DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[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.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by bobg

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.

Sprawl is not just housing. It is the expansion of water, gas, sewage, roads, etc. In the form factor of sprawl (single family housing), all of the above are done in a way that is not sustainable long term AND you get the extra benefit of destroying native grasslands and replacing them with non-native landscaping.

More sprawl = more roads, driving, cars traffic, water use, spread out infrastructure that drowns cities in long-term costs.

Characterizing sprawl as a short term solution to a housing shortage is a mistake.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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

TakeFive stop being a loser and talking down to other peoples legitimate talking points. It gets old.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

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

That's pretty wild saying that new and more affordable housing, often in mixed use communities out near DIA and E-470 are not "sustainable."

Funny Transportation Story

The Phx metro area or MAG manages transportation needs via a half-cent sales tax. The time to renew this 20-year tax is coming up and the legislature is required to approve and pass what will be submitted to the voters for approval. This next version allocates 37% to transit and the rest to roads. Due to some right wing crazies they included that no money could be spent for 'new' light rail. But contrary to some headlines I've read it doesn't mean more light rail can't be built just that it can't use MAG money (except for maintenance).

So they had a poll on how voters felt about extending the tax for another 20 years. The approval rate was over 75%. No controversy down here among the voters when it comes to transportation.

Transit

I happen to know more than a little about the topic. While I'm not interested in circular ideological debates I'd be happy to discuss the current state of transit from Seattle down to San Diego, over to Charlotte and up to Boston. What happens in reality in the real world I find more interesting (and relevant) than white board theories.

[TakeFive]

Fair enough

Originally Posted by twalm

TakeFive stop being a loser and talking down to other peoples legitimate talking points. It gets old.

I do understand that my style is a bit abrupt? But I have a passion for facts and the real world.

I certainly want the urban centers to thrive and it's a little distressing the current struggles being experienced.

As much as I can appreciate urban centers for its residents to think they know what's best for everybody else ie the suburbs is more than a little presumptive.

When it comes to 'sustainability' you tend to have tunnel vision. But if you can convince the metro voters on what is best for them then I will always acknowledge the will of the voters.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That's pretty wild saying that new and more affordable housing, often in mixed use communities out near DIA and E-470 are not "sustainable."

Funny Transportation Story

The Phx metro area or MAG manages transportation needs via a half-cent sales tax. The time to renew this 20-year tax is coming up and the legislature is required to approve and pass what will be submitted to the voters for approval. This next version allocates 37% to transit and the rest to roads. Due to some right wing crazies they included that no money could be spent for 'new' light rail. But contrary to some headlines I've read it doesn't mean more light rail can't be built just that it can't use MAG money (except for maintenance).

So they had a poll on how voters felt about extending the tax for another 20 years. The approval rate was over 75%. No controversy down here among the voters when it comes to transportation.

Transit

I happen to know more than a little about the topic. While I'm not interested in circular ideological debates I'd be happy to discuss the current state of transit from Seattle down to San Diego, over to Charlotte and up to Boston. What happens in reality in the real world I find more interesting (and relevant) than white board theories.

I was just taking an easy cheapshot at Phoenix since I saw your quote reply right when I hit reply to cotooc.

You know I love talking transportation, but other people may not appreciate us dominating the denver development thread to talk about how they handle bus priority in Seattle (or the issues with their LRT expansion), or San Diego, or Phoenix, or Charlotte. If there's a better thread for that I'm game.

[TakeFive]

Glad you asked

Originally Posted by bobg

I was just taking an easy cheapshot at Phoenix since I saw your quote reply right when I hit reply to cotooc.

You know I love talking transportation, but other people may not appreciate us dominating the denver development thread to talk about how they handle bus priority in Seattle (or the issues with their LRT expansion), or San Diego, or Phoenix, or Charlotte. If there's a better thread for that I'm game.

There is a Denver transportation page and you've been there.

The problem is that people prefer to bring up issues on this thread. I go wherever the comments go.

BTW, I'm never bothered by what others think of Phoenix. Everybody entitled to think what they want.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

My niece just had her truck stolen in Denver, They (my niece and her parents) spotted it literally every day for a month.. called the police each time. They kept refusing to show up to recover it. The truck was basically a billboard with a very distinctive paint job. It was recovered after being towed for illegally parking AFTER it was painted. To get her own car back she had to pay 300.00 to get it out of the police lot.

You could maybe tell them the police are overwhelmed. sure maybe. but try to tell them why they have to pay to get their own car back. Which criminals are running things exactly?

Please tell me why anyone should care when police feel like their feewings are hurt or they are under siege. I can see the need for police.. I'm not about to advocate for defunding them completely. But my niece and aunt/uncle sure are. They are legitimately wondering how their life would be worse with no police at all (how many people would actually be prevented from being robbed or shot - police only get involved after those happen and usually just throw the first off-white person they see in the area in jail over it anyway - their words not mine). I have a hard time blaming them.

Then why didn’t they take their car back themselves? Grab a posse and some pistols and handle it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bobg

and managed lanes have been shown to have an inducement effect because there's still the hope of free to use.

Can you give some backup on this assertion?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

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.



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).

I long ago stopped using the train to get to the airport. Too slow (including the park and transfer time). And I stopped using the shuttle lots (even less reliable) and economy lots (no longer priced advantageously). I fly 50+ times per year for projects all over the place, and I just pay for the garage (which is shockingly full - that’s where the majority of cars are being swallowed). I generally leave my house 90 minutes before a scheduled departure, 37 minute drive/42 on a bad day, 5 minutes to park, 10 through security to gate, board 20-30 minutes prior to departure. The A line does not enable clockwork flying.

But yes, Peña is that bad these days. Yowzers.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of "induced demand"

This has to be one of the silliest concepts put out there.

Demand is 'induced' when young people reach driving age or whenever younger people decide they want to drive.

Demand is 'induced' as a result of development and population growth. In neither of these cases was any demand created or induced because people heard the freeway would be widened. That's just goofy.

When they add lanes to a freeway it's not so those lanes can sit there looking pretty. It's about adding capacity for the demand that's projected but in most cases has already built up over the previous decade before new lanes were completed. The demand is already there.

What new lanes can achieve with the extra capacity is to relieve congestion for nearby arterial roads and side street congestion.

What I would agree with

is "You can't build your way out of congestion." I understand eliminating congestion is often used as a rationale for expansion but what it's really about is determining what (max) capacity you want or is realistic and then you live with the results.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of "induced demand"

This has to be one of the silliest concepts put out there.

Demand is 'induced' when young people reach driving age or whenever younger people decide they want to drive.

Demand is 'induced' as a result of development and population growth. In neither of these cases was any demand created or induced because people heard the freeway would be widened. That's just goofy.

When they add lanes to a freeway it's not so those lanes can sit there looking pretty. It's about adding capacity for the demand that's projected but in most cases has already built up over the previous decade before new lanes were completed. The demand is already there.

What new lanes can achieve with the extra capacity is to relieve congestion for nearby arterial roads and side street congestion.

What I would agree with

is "You can't build your way out of congestion." I understand eliminating congestion is often used as a rationale for expansion but what it's really about is determining what (max) capacity you want or is realistic and then you live with the results.

Yeah, I don't really buy into the "induced demand" theory. Probably a little truth in it, but people don't say, "Oh! They added a lane to the freeway, let's go for a Sunday drive on it".

I think it has more to do with rising population. Denver, and the metro area, has had a large and fast population increase since about 1990. We keep densifying Denver (good thing) and we've built out a train system, but this isn't a European city that's always been dense and a perfect fit for mass transit. Most people in metro Denver have no choice but to drive a car to get to where they're going.

If you look at a slow-growth metro area like Kansas City (I grew up there), you can see where they added a late to certain freeways in the past (like 30 years ago), there is still no need for more lanes. Traffic there is nothing compared to Denver.