DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The differences are that (a) Denver's redevelopment has taken decades and (b) is only happening in areas with favorable demographics that can support high development costs. That's not Westy.

Kelo doesn't really apply in Colorado. Is this area designated blighted for urban renewal? Googling.

Also municipalities outside of the City of Denver are further away from the state capitol- miles further, and, must, therefore play '2nd fiddle' in the lobbying game.

The old 18th Street Mob. Within a couple of miles as the crow flies, you have (stronger in the past, but the tradition continues) large banks, RTD headquarters, the Denver City and County complex, the surviving newspaper, at least 8 powerful local television stations, the State House, etc. This provides ample opportunity to develope and maintain multi-year friendships, that are always a 'casual' lunch away.

Combine this with the reality that as 10-12% of the population of Colorado lives in Denver, and, the federal factor comes into play.

Taken together, even cities like Boulder are a bit 'ham strung' in the power game.

[Cirrus]

Why wouldn't Kelo apply to Colorado? Is there a state law that you can only use eminent domain in areas that are designated as blighted? Is it new?

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And all I have to see is criticism of, well, anything (especially in an election year), and what follows is a chorus of Americans whining about the sour tone of the conversation; people talking about talking, rather than talking about content.

What matters is whether what is being said is true, not that people are criticizing. In Boulder's case, rather than complaining that people are being critical, I ask you: (a) is it true that the working class has been largely priced out of the city through land use policies, and (b) do you consider that to be a problem, especially in a city that is a known bastion of progressivism, which, as a political philosophy (in theory at least) espouses all-inclusiveness and sustainability?

The working class has been priced out of boulder because it is by far the nicest "suburb" / city on the front range to live in. Having the state's flagship university there further increases land values. I don't see the working class getting priced out of colfax/five points. Why? because they are dumps.

Think of it this way. In california, most working class people are priced out of the nicer cities, especially the one's closer to the ocean. The flatirons are "the ocean." People are willing to pay more to live in perhaps the most beautiful town in colorado. The flatirons are literally one of the most beautiful sites in colorado, and boulderites get to wake up and look at them every day. People know this, and are willing to pay more for this. Same with people who are willing to pay to be close to the ocean. The access to nature/biking/hiking/everything in boulder simply can not be beat. People know this, and are therefore willing to pay more.

I'm surprised this is difficult to understand. Poorer people get priced out of the nicer areas.

[Cirrus]

^
Sorry, but it is just not that simple. Boulder has a lot of laws that specifically make it harder for middle-class people to live there. If you don't know about them we will be happy to explain, but it's a fact that they exist, and that Boulder gleefully clings to them whenever anybody complains.

[BG918]

Boulder's land use policies also have a large effect on driving up the cost of real estate there. If Boulder sprawled to the east and south where open spaces was created to inhibit sprawl it wouldn't be as pricey. It would still be expensive because of the Flatirons and the university but not outrageous like it is now. Do I fault Boulder for curbing sprawl with open space? No, but I think they could've left more room on the east side for new urbanist single family development similar to Gunbarrel or Bradburn, along Baseline and Arapahoe.

[Cirrus]

It's not just that, it's that they are also overly-restrictive in the core, with unreasonably tight limits on infill development.

[Zmapper]

I've wondered for a while what Boulder would look like with the UGB but with no height restrictions.

[EngiNerd]

Boulder sets artificial boundaries in order to create "density" in their minds, and prevent sprawl. However you cannot do this and also have very restrictive height regulations without driving up the land values and rents to stratospheric levels...If you want to prevent growth outwards, then you need to allow growth upwards, which Boulder refuses to do. Otherwise the only way for a land owner to make up the cost of their development is to charge for it since they can't make up the land costs in units by going vertical.

That is the main criticism...well there are others too, but that is the one that just doesn't make sense, except them wanting to "save the views".

[bunt_q]

Yes, Boulder went for the full trifecta, and it's overkill, and the result was obvious. They restricted (1) horizontally, (2) vertically, AND (3) a numerical growth cap, but for residential ONLY. The result is plain - a flush commercial tax base, a severe shortage of residential units resulting in high housing costs, And a service/working class that is forced to live outside of the city and commute in.

There is a lot to like in Boulder's land use policies. And if you can get a group of Boulderites together who can have a frank discussion without taking every criticism as a personal affront, then you can have some very good and fruitful discussions. Cirrus and I both experienced that in school there. But the folks from Boulder who deny any of the negative externalities of Boulder's policies, those are the ones that are annoying, and those are the ones who elicit the harshest criticisms.

Cirrus - Colorado law never really viewed economic development as a legitimate public purpose. So when the court ruled on that it was sort of irrelevant here. However, the legislature did pass statutory language in 2006 that specifically said economic development and tax revenue are not legitimate public purposes in Colorado for condemning land and transferring it to a private party (except as already allowed under urban renewal statutes). There is legitimate debate about whether the legislature has the power to do that under te state constitution, but it hasn't hit the courts yet and nobody is going to spend the money to experiment because we do have urban renewal is an option, however limited, and because economic development was never really recognized as a legitimate use of eminent domain here. We looked at it just last week on a project that really could've used the help. But it just was not an option for us legally.

Apologies for typos, Siri at work here.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes, Boulder went for the full trifecta, and it's overkill, and the result was obvious. They restricted (1) horizontally, (2) vertically, AND (3) a numerical growth cap, but for residential ONLY. The result is plain - a flush commercial tax base, a severe shortage of residential units resulting in high housing costs, And a service/working class that is forced to live outside of the city and commute in.

What exactly is there to like in this? Yes, individual components are great in theory, but they are combined in such a way as to create one of the most regressive growth policies (growth being an absolute oxymoron in this case) you can find that transfers negative costs of growth onto the surrounding communities while keeping most of the benefits.

It's easy to build a picturesque town when you can basically dump your shit just outside of it. Yes, all cities try to do it with varying degrees of success, but Boulder has got it down to an art form (I guess there is something to like about that if you are a sociopath).

My ultimate question would be, which restriction would you remove? Let's keep it simple and say you can remove just one. I would want the growth cap to go. A city needs to be able to control the kind of growth in order to promote the desired built environment, but it should not be able to control how much of the growth occurs with something as draconian as a numerical cap. There are other incentives and regulations that can be used such as down-zoning. A Boulder with the same urban growth boundary and height restriction but another 30,000 residents? Very European.

[bunt_q]

I sort of view the numerical caps like an old-Colorado Dick Lamm view on growth control, long since disproven, but never quite put down entirely. If we don't allow the Olympics, it'll stop growth. If we don't allow more than a couple-percent annual growth in Boulder, then we'll stop growth. Not just in Colorado, but globally - if those babies can't live in Boulder, then we're helping stop the overpopulation of the planet and the consequent environmental destruction. Very late-70s thinking, gotta love it. It's the kind of thinking that views the project after project of infill growth we see in Fort Collins as a bad thing, "unsustainable" even...because all growth is "unsustainable."

[mr1138]

I think it really is the numerical caps and extremely restrictive zoning code (they are currently discussing DOWNzoning Goss-Grove from High Density Residential to Duplexes only) holding Boulder's density back. The current height limit, though potentially restrictive at some point in the distant future, can easily hold a much larger population if only the majority of town wasn't reserved for single family homes and strip malls.

[EngiNerd]

An update on the schedule of upcoming rail projects...first time I have seen the DP refer to it as Commuter Rail instead of Light Rail.

RTD looks at FasTracks shortlist, including northwest metro plan
By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post

A "to-do" list of transportation projects that should be finished within the next six years in the Denver metro area contains few frills or bonuses for communities hoping for expansion of commuter rail.

RTD staff members identified 10 FasTracks rail line projects that should be done or underway between 2013-2018. They include:

• A completed West Rail Line by 2013

• $120 million for U.S. 36 Bus Rapid Transit to 88th Street and $15 million for Managed Lanes to Table Mesa in Boulder,

• Completion of Denver Union Station by 2015

• Completion of northwest rail station in Longmont by 2015

• Completion of the Eagle Project by 2016

• Completion of the I-225 rail project by 2016

• Construction of rail to the National Western Stock Show by 2017.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_212592...acks-shortlist-including-northwest-metro

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

An update on the schedule of upcoming rail projects...first time I have seen the DP refer to it as Commuter Rail instead of Light Rail.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_212592...acks-shortlist-including-northwest-metro

You missed the best part:

Now, without further funding, the earliest the 41-mile stretch between Denver and Longmont would be complete is 2044.

Good to know that my grandchildren will be able to ride a 50 minute train to East Boulder, followed by a 20-minute HOP transfer, to get to their dorms. Little Johnny, maybe you should consider the University of Beijing instead.

[bcp]

You also left out a very sad part...

"RTD also plans a study of transportation options for the northwest corridor to be completed by fall 2013."....

seriously? We are going to STUDY this corridor AGAIN? that sounds like back to the drawing board...which I guess could be a good thing, but this corridor is just getting wildly odd.

I see no mention of the North line...or is that the one spur line to Western Stock? nothing north of their? wow...let's hope a PPP comes along (Kiewet / private market to the rescue!)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

I see no mention of the North line...or is that the one spur line to Western Stock? nothing north of their? wow...let's hope a PPP comes along (Kiewet / private market to the rescue!)

That's probably RTD's idea. One PPP proposal was received, and subsequently rejected. Then you have the real possibility that the North Corridor can receive federal funding. I'm betting that the North Corridor will be under construction by 2015. Just leaving the ugly sore that is the NW Corridor.

Meanwhile, no one at RTD has the political courage to tell the northwest communities that their corridor is good and proper fucked and is going to require some serious magic to get done. But, since this is the only corridor that has two proposed transit modes there is hope. Go with rail to Westminster, maybe Lousville, and BRT to Boulder and Longmont.

[bunt_q]

If I were Longmont I'd seriously be considering a vote out of the RTD. I mean, Boulder has always been treated like royalty and gotten service far disproportionate to their relative contributions to the district. But Longmont? They could do just as well on their own, and they're probably going to get rail from CDOT before they do from RTD. Something they should consider, at least.

[austingood]

Am I reading that right that the rail station will be constructed in Longmont by 2015, even though the train supposedly wont get there until 2044? I know they want to make Longmont feel like they aren't being ignored but seriously...

[EngiNerd]

Yup, that's what it says....talk about a bridge to nowhere, lol.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You missed the best part:

Now, without further funding, the earliest the 41-mile stretch between Denver and Longmont would be complete is 2044.

Good to know that my grandchildren will be able to ride a 50 minute train to East Boulder, followed by a 20-minute HOP transfer, to get to their dorms. Little Johnny, maybe you should consider the University of Beijing instead.

I didn't miss it, its just something that we have known about for a while...its what RTD keeps threatening if no additional sales taxes are passed. I seriously think the only ones that would be screwed out of the deal of BRT but no rail are Louisville, who probably has a right to be pissed since it was going through the middle of that city, and Longmont if they don't extend BRT up that way.. Westy is getting a spur up to 71st no matter what, and Broomfield/Lafayette will have access to the N. line.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by austingood

Am I reading that right that the rail station will be constructed in Longmont by 2015, even though the train supposedly wont get there until 2044? I know they want to make Longmont feel like they aren't being ignored but seriously...

Don't you all remember that when the Eagle 3 bid came in $300 million under what RTD expected, they allocated those funds to other corridors. This is where that $300 million was designated to be spent:

-I-225 LRT from Nine Mile to Illiff (1.5 mile extension)
-North Corridor EMU to National Western Stock Show
-US36 BRT phase 2
-Multi-modal transit station for Longmont (to initially be used for expanded bus, express bus and BRT service and at a future date also for Commuter Rail)