bit taller than 1900 Lawrence. And I appreciate that despite being 100' shorter than the previous proposal, it still somehow has more units, something downtown sorely needs. If they start on it now, it'll likely get finished in time for 16th Street reopening.

On the other hand... after all the news and buzz going back years, I'm disappointed not to see anything taller than 500' on that site. I can't believe that what killed the previous iteration was a frivolous curb-cut issue. I understand the issues that lot has, with the light rail, bus stop, and Target loading/unloading, but I can't imagine that the curb-cut would have been any worse than the mess DOTI has already created on 17th these days. Maybe I'm venting here, but I feel that there is a lot of incompetence permeating every level of our city government these days.

Still, thank you Ryan for the info; I guess the curb cut issue illustrates that a supertall was never going to happen on that site, short of someone demolishing the Target and joining both lots into a single one. Here's hoping that one of the other surface parking lots around downtown will one day be home to Denver's answer to Austin, Texas. I think some of the lots along Lincoln would be prime candidates for that.

[DenverInfill]

I think it's an attractive tower and am eager to see it added to the skyline. Supertall/new-tallest is fine if it happens but to me, that is a very minor consideration versus replacing a surface parking lot with what is still a substantial addition to the skyline. Bring it on!

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

9 months in Denver has a website to let you know how high your absurd sidewalk fees will be. But they have no idea how much it will cost to implement. No idea when they’ll start implementing. No idea when the plan for implementation will be created. No idea how long it will take to implement. And every property owner has ceased to maintain their sidewalk in the city.

What a cluster 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and a stupid 🞵🞵🞵 counter productive ballot initiative.

Yes, it's kind of dumb but looking around with the tool none of the fees are over a couple hundred bucks (and that is for a corner lot). So unless you have an entire block it usually isn't an extreme cost, at least compared to the cost of completely replacing the sidewalk yourself. And remember that this all came about because no one was maintaining their sidewalks before. People only repaired them when it was absolutely necessary and they had completely disintegrated, if at all. All it took was one neighbor who wouldn't or couldn't repair their sidewalk and you have a barrier to accessibility (and in the case of Cap Hill's flagstone sidewalks an instant tripping hazard)

[TakeFive]

Let's Re-Imagine Downtown Denver



POINT

Originally Posted by TakeFive

https://kdvr.com/news/local/16-downtown-...sidered-as-possible-housing-conversions/

COUNTER-POINT

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/off...-demolition-conversion-challenges-120234

With hope for a full-fledged return to office fading, the conversation around underused office buildings in cities nationwide has largely featured the idea of converting them into housing...

It may seem like an extreme step, but as expectations for full Class-B and C offices crumble and renovation costs climb, demolishing buildings to free up the land under them for a new use is gaining traction.

Kyle Bass, founder of Dallas-based Hayman Capital Management, told Fortune magazine in April that office is “one asset class that just has to get redone, and redone meaning demolished,” citing the difficulty of converting office to multifamily.

Class-B and C Office Buildings

Retaining some of these buildings makes sense as a part of the product mix by appealing to those who desire more attractive lease rates.

For Example: Republic Plaza says: "Don't count us out yet" as they extended their loan by three years. If they can lease up more space then the 'current' value of property will go up.

Out of 21 properties, Gensler identified 5 buildings not suitable for conversion (to residential). Of these 5 either they're worth retaining or Cue the Wrecking Ball.

Of the remaining 16 prospective conversions, either they are determined to be economically feasible or Cue the Wrecking Ball.

Summary

Out of 21 building initially analyzed lets conclude (for grins) that one-third are worth keeping as more affordable office space options; one-third are deemed economically feasible to convert to residential; and one-third need to order the wrecking ball.

Conclusion

Over the next decade (we'll speculate) there could be ~15 new residential towers in downtown Denver.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Yes, it's kind of dumb but looking around with the tool none of the fees are over a couple hundred bucks (and that is for a corner lot). So unless you have an entire block it usually isn't an extreme cost, at least compared to the cost of completely replacing the sidewalk yourself. And remember that this all came about because no one was maintaining their sidewalks before. People only repaired them when it was absolutely necessary and they had completely disintegrated, if at all. All it took was one neighbor who wouldn't or couldn't repair their sidewalk and you have a barrier to accessibility (and in the case of Cap Hill's flagstone sidewalks an instant tripping hazard)

Paying a couple hundred bucks per year to have your sidewalk deteriorate while the city does nothing is a terrible deal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this initiative will make Denver’s sidewalks far worse for the next 10-15 years. Never mind that I could replace my entire sidewalk multiple times in the next 40 years for the fees I’m being assessed by the city - and would guess at best I’ll get maybe 2-3 slabs with some cheap repairs instead.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Paying a couple hundred bucks per year to have your sidewalk deteriorate while the city does nothing is a terrible deal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this initiative will make Denver’s sidewalks far worse for the next 10-15 years. Never mind that I could replace my entire sidewalk multiple times in the next 40 years for the fees I’m being assessed by the city - and would guess at best I’ll get maybe 2-3 slabs with some cheap repairs instead.

I live on a corner and after seeing what my fee would be, that was my exact thought. I could replace my entire sidewalk every ten years for cheaper than the fee. My sidewalk is 18 years old and just fine.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[SIZE="3"]


That's a good question. What kind of amusement park are they even interested in. Given that Kroenke is involved I'm guessing they would also be interested in additional development opportunities along with the new Elitch's (but maybe not).

I did see where the anti-car crowd thinks people should use buses to the airport - if not the train. It's as though they assume everybody on Pena Blvd is going to the airport. Apparently a growing amount of traffic is NOT; it's local traffic. With business travelers few would have any interest in taking a bus; they want door-to-door rideshare service both for its convenience and reliability.

I was reading comments related to the Pena traffic problem and there were people thinking we just need to run the train every ten minutes and that'll solve the problem. I live in Central Park and do usually take the train (because it's just easier), but I have to have someone drive me over to the train station and pick me up. Usually not an issue, but no way am I leaving my car at the park and ride these days with all the car/cat converter theft. Maybe secure parking would help.

Then you have the "induced demand" people screaming. I pointed out that when the road was built, the airport had way fewer flights, the metro area population was way lower, and there was little out there other than the airport. Pena worked just fine for a very long time.

As the airport continues to expand, business and housing out near the airport continue to expand, so must Pena. It's not like they need to rip out neighborhoods to add lanes. And complaints about pollution.... well, we're seeing more and more hybrids/electrics on the road and that will continue and eventually offset pollution concerns to some extent. The A line is part of the solution, but not THE solution.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I was reading comments related to the Pena traffic problem and there were people thinking we just need to run the train every ten minutes and that'll solve the problem. I live in Central Park and do usually take the train (because it's just easier), but I have to have someone drive me over to the train station and pick me up. Usually not an issue, but no way am I leaving my car at the park and ride these days with all the car/cat converter theft. Maybe secure parking would help.

Then you have the "induced demand" people screaming. I pointed out that when the road was built, the airport had way fewer flights, the metro area population was way lower, and there was little out there other than the airport. Pena worked just fine for a very long time.

As the airport continues to expand, business and housing out near the airport continue to expand, so must Pena. It's not like they need to rip out neighborhoods to add lanes. And complaints about pollution.... well, we're seeing more and more hybrids/electrics on the road and that will continue and eventually offset pollution concerns to some extent. The A line is part of the solution, but not THE solution.

The induced demand people are 100% on point. It's not a capacity issue. E470 has more than adequate capacity to cover the growth in the area while still getting people to/from the airport, the A Line has more than enough capacity to get more people to/from the more central parts of Denver. E470 and the A Line are perceived to be expensive, while Pena is free to use and managed lanes have been shown to have an inducement effect because there's still the hope of free to use. In short if Pena Blvd was tolled like e470 I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

There's a couple of reasons this is even more controversial:
1) Hancock tried to ram this through to a point of no return in his last few months in office, skipping steps he would never allow DOTI to skip in a project of this magnitude.
2) No realistic alternatives are being studied other than what we know they are going to chose from the master plan.
3) The growth in traffic problem isn't as much from the airport as it is the residential/commercial outside the airport, which gets back to the e470 vs a line vs Pena perceived cost.
4) The FAA rightly called out the airport on where that growth in non airport traffic is coming from, the airport as of now is turning to Denver to fill the gaps in what the FAA is allowing the airport to fund, the problem is most of that growth at this point will occur outside of Denver(it's the stock show all over again)
5) The ghg rules make this type of expansion difficult without an offset on state highways (because they know the rate of hybrid and ev adoption is low). So we now have the most liberal city in the state doing something the state itself would not allow, in order to subsidize sprawl in Aurora and Commerce City


I'm not sure I agree with their focus on improving the A line, but I think there's a lot of reasons to put the brakes on this, and come up with a more equitable solution.

[mr1138]

I tend to agree that the solution to traffic on Pena cannot possibly be all about the A line. But I also feel like there are improvements to increase its usefulness that could be made beyond just double-tracking the line to increase frequency that perhaps aren't currently being discussed.

For example, what would happen if the airport consolidated all of the official remote surface parking into a single structure right next to one of the A-line stations? 40th and Airport would be ideal (to intercept vehicles closer to I-70), but since that station is in Aurora, 61st and Pena could work too. Theft at a park-n-ride is a legitimate concern, but then again, people leave their cars in DIA remote lots all the time (where they are also subject to hail damage). Perhaps people might feel more comfortable parking at an A-line station if it were operated and secured as official airport parking? Add in a dedicated exit/entrance ramp from Pena directly into a new remote parking garage for convenience and I bet people would use it.

The other thing that I'm not sure is being explored would be to consolidate rental-car operations into a better facility like the new LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car that could interface with an A-line station somewhere along 78th Avenue. This one seems obvious and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't planned for as a part of the original A-line.

Consolidating either remote parking or the rent-a-car sprawl also have the potential to remove a lot of those slow, inefficient shuttles from the equation. As it is, I often choose to take my chances with the Central Park park-n-ride over airport remote parking just to avoid those awful shuttle connections.

Would this eliminate the need for a 3rd lane on Pena? Maybe not - that's for people who look at traffic studies to decide (I'm not convinced the traffic is currently bad enough to demand a 3rd lane). The arguments about induced demand and carefully considering where we want to invest in expanding capacity are legitimate though.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

The other thing that I'm not sure is being explored would be to consolidate rental-car operations into a better facility like the new LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car that could interface with an A-line station somewhere along 78th Avenue. This one seems obvious and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't planned for as a part of the original A-line.

You'll be happy to know that DEN is in the early planning stages for a consolidated rental car facility:

Denver airport is set to nearly triple car rental fee as it considers building large new facility

I think the current concept would be a people mover or shuttle service from the terminal to the facility, which would make sense given the frequency of service, probably 5-10 minutes, that would be desired and what the A-Line couldn't provide.

EDIT: Found this presentation on the DEN website which shows where the locations where the consolidated facility is being considered. Looks as if the airport is indeed considering a people mover to move passengers.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You'll be happy to know that DEN is in the early planning stages for a consolidated rental car facility:

Thanks for sharing! I'll have to look it over. A people mover probably does make sense (and is also what LAX is planning to use between their terminal and the consolidated rent-a-car facility). An extra stop on the A-line would slow down travel times anyway, so probably not desirable for that train.

I think I was reading that double-tracking the A-line could get frequencies to 7.5 mins. It's worth considering what other kind of investments (i.e. remote parking) could actually get the ridership up to justify that increased frequency. It's true that most Denver-area residents aren't served by the route (nor can any city's airport train serve every part of the city). But we all drive right past those stations along Pena before parking at the airport - so what could entice people to ditch the 20 mile round-trip drive up and down Pena and treat the A-line more like their parking shuttle to the terminal?

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Paying a couple hundred bucks per year to have your sidewalk deteriorate while the city does nothing is a terrible deal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this initiative will make Denver’s sidewalks far worse for the next 10-15 years. Never mind that I could replace my entire sidewalk multiple times in the next 40 years for the fees I’m being assessed by the city - and would guess at best I’ll get maybe 2-3 slabs with some cheap repairs instead.

But that's the problem - you could replace your sidewalk multiple times, but will you? Full replacement is not cheap and a most people opt to not do it. Because of our freeze/thaw cycles and people opting for the cheapest work (hello 2 inch thick quickrete laid in winter) the sidewalk lifetime here can be super low. The expense of repairs meant that a lot of owners couldn't afford to do anything at all with their sidewalks.

So our sidewalks are a mess and in parts of the city are non-existent. The idea was to spread the cost out over more people with the goal of completing and fixing sidewalks city-wide. And remember that sidewalks are important parts of urbanization - broken sidewalks discourage foot traffic and act as barriers. If you are on this forum to do more than troll I assume you are an advocate for urbanization - even if you're only here to vocalize your hope for a supertall in Pueblo you should understand that pedestrian accessibility is key.

So yes, the cost is high and maybe it seems like a tax for something you don't "need", but the options were:

A) continue to allow the sidewalks to be useless and just shrug away any attempt to improve the city.

B) Actually force people to replace or repair at full cost and create an unequal system that punishes anyone who can't shell out the cost.

or

C) Spread out the cost to everyone and have the city do the work.

Was there an option D? Maybe. We could have created a fund to help people with option B, but it would have still required some level of money coming in and assumes the owners would act any faster than the city (which we assume is slow) But for every responsible owner there is a Dikou letting man-sized holes open up in their sidewalk along 18th.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think I was reading that double-tracking the A-line could get frequencies to 7.5 mins. It's worth considering what other kind of investments (i.e. remote parking) could actually get the ridership up to justify that increased frequency. It's true that most Denver-area residents aren't served by the route (nor can any city's airport train serve every part of the city). But we all drive right past those stations along Pena before parking at the airport - so what could entice people to ditch the 20 mile round-trip drive up and down Pena and treat the A-line more like their parking shuttle to the terminal?

I think that it's such a high-cost to double-track the outstanding sections, ~$500M(?), that the incremental ridership gains you would get just doesn't justify it. The cheaper option would be to keep the 15-minute frequency and expand the station platforms to 6 or 8 car lengths, but ridership still has to increase to justify it. But, like you said, how to do that? Does a secured remote lot work? My gut says no because people want to be close, a term I'll use loosely to describe the remote lots, to the airport when they park so that they can feel like they can easily get to their flight/car. I don't think that the remote lot at an RTD station provides that and also gives a big ridership boost.

Unfortunately, I also think that the consolidated rental car facility doesn't help the remote lot position because I would guess that the existing rental facilities get repurposed to new remote lots while the surface lots next to the parking pods will get filled in with the new structured parking.

The bigger ridership boost would be if we could get a higher percentage of the 35,000 workers taking transit. If 30% of them took the A Line regularly, that would be a bigger boost than any parking lot program.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by bobg

The induced demand people are 100% on point. It's not a capacity issue. E470 has more than adequate capacity to cover the growth in the area while still getting people to/from the airport, the A Line has more than enough capacity to get more people to/from the more central parts of Denver. E470 and the A Line are perceived to be expensive, while Pena is free to use and managed lanes have been shown to have an inducement effect because there's still the hope of free to use. In short if Pena Blvd was tolled like e470 I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

There's a couple of reasons this is even more controversial:
1) Hancock tried to ram this through to a point of no return in his last few months in office, skipping steps he would never allow DOTI to skip in a project of this magnitude.
2) No realistic alternatives are being studied other than what we know they are going to chose from the master plan.
3) The growth in traffic problem isn't as much from the airport as it is the residential/commercial outside the airport, which gets back to the e470 vs a line vs Pena perceived cost.
4) The FAA rightly called out the airport on where that growth in non airport traffic is coming from, the airport as of now is turning to Denver to fill the gaps in what the FAA is allowing the airport to fund, the problem is most of that growth at this point will occur outside of Denver(it's the stock show all over again)
5) The ghg rules make this type of expansion difficult without an offset on state highways (because they know the rate of hybrid and ev adoption is low). So we now have the most liberal city in the state doing something the state itself would not allow, in order to subsidize sprawl in Aurora and Commerce City


I'm not sure I agree with their focus on improving the A line, but I think there's a lot of reasons to put the brakes on this, and come up with a more equitable solution.

A line seems to have plenty of capacity when I ride to/from DIA. Certain times of day it's a little crowded, but I've never had an issue getting a seat.

As far as sprawl, we have a housing shortage. People are complaining housing prices are high, plus complaining that more housing is being built. I have no issue with the housing being built out toward the airport, and it's not like they're building houses out there on half acre lots. Hopefully it's eventually semi-urban, and what's being built is within the footprint of the metro area. But you can't keep building housing and airport-related businesses out there and not expect to increase road capacity. I imagine the high tolls in E470 are a deterrent. I avoid E470 due to the ridiculous tolls, and I'd hate to see Pena become yet another expensive toll road.

The train is rather expensive, but if I'm flying alone, it's much cheaper than an Uber or airport parking. Plus I enjoy the convenience of it. I still think the crime at park and rides is a deterrent for a lot of people these days, and that's something that I would think could be fixed.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think that it's such a high-cost to double-track the outstanding sections, ~$500M(?), that the incremental ridership gains you would get just doesn't justify it. The cheaper option would be to keep the 15-minute frequency and expand the station platforms to 6 or 8 car lengths, but ridership still has to increase to justify it. But, like you said, how to do that? Does a secured remote lot work? My gut says no because people want to be close, a term I'll use loosely to describe the remote lots, to the airport when they park so that they can feel like they can easily get to their flight/car. I don't think that the remote lot at an RTD station provides that and also gives a big ridership boost.

Unfortunately, I also think that the consolidated rental car facility doesn't help the remote lot position because I would guess that the existing rental facilities get repurposed to new remote lots while the surface lots next to the parking pods will get filled in with the new structured parking.

The bigger ridership boost would be if we could get a higher percentage of the 35,000 workers taking transit. If 30% of them took the A Line regularly, that would be a bigger boost than any parking lot program.

You're probably right about all of this. I also really don't know what percentage of vehicles those remote lots account for. I bet people getting picked up or dropped off either by friends or a rideshare, or to or from checking out a rental car, are a bigger share of traffic than those headed to a parking lot, but I haven't read into it closely.

I guess I'm still a bit more optimistic about the potential for a big, remote parking garage though. There are a lot of people who use the remote parking, and those lots do NOT feel close to the terminal to me. Perhaps I am projecting my desires a bit and just have PTSD from family trips as a kid when we would use the remote lots - and I know from experience that that the A-line hits its max speeds between 40th and the terminal and that parking at an A-line station can be just as fast as parking in the remote lots. I also think perception of "closeness" could be affected by the ease of getting in and out of parking from Pena, and whether one has ever experienced how much faster and smoother the train is than those stupid shuttles. I also suspect a lot of people just follow the signs that say "Park Here for the Airport" without giving it much thought, except for those who are really in a hurry and are willing to pay for close-in parking.

It's ultimately the airport's choice where they want to expand parking given their institutional goals. If the airport chooses to take the path of least resistance and fill the surface lots near the terminal with new structured parking, then that will end up being what gets used. But there are also other considerations for both the city and the airport - like climate change goals and the wear and tear of all those vehicles on Pena over the lifetime of the road.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

The train is rather expensive, but if I'm flying alone, it's much cheaper than an Uber or airport parking. Plus I enjoy the convenience of it. I still think the crime at park and rides is a deterrent for a lot of people these days, and that's something that I would think could be fixed.

I agree - I enjoy the convenience of the train as well, and usually park at Central Park if the trip allows. I seem to recall the airport has also been in the news a bit for vehicle break-ins, though the airport probably has a better security reputation than RTD (for good reason!). I can't help but think that a parking structure, as opposed to a lot, makes a difference in this case. Not only are the floors well lit at night, a garage can probably be better secured and also offer protection from the weather (which a lot of people think about when going on a trip).

[TakeFive]

Extremely well said

Originally Posted by COtoOC

A line seems to have plenty of capacity when I ride to/from DIA. Certain times of day it's a little crowded, but I've never had an issue getting a seat.

As far as sprawl, we have a housing shortage. People are complaining housing prices are high, plus complaining that more housing is being built. I have no issue with the housing being built out toward the airport, and it's not like they're building houses out there on half acre lots. Hopefully it's eventually semi-urban, and what's being built is within the footprint of the metro area. But you can't keep building housing and airport-related businesses out there and not expect to increase road capacity. I imagine the high tolls in E470 are a deterrent. I avoid E470 due to the ridiculous tolls, and I'd hate to see Pena become yet another expensive toll road.

The train is rather expensive, but if I'm flying alone, it's much cheaper than an Uber or airport parking. Plus I enjoy the convenience of it. I still think the crime at park and rides is a deterrent for a lot of people these days, and that's something that I would think could be fixed.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

As far as sprawl, we have a housing shortage. People are complaining housing prices are high, plus complaining that more housing is being built. I have no issue with the housing being built out toward the airport, and it's not like they're building houses out there on half acre lots. Hopefully it's eventually semi-urban, and what's being built is within the footprint of the metro area. But you can't keep building housing and airport-related businesses out there and not expect to increase road capacity. I imagine the high tolls in E470 are a deterrent. I avoid E470 due to the ridiculous tolls, and I'd hate to see Pena become yet another expensive toll road.

Ignoring the environmental costs sprawl is expensive. It's why 470 is so costly, and why some in Denver are whinging about their sidewalk fees. When those costs are actually passed on people freak out.

But when you hide those costs it makes it worse because people make bad decisions based on those hidden costs always being hidden. But at some point we as a society can't afford to continue to hide those costs, and a question of whether Denver should be hiding those costs from people living in Aurora and Commerce City is very valid.

We need housing, but we need economically sustainable housing. Otherwise we end up being financially and spiritually bankrupt as places like Phoenix.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You'll be happy to know that DEN is in the early planning stages for a consolidated rental car facility:

I think the current concept would be a people mover or shuttle service from the terminal to the facility, which would make sense given the frequency of service, probably 5-10 minutes, that would be desired and what the A-Line couldn't provide.

Sky Harbor has a people mover (as you know) that starts at a light rail station, then moves to 'close-in' parking through the airport and is now finished to the consolidated rental car parking.

The only passengers at the light rail station are from the adjacent parking lot for airline pilots and attendants. Riders from the close-in parking use it but generally it is under-utilized. The people mover to the rental car area should do well as it's a bit of a distance so it's a great option.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The bigger ridership boost would be if we could get a higher percentage of the 35,000 workers taking transit. If 30% of them took the A Line regularly, that would be a bigger boost than any parking lot program.

RTD buses from Arapahoe Station and Nine Mile carry lots of people to the airport. It's the one bus route that does really well and my guess is that most are airport employees.

[TakeFive]

If everybody believed and thought just like me, wouldn't the world be a wonderful place

Originally Posted by bobg

The induced demand people are 100% on point. It's not a capacity issue. E470 has more than adequate capacity to cover the growth in the area while still getting people to/from the airport, the A Line has more than enough capacity to get more people to/from the more central parts of Denver. E470 and the A Line are perceived to be expensive, while Pena is free to use and managed lanes have been shown to have an inducement effect because there's still the hope of free to use. In short if Pena Blvd was tolled like e470 I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

Said those on the Right and the Left.

Props to you though; you know your propaganda and talking points very well.

Did I ever mention that I was a people person?

Most of you are talking strictly logistics and that's fine. However out of the thousands of everyday fliers how many do you know? These folks have a heartbeat; they have a nervous system and they couldn't care less about your propaganda. Do you know where they live, why they are flying? BTW, there's a difference between business travelers and leisure travelers.

I've picked up fliers from gated, guarded communities where they write down my name, who I'm picking up and take a photo of my license plate. I've picked up fliers who live in very modest homes. They all share a few characteristics.

Business travelers, even those that fly nearly every week all have a certain tension. Getting to airport efficiently and conveniently is a high priority. Leisure traveler have a tension from not being used to flying.

Pena Blvd being free is as if that was important is total poppycock. BTW, for families of 2 to 4 people, they can take rideshare for less that light rail. But what is more important is that they load their luggage once and unload it once since they go from door to door.