DENVER | Transportation Thread

[dmintz]

then I see bicyclists doing that very thing on "cyclists' rights" grounds, and demonizing anybody who would dare to contradict their enlightened ways, it strikes me as immature; college- political activism.

and throwing a fit that 15th street might lose a lane and you'd have to wait a few extra minutes to allow for left turns is even more immature. especially when such changes can literally save lives.

i do not consider myself extreme. for years we widened streets and paved parking lots. we are just moving a bit back towards the other direction. we can follow the lead of cities like NYC, SF, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and Chicago or we can be left behind in deference to the suburban commuters.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by dmintz

and throwing a fit that 15th street might lose a lane and you'd have to wait a few extra minutes to allow for left turns is even more immature. especially when such changes can literally save lives.

I usually refrain from playing the professional card, but in this case, my opposition to taking a lane off 15th is purely technical. And I really don't need to have this argument, because I trust that public works will still win out 9 times out of 10 when they are working against a purely ideological argument. Abstract equity loses to reality.

Traffic counts (I had to check) on 15th at Platte are ~6,100 SB, ~6,800 NB avg. weekday. I don't need to do the math for you; 15th street hit its '100,000th ride' in one week. Very few of those are probably "suburban commuters" because 15th doesn't go anywhere. You can argue fairness all day long. The city will never single lane that road.

How about you and your bike club commission a traffic study or two, and then we'll have this discussion.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't think we're talking just downtown proper. We're talking neighborhood streets in Cap Hill, Highlands, Five Points, etc. That's where cyclists are going to be coming from. Do you object to bike lanes in the central neighborhoods too?

As for downtown, do we need to dedicate 100% of every downtown street to the Highlands Ranch people? There is plenty of room for compromise here. There are literally hundreds of car lanes downtown. Are there any bike lanes at all? I don't remember. I can't think of any.

Another thing we haven't discussed is lane width. You only need a few feet for a bike lane. You can often get it without losing any car lanes by narrowing your general purpose lanes a foot or two. There should not be any streets downtown with lanes wider than 11 feet regardless of bike use (Speer is maybe an exception).

I absolutely do not object to bike lanes in central neighborhoods. A striped bike lane, with a buffer, on a number of streets is exactly the way to go. Like 16th Avenue east of downtown, Montview east of City Park, etc. etc. Do those all over on local streets that have ROW to keep a lane in each direction and still accommodate whatever neighborhood/residential parking is necessary. Great. Narrowing through-lanes in existing ROW? Even better - slows traffic and accommodates the new mode.

Remember, this discussion started with a demand for removing lanes and adding what you term "cycle tracks" everywhere. Bollard separated, raised, etc. (See dmintz above.) I do not think that much of what you're suggesting - methods Denver is already using and which I generally like - satisfies those demands.

But I object to removing lanes on collector and arterial streets on grounds of "bicycle equity" alone. I think it is still reasonable to take automobile mobility into account. That'll leave some areas where it's tough, obviously. Like Highland.

Downtown is full of bike lanes now. And that's a good thing. There's still a gap because there are not lanes on 15th, 16th, or 17th. And that, I think, is where we 🞵🞵🞵🞵 heads. There's just no way to take a lane on those streets, dedicate it to bikes, and not have a detrimental effect on both autos and buses. There's a lane on 18th, though. To me, that suffices. But like I've said time and again, I view things through a mobility lens, not an inflexible demand for equal rights between bikes and autos.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is objectively wrong. There's a mountain of evidence that dedicated bike infrastructure is both safer and encourages significantly higher use. I'm too lazy to go dig it up right now, but will if you want to see it.

I am not particularly interested in increasing use if it means a dedicated ROW on every street, taking away from both autos and transit. The costs outweigh the benefits. If we want to set a standard - say, a striped/dedicated bike lane within 8 blocks (making up a number) of everybody in town, I can support that. I cannot support dedicated bicycle ROW on every street, that's overkill.

I don't think you and I are actually all that far off in what we're looking for.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You're thinking like a transit opponent in the 1970s. It's niche because we've spent the better part of a century building cities and infrastructure that are inherently hostile to biking. But that was a terrible decision, because in urban environments biking is often the fastest, most convenient, and most affordable way to get around. It's bad planning to discourage such an efficient mode, especially if your only reason is that not very many people use it right now.

I don't think so. I think Wizened is correct - it's niche because it harkens back to a time of body odor and yellow teeth, when we did not have a way to get from point A to point B without using our own energy. Bicycling is niche because it is pretty much universally - outside of enlightened European core cities - perceived as a primitive form of mobility. Maybe that is a little like 1970s anti-transit folks, but I'll stand by it nonetheless.

Here's the thing, we have spent 40 years building cities that are inherently hostile to biking because of distance. That can change. But we are still not building human scaled cities that will get us the bicycle-friendly environment of Europe - those days are over. Europe actually doesn't prove anything - that is, the Europe outside of the core old cities. Suburban Europe, Latin American cities, Asian cities... those are not built in any way like American suburbia, or American cities since the 1970s. And yet, they are just as hostile to bicycles (not as hostile to transit, though). They are dense, and yet, in a world with cars, bicycling remains niche and/or disfavored in most parts of the world.

The 'bicycle activists' may be on to something; a world with cars may be inherently hostile to bicycles. The only parts of the world that are 'bicycle-friendly' are the ones that are 'auto-hostile' (not by choice, necessarily, but because they inherited a pre-auto urban form).

I do support limited retrofit to accommodate a new mode, albeit one with a low modal split, as I've said. But if we cannot find a happy medium where bicycles are accommodated without sacrificing auto and bus transit mobility, then bicycles will lose. That battle is long since lost. Fortunately, I do not think we face that situation - I think middle ground can be found if the bicycle crowd is reasonable in its demands, responsive to real-world numbers on a case-by-case basis, and if they drop this absurd drivers-are-evil rhetoric (and behavior).

EDIT: I do sort of perversely hope that the first nasty confrontation/injury with one of these bicycle groups happens with an RTD bus. It'll be fun to see where the various urban factions line up on that one.

[dmintz]

bunt, this is not about being "fair". This is about creating vibrant urban environments that do not dictate one form of transportation. I think most posters in this forum understand this will require moving away from the automobile to some extent. if you are a traffic engineer i hope you do not have any important role at DOT.

[bunt_q]

Ha, no, I never much liked traffic. But you'd be lucky to have me at the DOT. The real folks are far less reasonable.

You don't force change by putting up roadblocks. No majority will ever support what you are advocating when they realize the consequences. Remember TREX? We widened the highway, added a train, and everybody cheered. Your approach - which we certainly discussed here, in the real world, everywhere - would be akin to adding the light rail and reducing I-25 to 2-lanes each direction to force folks to use it. Politically, that's a non-starter. Just like taking away lanes where they are actually needed is a non-starter.

You really have two choices - find a way to accommodate all modes, as proportionately as possible to actual need (call that the slow change model), or get nothing at all (call that the no change model). Denver's planning has chosen the slow change model. What you are advocating is not a real option. Not as long as most people, even locals, drive.

Let me ask, what would you do with the traffic if you reduced 15th to one lane? One lane simply cannot move that many vehicles at peak hour, it's not technically possible. When a Councilman asks you what your solution is, how do you answer? "They should bike."? Something else? Let's talk about that specific example, and you defend it, because that's how this actually works, case by case. How do you persuade a political leader to take a lane off a street that moves, on an average day, over 12,000 vehicles? (That's double the 2035 ridership of the train to Boulder, by the way, passing through 15th & Platte today. )

[Cirrus]

I think we're getting close to agreement too, but there's a lot of overt - and not objective - hostility here that merits response.

Originally Posted by bunt

it's niche because it harkens back to a time of body odor and yellow teeth, when we did not have a way to get from point A to point B without using our own energy. Bicycling is niche because it is pretty much universally - outside of enlightened European core cities - perceived as a primitive form of mobility. Maybe that is a little like 1970s anti-transit folks, but I'll stand by it nonetheless.

Here's the thing, we have spent 40 years building cities that are inherently hostile to biking because of distance. That can change. But we are still not building human scaled cities that will get us the bicycle-friendly environment of Europe - those days are over. Europe actually doesn't prove anything - that is, the Europe outside of the core old cities. Suburban Europe, Latin American cities, Asian cities... those are not built in any way like American suburbia, or American cities since the 1970s. And yet, they are just as hostile to bicycles (not as hostile to transit, though). They are dense, and yet, in a world with cars, bicycling remains niche and/or disfavored in most parts of the world.

Regarding body odor and yellow teeth:

Casual biking uses less energy per distance than walking since you get the benefit of wheels. You lose some energy if you're going uphill, but downhill or on a flat surface you're saving energy. If you're just rolling along at a comfortable pace like a normal person going about your daily business, biking does not make you smell bad.

You may be getting the idea that cycling makes you dirty based upon the incorrect assumption that biking is an exercise/sport rather than a normal mode of transportation. This is a big problem in the US, and especially in outdoor-sports-loving Colorado, and it stems from the fact that a large portion of the existing cycling community is made up of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵 Lance Armstrong wannabes. But those types will always make up a tiny portion of the population. What you see in places where cycling has become a common mode is that most regular folks treat their bikes like a sedan or station wagon, and ride it comfortably, at a slow pace that does not result in BO.

Also, ever seen an electric-assist bike? If you haven't yet, you will soon. They're becoming more and more common. And when you have one, the smell factor becomes a real non-issue.



Now, I agree that there is a perception of biking as primitive, or as something for kids but not adults. But that perception is not accurate, and can be changed. It's no different at all from the perception some people have of light rail as an obsolete 19th Century technology.


Regarding distance:

Bikes generally need more than suburban levels of density to be practical, but they don't need as much density as transit. They remain practical in much more sparse and spread out conditions than transit. Anywhere we can support high quality transit, we can support a high bike mode share (end-line rail stations with geographically large driversheds are maybe an exception). That may not be everywhere, but it's definitely not a tiny niche, and it's definitely not just the central city. One of the main benefits of bikes are that they're an excellent last mile mode in support of transit.

You know that transit discussions are often framed in terms of the 1/4 or 1/2 mile walking radius. Bikes essentially extend that radius out to two miles, which obviously greatly enhances the usefulness and reach of transit stations. And while it's true that our most egregious suburbs are still more than two miles away from anything, we have an awful lot of medium density places where a two mile radius gets you to a lot of places.

Take the Yale station on the TREX light rail line. There will never be a big TOD there, nor will there ever be a huge park and ride. The density is too low to get many riders from the 1/4 mile walkshed, so your ridership at that station is basically going to be dependent on bus transfers, drop-offs, and... bikes. That station should be a prime target for access by bike.

Bikes have limitations, but citing distance as a reason not to plan for them is really conservative thinking. Our inability to fit everything into 1/4 mile walking radii is exactly why bikes are useful. Distance is exactly the reason why anyone would ever bike instead of walk.

Don't think of bikes as a poor man's replacement for a car. Think of bike's as a tool that extends your walking radius to two miles. Think of bikes as a tool for getting the most out of places as a pedestrian.

[bunt_q]

Yes, I was talking about perceptions. I do know I get pretty sweaty, even from here to the train station. But I could stand to lose a few pounds too. I certainly do view a bike as an extension - that's exactly how I use a bike, to access the train. Is the number actually two miles? Excellent, I was guessing. But I don't think we need to be hostile to cars to accommodate what you and I are discussing. We don't need to take lanes on relatively busy collectors to make a point, or because bikes deserve to be on the main road with cars, when there's a perfectly good local street a block or two away, or because we want a bikeway when a striped lane would suffice.

I don't know what the answer is to access Highland, though. I cannot support taking lanes off roads that need them. Is it so bad to operate in mixed traffic for 10 blocks? I don't know. Maybe the right answer, for bikes and transit, is another corridor, through the parks maybe, and/or another bridge. I have a real problem with the simplistic answer, though - take a lane, we need to force those schmoes out of their cars anyways.

In the very rare case, if such a case even exists, that both simply cannot be accommodated, looking at all options to connect two areas, then I will side with the cars, because that is how most people move, today, and probably forever. That's all I'm saying. That can change, but that's case by case too. On 15th, there will never be 3,000 bicycles/day. Or 700 peak hour, probably (although that's closer).

[bunt_q]

What do you think is going to happen to the public transportation lobby when we get cars that get 200 miles per gallon (or don't use fossil fuels at all)? What happens when we lose the environmental rationale for transit, how do we win elections then? That's sort of relevant to the bicycle discussion too. But on the transit side, when we actually have to confront the congestion issue head on, I fear landmines ahead (the evidence on traffic reduction is still quite mixed). Is the only argument left, then, a better urban environment; a better quality of life? That's a tough sell, I fear.

I've wondered about that for years. Not sure if we've ever discussed it here. But that was consideration when I decided not to devote my whole career to rail transit. I'd hate to be out of work because some guy in a garage in India builds an awesome engine.

[Cirrus]

All that's pretty fair.

I will take issue with this, though:

On 15th, there will never be 3,000 bicycles/day. Or 700 peak hour, probably (although that's closer).

We have a pretty robust bike-counting program where I work, and we definitely have bikeways that are getting upwards of 2,500 bikes per day. If there were a good connection between Highland and downtown, 3,000 bikes per day would not be an unreasonable number.

We'll never get there with mixed traffic, but we might get there with a cycle track or a parallel off-street trail somewhere.

[Cirrus]

New question:

What do you think is going to happen to the public transportation lobby when we get cars that get 200 miles per gallon (or don't use fossil fuels at all)? What happens when we lose the environmental rationale for transit, how do we win elections then?

We fall back on the congestion / mobility argument, which has always carried more weight with the general public anyway. Let me again cite where I work: We've added 40 million square feet of development here in the last 30 years, and by focusing on alternative transportation we've made traffic counts go down. There's less driving going on AFTER we added more square footage than exists in downtown Denver.

If you want the economy to grow without massive gridlock, cars can't be the only answer no matter how many miles they get per gallon.

[bunt_q]

Right, but you guys probably have the best land use-transportation (HIGH-quality tranportation) coordination in the country. Look at that light rail line in the tech center, though, and you see why, from where I sit, the congestion argument seems more perilous. We sold light rail as a way to reduce traffic...we've set a precedent now, but long term, I'm not sure the transit is good enough here to accomplish what you guys have. The land use bit is so hit and miss here. But generally, yeah, you're right, we probably will fall back on that one. I just hope it doesn't get scrutinized more closely if the subtle green-shame element goes away. (I suppose it'll always be a solid option for downtown, that's a start.)

[Cirrus]

I won't argue that we do it better than Denver right now, but 40 years ago we didn't. Denver can get better. There's no reason to think the progress that's been made in the last 20 years has to stop now. We can keep making progress.

[bunt_q]

Sure, where we can. Highway ROWs don't help...

Reminds me, IKEA opened today. Not really accessible from the train that runs within 200 feet of the front door, of course, but still exciting!

EDIT: Well, maybe if I took a bicycle with on the train, then it'd be accessible... .

Maybe I should do that one of these evenings, do a photo documentary of a Denver bicycle sojourn. Bike-train-transfer-bike-IKEA. Sure sounds more appealing with electric assist. Or a lighter bike. Or a low floor train. Maybe that's why the cruisers drink, to overcome their reservations.

[Cirrus]

Ikea is why God invented ZipCar.

[bunt_q]

Driving Federal. Thinking about bicycles. Probably shouldn't be playing on phone.

Here's a bicycle challenge. Horrible road, beat up, narrow, curb cuts galore, busy. Would anybody seriously consider a bike lane here, and if so, how? Or would a few blocks over, maybe Irving, be a better candidate?

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Ikea is why God invented ZipCar.

Agreed.

And Brent, I think Federal would probably be horrible for a bike lane right now, but haven't they been fixing it up at least between Hampden and Alameda for a long time now? Irving is probably a better choice, being only a few blocks away.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Driving Federal. Thinking about bicycles. Probably shouldn't be playing on phone.

Here's a bicycle challenge. Horrible road, beat up, narrow, curb cuts galore, busy. Would anybody seriously consider a bike lane here, and if so, how? Or would a few blocks over, maybe Irving, be a better candidate?

And that's why there isn't a bicycle facility planned for Federal. Knox Ct. is the north/south route in that area and it will have a mixture of a bike boulevard, bike lanes, and when it gets narrow toward Knox Ct. Station, sharrows.

[bunt_q]

Neat. Knox is pretty far west, though, not sure that'll satisfy everybody.

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Driving Federal. Thinking about bicycles. Probably shouldn't be playing on phone.

Here's a bicycle challenge. Horrible road, beat up, narrow, curb cuts galore, busy. Would anybody seriously consider a bike lane here, and if so, how? Or would a few blocks over, maybe Irving, be a better candidate?

Up until recently, you just described the highly used 16th street stretch of bike lanes (minus the curb cuts). I literally avoided that street because of how horrible the street's condition was. Well, to be fair, it had to do with the light timing, which is why i'll still avoid it. If you're on a bike, you will hit every single light and they have a ridiculously long cycle.

This leads into a topic that's an issue for me. 16th street was in terrible condition, but because of bikes lanes, tons of people used it. I have friends that will go so unbelievably far out of their way, just to stay on "bike suggested routes", and i find this to have the potential to really diminish the effect and efficiency of cycling as a viable form of transportation. It's as if people are being herded to only use specific routes, which severely limits the most enjoyable aspect of riding a bike; freedom to go absolutely anywhere. Like i've said, i think infrastructure is good, but people need to be comfortable riding anywhere, such as the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 conditions of 16th street...bike lane or no bike lane.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I won't argue that we do it better than Denver right now, but 40 years ago we didn't. Denver can get better. There's no reason to think the progress that's been made in the last 20 years has to stop now. We can keep making progress.

Absolutely, but NOT through any type of building bike lanes, etc., intelligently, but through the impact of changing economics.

Almost suddenly, many more pedestrians and bicyclists will be sharing streets and sidewalks as they are built now.

As, IMO, not only are a lot more people going to become poorer than today, but the percent of these poor as part of the total population will skyrocket.

More and more of the masses will do what they 'have to do.' Many more multiple families and extended families living in the same apartment. Many more one (working) car families as a percentage of the total number of families.

So many more of the able bodied will walk to and wait at bus stops, bike to Park 'n Rides, and, bike to Light Rail Stations (not those as Bunt pointed out on TRex which are horribly designed for future pedestrian and bike traffic). Car pooling for profit, suv jitnies, underground market buses etc are to be expected, and, hopefully planned for.

I hear from Cirrus a great deal of idealism on biking, but, when biking is a MUST use option, much of the time bicycling is NOT pleasant. When the weather is snowy, blustery, hot, or wet, biking because one has to, can be horrid. Besides, the elderly, the relatively infirm (bad hips, knees), etc., will not have that option.

I really do not think Denver has learned much about public transportation in the last 20 years. The dialogue about how to move people has had the same arguments for 20-25 years, and, the establishment won. We should'nt kid ourselves into thinking that the powers at be have learned anything- rather they did what they wanted, when they wanted.* Only changing economics and demographics will make Denver less car friendly, and, as this happens, people will do what they have to do to move around, despite politicians and powered people. When, and, if the suffering of too many people impedes 'business as usual', old arguments for improving transport for the carless will be resurrected, and, the establishment of that time will claim these ideas as their own.

*mass transit, for example, has to this point been largely a mixture of real estate play, chamber of commerce type boosterism, idealism (as the knowledgable 'wink'), and, a horribly slow transportation safety net for the marginally employeed (near minimum wage) and the infirm. This, I am sad to say- because I like the transportation freedom that some economic security has given me- will change. Aaargh.