DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Interzen]

OK, I'll admit I'm not the typical commuter, working from home and all.

Cirrus, this is the taxi complex:
http://www.taxibyzeppelin.com/

It is located here:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.772245,-104.982058&spn=0.005475,0.005622&t=h&z=18

Bunt q, no question taxi is car dependent, I just wondered if Cirrus would have considered the site usable.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Where's the taxi complex? What is it? Just a parking lot for taxies (I'd call that an industrial use)?

Sorry, I'm not local.

Oops

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Distance isn't the only factor of walkability. Walking anywhere at all from that site would be boring, which matters even more than distance. It would *seem* like an even longer walk than it is.

This is a bad location no matter what. I wouldn't even want an institutional use there, except maybe a prison. It's good for industrial and not much else. It'd be great for a railyard.

Have you ever been to this park? Its really nice aside from the empty lot we are discussing. Beautiful views, nicely sized and open. Great for games, dogs, Frisbee, running, picknics, keg ball. I think a lot of people would pay to live there. Oh yeah and its on the river adjacent to 3 ped bridges. You could alternate the bridge you cross every morning. Spice it up.

Sure its not a perfect spot and its not as connected as it could be. But considering its proximity to the freeway and downtown its pretty 'convenient' in my book. Maybe not the best walking score but then again if all scores were the same, whats the point....

[Interzen]

Bunt q, do you mind if I ask if you live downtown?

The different populations in the neighborhoods you mention traveling to a block 162 Target will be as much of a determining factor in mode choice as distance. Uptown-car and maybe bike, LoDo/Union Station/ballpark-foot and Free ride, Cap Hill - Scooter, bike and bus, LoHi-most likely car, Golden Triangle-car (even though it's so close, Colfax and civic center are a turn off and that crowd is already pretty car oriented)

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Taxi is auto-dependent too. Denargo is the real nightmare - that's a whole lot of units, and not a lot of walkability. And there are not any other real options right now.

What you have to realize when you talk transportation is that it's not a question of whether it is POSSIBLE to live without a car. It's also possible to live without grid electricity, but few people make that choice. Most people do what is the most convenient/affordable option for them. Most people do not make inconvenient choices "because it's right." Some do (in economist terms, people who get utility - feel good, basically - out of doing the socially responsible thing), but not most. People who live a few miles outside of downtown in an industrial area, and choose to only commute by bicycle (still, not a pleasant way to travel for 4 months of the year), are a rarity. Most will also own a car (which is why developers keep providing parking!). We don't have to LIKE it, or even AGREE with it. But we ought to recognize it. The word "should" has no place in discussions of planning and transportation (e.g. "people should..."). (Golden Triangle and Curtis Park might be the exceptions - they'll have good bicycle options. But I still wouldn't expect that to capture a huge percentage.)

RyanD and I have had this discussion quite a bit... we need to start seriously investing in transportation alternatives around/near downtown (probably improvements to both cycling AND transit - and I don't mean fastracks), or else the only thing we'll get from 20,000 more people in downtown-adjacent neighborhoods is a whole lot of traffic. Downtown Denver still has a pretty large footprint - and relatively speaking, not a lot of density (at least, not enough density that we can expect a grocery store for every little sub-neighborhood).

Denargo is my favorite example. How are those people going to shop for groceries, realistically (not idealistically)?

A CityTarget at 15th/California might be another fun one to contemplate. What is the realistic mode split for people who shop there? You'll get some workers/commuters, but I'm talking in terms of locals. Uptown, Capitol Hill, Ballpark, Lower Highland (even Union Station), Prospect, Curtis Park, Golden Triangle... sure seems to me like from most of these places, if you have a car, you'll use it most of the time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a bad thing... no judgment at all... I just think given the alternatives we have, that's what people will do, so we need to plan for it.

Yup, to pretty much everything you've said.


There have been some rumblings of Streetcar along Brighton.

Regardless, Brighton is a Focus 6 area designated by the Mayor, and most likely will see significant multi-modal upgrades in the near term. The bike/ped experience should be much better. Don't know if that will help or not.

[RyanD]

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud but if I had to commute via walking through a park everyday I would just end up driving. I personally don't think parks improve walk-ability for any city and they probably detract people at night. Sure parks add character and they're nice for 'recreational use' but personally I like walking through the concrete jungle and most people will probably agree that it provides a more close feeling with the city feeling and provides a good sense of security at any time of day.

Anything going up in the Denargo / by-the-river area seems a little doomed from the start because the pedestrian connections just aren't there. 'The Yards at Denargo Market' is SO secluded from everything that I bet 95% of the people that live there will drive everywhere. (I've shot photos for that project since it was just a baby and it's in no-mans-land. If I was on foot I would say screw it).

I've always enjoyed the conversations with Bunt because he has extremely valid points. The population that's going to migrate to downtown is going to have a car attitude (at least most of them) because we are enabling them with:

BIG



ASS


(This is Denargo from last summer)

PARKING STRUCTURES



where everybody and their Mom's second vehicle can park. Mix in some asinine parking requirements and everybody is driving. Then we will be gridlocked downtown and we will have people bitching how they can't get anywhere in a timely manner via car. But, our intercity transit options are absolutely terrible and the 'new' circulator will do no good. Streetcars are as always the best option IMO and I can only imagine being able to get across CBD, to Cherry Creek and up Colfax all via rail. Those will be good days if we do something now and honestly before it's too late. Bunt also gave this great insight: When we have the 8,000 / 9,000 / 10,000 / 11,000ish (pick your number) people (most with a car) move down here and traffic gets bad, how are we going to be able to tear up the roads for streetcar, etc?

Lastly, I see cities like Boston and Portland trying developments with zero parking spaces that are along intercity rail lines and I hope that one day Denver can do that too.

TL;DR - I hate walking through parks for commuting, Denargo is pedestrian hell, we enable people to use cars way too easily, traffic is going to get really bad, streetcars?

TL;DR TL;DR - NEED STREETCARS (or good equivalent)

[bunt_q]

Don't get me wrong, I think we can do it with buses too, especially initially. (Ken and Cirrus both have some good ideas on this.) I just want us thinking about this sooner rather than later because it gets harder once you've already got an established auto-based population in place.

[enjo13]

My experience:

When I lived in Lodo everyone (predictably) walked everywhere.

I lived in Glass House and really no-one walked very much. They might commute to work on foot, but tons of people would take their car out for dinner. There's just something about the length of the walk over millenium bridge and across the CPV that made it seem like a really big investment in time and effort. I always chuckled when people talked about driving to the Denver Center for a show. We spent a fortune on cab fare, so I guess I can't really get too high on my horse.

I think the transit neighborhood will undo a lot of that..but it was still a real issue.

So for a development across the park and even further away? Walking just isn't going to be on peoples radar. Walking works when things are *really* close.

[balugajames]

Maybe we should look into installing 'moving walkways' like you see in airports all over the city. Those make walking much more 'efficient'. jk

As I see it, more people will mean more traffic and there is no getting around that. I don't think parking garages are the problem as much as what has been stated... Walk ability. Just because I have a garage to park my car doesn't mean I drive it all the time.

But I do like having a ride for when I want to go backpacking or for hitting the slopes.

Also I think RTD rates are too high. 80$ monthly passes is only cost-effective if you use the bus/train always.... Otherwise its more or less a waste of money since if you don't use it 'always' you probably have a car, which you have to pay for and thus are already invested in. Most of us have those. So only people who can actually commute on the bus/train are going to buy passes and my bet is they are the main ridership. If they dropped it to around 40$ I bet a lot more people would buy passes and would actually ride...

Just by giving my fiance a pass she now rides the bus all the time. Prior, having to have money made it a no go for her. (Even though she didn't have a car as an alternative. So even without a car she didn't use public transit.) She always thought about the money or lack of it... It stressed her out. What if she was across town and didn't have 2.25$ in the form of currency that a bus accepts to get home?
Or, well its going to cost me 2.25 to get 6 blocks down the street.. Screw it ill just stay home or call my friend to pick me up... This is the kind of thing that hampers people from using public transit. Where as with a car, you already paid for the car/gas/insurance, so you might as well use it and the 'money' question doesn't come up. We can use this mentality to our favor by promoting the 'pre-paid' pass idea. Since once someone purchases a pass, they will want to get their money out of it.... But at 80$, only die hard transit people (like me, since my commute is not covered by rtd but I still buy a pass anyway), commuters or those who literally have other other option are going to buy passes. (They most likely get the discounted rate though)

Also, the routes need to run later. Why the hell don't buses run till 3 am on Thurs - Saturday... A lot of people I know would use public transit as their DD if this was the case... But the buses don't, so no one does... This is a very beneficial population to move into transit......

For example I tried to take a free bus on New Years Eve and got stranded because I stayed out till 2 while the buses shut down. Dumb.... We were the only ones on the free bus the way there and I wondered why.... until 2 am struck... :0 Next year we will probably just have a DD since cabs are tough to come by on nights like that. Hence stranded...

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by balugajames

As I see it, more people will mean more traffic and there is no getting around that. I don't think parking garages are the problem as much as what has been stated... Walk ability. Just because I have a garage to park my car doesn't mean I drive it all the time.

But I do like having a ride for when I want to go backpacking or for hitting the slopes.

I never said parking garages are the problem, they're just a great enabler for the common person to use a car versus using transit even if they are in the middle of tons of transit options. Make using your car slightly less convenient (maybe not out your front door), maybe offer reduced priced transit passes (which I wholeheartedly agree with you on as far as pricing and just having one), and I guarantee you'll have less people on the roads. Most people I have met will drive if their car is right there, even if it's down the block. There few people that are an exception, probably most of us here on SSP as well, but sadly the reality is the majority of people will still drive even if it's >1.5 miles.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by balugajames

Have you ever been to this park? Its really nice

Yes. It doesn't matter that it's really nice. We have loads of study-supported data showing that when people are walking for transportation (as opposed to recreation), they are much less willing to walk through parks than along a busy sidewalk, because parks don't provide enough to look at. People playing frisbee 50 yards away is nothing like a constantly changing sidewalk with a new storefront every 25 feet. The level of detail and the frequency of changing things to look at is totally, totally different. Big parks are only very slightly better than blank walls and parking lots when it comes to pedestrian stimulation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have parks. Of course we should. Parks are great for recreation, and we need them, but forcing people to walk through one in order to get anywhere is a losing deal. It's why suburbs (with all their nice landscaping) aren't as walkable as cities.

The Taxi lot is also a bad place for anything residential, although it's easier to fix. It would be OK if 35th Street had bridges over the Platte and the train tracks, like 38th Street. In any event, Taxi appears to be primarily an industrial use. It has a residential component, but it like it's mainly a business incubator.

And Taxi is a total suburban-style self-contained campus. Everyone is expected to drive there, and not walk anywhere external. It's not the model we should be supporting for anything that's supposed to be urban.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm not saying we shouldn't have parks. Of course we should. Parks are great for recreation, and we need them, but forcing people to walk through one in order to get anywhere is a losing deal. It's why suburbs (with all their nice landscaping) aren't as walkable as cities.

I hear ya. I just moved out of Commons Park West (which is right down the river from the area we are talking about, across from the glass house. And walking to anything on the 'otherside' of the park did have a feeling of much further distance.... Maybe we should take up my 'moving walkways' idea but just install them as 'rapid park crossings' to get through the park faster and with little effort reducing that mental distance barrier...

Lets not limit them to parks though... 'rapid freeway crossings'... 'rapid river crossings', 'rapid railroad crossings', 'rapid downtown crossings'.... I can't imaging these things cost that much more than a sidewalk except on the maintenance side... I think by reducing the mental distance of these 'walking' barriers, we could promote a lot more of it. And unlike transit, there is no 'schedule' which is another barrier to ridership... You can start walking 'rapidly' whenever you want...

We would need one downtown south-east to north-west corridor, like 15, 16 or 17th... And two east west corridors... Market and Welton or something like that. Eventually a lincoln-broadway rapid corridor. With each block of the corridor having a 'moving walkway' that traverses the entire block with a break in the middle allowing for an exit from the walkway in the middle of the block. This could cut walking time in half or make it nearly no walking at all if your willing to just stand there. Walking from Glenarm to Wynkoop could take like 7 minutes instead of 20 or whatever is.

While were dreaming. These walkways include submerged glass walls which only come up during bad weather, making the walk a nice warm journey.. Way better than the Toronto underground city approach.....

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by balugajames

As I see it, more people will mean more traffic and there is no getting around that.

This is objectively false. We know exactly how to grow without adding any traffic, and even have examples in the US where it's happening.

I'm currently sitting in a neighborhood that was nothing but suburban strip malls 30-40 years ago, but is now filled with high rises. And guess what: traffic counts are lower today than they were 30-40 years ago, despite massively higher density.

Designing around transit and walking works. Undeniably it works. But you have to mean it. You have to *actually* make transit and walking the highest priorities.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud but if I had to commute via walking through a park everyday I would just end up driving. I personally don't think parks improve walk-ability for any city and they probably detract people at night. Sure parks add character and they're nice for 'recreational use' but personally I like walking through the concrete jungle and most people will probably agree that it provides a more close feeling with the city feeling and provides a good sense of security at any time of day.

Good point about feeling secure at night.

I just spend time in that park and would prefer something more interesting than a suburban style apartment complex that makes it feel like I'm someplace in Lakewood, rather than downtown.

I was not trying to diminish anything from Bunt q who I agree makes very valid and interesting arguments. I was just wondered what perspective he is coming from. It often seems like he sees things from the perspective of a commuter from a significant distance outside the CBD, that's why I asked.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is objectively false. We know exactly how to grow without adding any traffic, and even have examples in the US where it's happening.

I'm currently sitting in a neighborhood that was nothing but suburban strip malls 30-40 years ago, but is now filled with high rises. And guess what: traffic counts are lower today than they were 30-40 years ago, despite massively higher density.

Designing around transit and walking works. Undeniably it works. But you have to mean it. You have to *actually* make transit and walking the highest priorities.

I was only referring to Denver and our 'current' non-walkable city. Until we make those investments more traffic is going to come. But its kind a chicken egg thing. I agree with you that once we reach some critical mass which your location did, this maybe happening now or soon, walkability will begin to skyrocket with traffic counts declining. We are on the right path I think, but its still a long journey. But I really feel like there is a lot of energy in the right direction. Walking counts are certainly increasing. You can see all over the city.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Interzen

Good point about feeling secure at night.

I just spend time in that park and would prefer something more interesting than a suburban style apartment complex that makes it feel like I'm someplace in Lakewood, rather than downtown.

I was not trying to diminish anything from Bunt q who I agree makes very valid and interesting arguments. I was just wondered what perspective he is coming from. It often seems like he sees things from the perspective of a commuter from a significant distance outside the CBD, that's why I asked.

For sure. I reverse commute, so I live downtown but work out in the burbs. Littleton to be exact. So what I'm seeing is that traffic going into downtown has increased over the few years (I bus it mostly and every once in a while drive) Regional rail is great for commuters but the intercity portion is also key i.e if you have to commute to Union Station and need to get to 17th and Tremont to your office tower in a more-rapid-than-mall-shuttle manner or if you work in Uptown, etc, etc.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by balugajames

I agree with you that once we reach some critical mass which your location did, this maybe happening now or soon, walkability will begin to skyrocket with traffic counts declining. We are on the right path I think

Absolutely. But a key part of getting it right is not wasting resources on places that will always be wrong. If we try to grow everywhere then there won't be enough to hit the critical mass where we want it. 300 new apartments locating somewhere that will never be very walkable means 300 new apartments that aren't getting built somewhere better.

And that's why I'd prefer to keep properties like this industrial. We also need industrial land, so it may as well be the properties ill-suited for neighborhoods.

300 is a drop in the bucket though, so it's not really a big deal. This is an imperfect development, but it's not something I'd show up at a meeting to oppose. It's OK. I wouldn't have said anything about it at all if this discussion hadn't already been going on.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Absolutely. But a key part of getting it right is not wasting resources on places that will always be wrong. If we try to grow everywhere then there won't be enough to hit the critical mass where we want it. 300 new apartments locating somewhere that will never be very walkable means 300 new apartments that aren't getting built somewhere better.

And that's why I'd prefer to keep properties like this industrial. We also need industrial land, so it may as well be the properties ill-suited for neighborhoods.

300 is a drop in the bucket though, so it's not really a big deal. This is an imperfect development, but it's not something I'd show up at a meeting to oppose. It's OK. I wouldn't have said anything about it at all if this discussion hadn't already been going on.

I still have to disagree in regard to this site. I consider a residential development here more convenient and more of a contribution to downtown 'densification' than anything on the other side of I25 where they are building like crazy, even if most of the residents end up using their cars frequently. There is also some value in further activating the park and Platte River Greenway with more eyes in the area.

It really does not feel as removed as an areal view might imply. If something attractive was built there and I was a 20-35 year old apartment dweller, I would live there and enjoy it.

Edit: Sorry, I won't drag the subject out anymore :-)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I was not trying to diminish anything from Bunt q who I agree makes very valid and interesting arguments. I was just wondered what perspective he is coming from. It often seems like he sees things from the perspective of a commuter from a significant distance outside the CBD, that's why I asked.

No, I live outside of downtown now, and reverse commute out to the burbs. Boo. (But did live downtown before that.) The perspective I come from is a data-driven (former) transportation nerd. The reality is that the vast majority of Denverites (even the ones who live in the City) do not live in downtown-proper; and even our fastest growing areas are apparently not downtown-proper. If folks in the Glasshouse aren't walking... that doesn't leave a whole lot. We have a very large "downtown." Take Lincoln Park, for example... that's not downtown. Nobody walks from there to downtown (that just happens to be the rare Denver neighborhood that benefits from the light rail). We have booming inner-city neighborhoods that once upon a time were connected by streetcars, and now are connected by (a) cars and (b) a mediocre bus system. That's it. My perspective is simply as a proponent of intra-city transit. Somebody who feels that if we are going to cheer massive infill and reinvestment in the central city, then we had best also think about how those people are going to get around, because where we are building is too spread out and too low of density for walkability alone to be the answer. And I fear for what happens if we rely solely on cars, which, with the exception of a bike facility here and there, and a few nods to complete streets, really is what we are doing right now. And I don't want us to get complacent, lest our own success now strangle us later. As Cirrus said, you have to be serious about building around transit, and I still don't think Denver is there. We are serious about infill development at the city level, and we are serious about transit at the regional level. But by and large the two of those things are still not connecting very well. The Colfax study is a huge first step... more studies to follow soon. But my perspective is simply someone who wants to see something more firm, a real plan on paper (or PDF at least) to connect our central city neighborhoods, with more political momentum, more likely to be realized sometime before I am old and gray. I think we need to aim higher still in terms of a transportation vision.

[Interzen]

It's funny you mention Lincoln Park, because that's where I live and I do walk downtown frequently. I am in the north-east corner of the hood though, and friends on the other end usually take their scooters when we meet downtown.

I think socioeconomic factors and median age may play into how frequently glass house residence walk vs drive downtown. The typical resident there may consider the extra 15 minutes too valuable to 'waste' hoofing it.