DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[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.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

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.

This is the whole rail system. The “push everyone out of Downtown and do nothing about it” initiatives just scatter everyone across the rail line. I’m on the E Line right now to DTC and while the itself train is okay, a large portion of the stations have dicey groups of people. If I wasn’t 6’ 4” and angry-faced, I’m not sure I would tolerate the trains in certain directions.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Can you give some backup on this assertion?

You might recall I was kind of pro HOT lane when I70 was being discussed on here, because in theory it should mitigate induced demand.

Since then I've dismissed most of the reasoning advocates had for opposing HOT lanes as conjecture, until I saw someone link to the induced demand travel calculator from UC Davis:

https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/about.html

Looked at some of the underlying supporting research and documentation:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1hh9b9mf

In particular a citation for a study out of cal:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/18RD022.pdf


It still doesn't do a great job of distinguishing the impact of HOV vs HOT, but it's enough to convince me of an effect. But to the best of my knowledge there's not consensus around that yet.

The because people 'hope to use the free lanes uncongested 'was the best explanation I've seen to explain that effect so far.

[mhays]

Induced demand is very real. There's a broad consensus in the planning world (the paid stooges seeming to be the main opposition).

When a highway is widened, it seems reasonable to commute the extra distance (until it fills up). So people drive a little farther, live a little further out, etc.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

Well we're on the same page - the train is more reliable than the shuttle lots; and the most convenient option is (duh!) still the garage. I also pay the premium to park close if it's a short trip and if I think my time is worth the cost. It's pretty privileged though to get to just always pay for the garage - I think you probably know full well not everybody can afford to make that choice every time.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is the whole rail system. The “push everyone out of Downtown and do nothing about it” initiatives just scatter everyone across the rail line. I’m on the E Line right now to DTC and while the itself train is okay, a large portion of the stations have dicey groups of people. If I wasn’t 6’ 4” and angry-faced, I’m not sure I would tolerate the trains in certain directions.

God forbid RTD contract with off duty police officers to patrol the LRT stations while they work to plus up their transit police unit. Though this glib response doesn't acknowledge the shortage of police offices that would make this difficult.

My asinine solution: mobilize the National Guard and put them at the stations. Posse comitatus be damned.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Well we're on the same page - the train is more reliable than the shuttle lots; and the most convenient option is (duh!) still the garage. I also pay the premium to park close if it's a short trip and if I think my time is worth the cost. It's pretty privileged though to get to just always pay for the garage - I think you probably know full well not everybody can afford to make that choice every time.

Shhhh..... the client might start taking a closer look at Bunt's expense reports. Though the $100 parking line item is probably just noise.

Personally, I usually bill a ride-share and go for the door-to-door drop-off option when traveling for business.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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.

You're totally overlooking the 9,000 airport employees that use it every day (I do a lot of work at PHX, as well as DEN). Also, the employee lots are for many more outside of pilots and attendants (or did you forget that the airport is filled with ticket counters, baggage handlers, concessionaires, janitors, maintenance, etc...)

Same with the A-Line, 35,000 people work at DEN - and a little less than half take RTD. That's 17,500 people not driving on Peña to work or relying on the Airport's shuttles from the employee parking lots. I would assume that's more than downtown commuters on some dates (airports are busy 7 days a week... not 5). Not to mention that in both PHX and DEN examples - employee parking is not free.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

But I have a passion for facts and the real world.

I guess not... Or your understanding of the airport (both DEN and PHX) is obtuse

[TakeFive]

Thanks for the feedback

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

You're totally overlooking the 9,000 airport employees that use it every day (I do a lot of work at PHX, as well as DEN). Also, the employee lots are for many more outside of pilots and attendants (or did you forget that the airport is filled with ticket counters, baggage handlers, concessionaires, janitors, maintenance, etc...)

Same with the A-Line, 35,000 people work at DEN - and a little less than half take RTD. That's 17,500 people not driving on Peña to work or relying on the Airport's shuttles from the employee parking lots. I would assume that's more than downtown commuters on some dates (airports are busy 7 days a week... not 5). Not to mention that in both PHX and DEN examples - employee parking is not free.

I guess not... Or your understanding of the airport (both DEN and PHX) is obtuse

As a fan of the facts; that doesn't mean I always get them right and I want to be corrected when I'm wrong because, well, I like knowing the the facts.

Couple of things. As you read my comments I'm obviously talking about passengers. When it comes to any specific knowledge of employees I'm pretty ignorant (lack of knowledge). I'm not surprised that nearly half of employees use transit. Don't think I disputed that since I'm not aware.

With respect to the people mover at Sky Harbor the specific lot I was referring to is at 44th street and Washington light rail station, south side. True, I was making an observation. I'll make a point to get specific feedback once I start driving again (soon). With respect to any other employee lots I'd assume they use shuttles?

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is the whole rail system. The “push everyone out of Downtown and do nothing about it” initiatives just scatter everyone across the rail line. I’m on the E Line right now to DTC and while the itself train is okay, a large portion of the stations have dicey groups of people. If I wasn’t 6’ 4” and angry-faced, I’m not sure I would tolerate the trains in certain directions.

That's disgusting; that's so sad.

I know Phx Metro also has issues. Given the heat we've been dealing with they're pretty liberal in letting homeless ride the rails. At least down here the majority of homeless are well scattered and are more likely to hang out near freeway interchanges and convenience stores.

I also read where the LA Metro has done well with increasing ridership post-pandemic to over 75%. The one big deficit is with female riders; they're not returning because they don't feel safe. So Mayor Bass is adding over 200 'ambassadors' to ride the rails and buses.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is the whole rail system. The “push everyone out of Downtown and do nothing about it” initiatives just scatter everyone across the rail line. I’m on the E Line right now to DTC and while the itself train is okay, a large portion of the stations have dicey groups of people. If I wasn’t 6’ 4” and angry-faced, I’m not sure I would tolerate the trains in certain directions.

I put on my mean mug if the platform or train starts looking sketch. Gotta keep your city smarts about you!

I'd say taking BART from SFO to downtown is sketchier though. I've never had to get off a Denver train because an unbathed (for months) person sat near me.