DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

It's coming.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I consider a residential development here more convenient and more of a contribution to downtown 'densification' than anything on the other side of I25

This is a really interesting comment, because it begs the question what's our goal?

Is our primary goal to have a retail-oriented downtown surrounded by bedroom suburbs, or is our goal to have a city of walkable mixed-use neighborhoods (of which downtown is the best)? I'd much rather have the latter.

[mojiferous]

I walk from Highland to downtown every day and it actually surprises me how many people are walking commuters — even on the coldest of days I am never the only one walking through the park towards downtown at 8:45am. Even 15th under the train tracks and towards LoDo is starting to get to the point where I always see other pedestrians (which never used to happen). But I agree — I bet even more people would forgo driving if there was better transportation around downtown instead of just directly into it.

For example, Salzburg has a great little electric bus system that would be a great idea to emulate for a downtown circulator — less seating (like the mall shuttles,) higher frequency, more attractive paint jobs, and an emphasis on the urban commuter and less on suburban transport. One of the big issues we have is that the bus system downtown is still planned as it was in the 70s and 80s, to get people into and out of downtown, so traveling from here to Five Points would require two buses even though it is only a few miles, and I can get to the Tech Center faster by mass transit than I can to parts of Cap Hill.

[RyanD]

Maybe we should start an awareness group. Make flyers or something.. Maybe get enough people to hold a meeting so we can figure out how to get some transit options on a ballot? We keep throwing the ideas out on this forum, and some ideas are good enough and should be known / familiarized with a broader public eye. Just saying?

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is a really interesting comment, because it begs the question what's our goal?

Is our primary goal to have a retail-oriented downtown surrounded by bedroom suburbs, or is our goal to have a city of walkable mixed-use neighborhoods (of which downtown is the best)? I'd much rather have the latter.

Are those the only two options? When I look at Denver I can't help but see a lot more San Francisco than Manhattan. Vibrant surrounding neighborhoods with lots of retail and dining options within them, surrounding a central retail oriented Downtown.

That's what we should be encouraging I think. How do we encourage lots of growth within our neighborhoods? More retail, more dining, and more services? How do we encourage more big-time retail Downtown? How do we connect all of those things?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

It's coming.

It is. But never stop pushing. We're still going to have to fund it.

Ryan - we have awareness groups. We just need to get more people aware of them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Are those the only two options? When I look at Denver I can't help but see a lot more San Francisco than Manhattan. Vibrant surrounding neighborhoods with lots of retail and dining options within them, surrounding a central retail oriented Downtown.

That's what we should be encouraging I think. How do we encourage lots of growth within our neighborhoods? More retail, more dining, and more services? How do we encourage more big-time retail Downtown? How do we connect all of those things?

I would agree with this vision. With one addition - I don't think we give up on downtown as a (the) major (and ideally, growing) business/employment hub of the region. Dispersed jobs are a pain in the butt.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is a really interesting comment, because it begs the question what's our goal?

Is our primary goal to have a retail-oriented downtown surrounded by bedroom suburbs, or is our goal to have a city of walkable mixed-use neighborhoods (of which downtown is the best)? I'd much rather have the latter.

I agree the later is preferred if the mixed use is not limited to yoga chains, tea rooms and a few high end restaurants lightly scattered through mostly dedicated residential buildings which is what is taking shape in LoHi and Highland. A truly self sufficient mixed use neighborhood might have been possible if properly planned and promoted.

I live 100 yards from a grocery, 50 yards from Chinese takeout, pizza, dry cleaning and a liquor store, and 1.5 blocks from light rail, and I can't imagine having to go back to driving every time I need to shop. My point is having residents on the downtown side of I25 means less traffic commuting across the 15th or 20th street bridges and I still think residents there would walk or use other non-car modes at least as much as those in highland.

Now if we had trollies running down 15th and 20th all the way up the hill that would be a whole different ball game, but I have not heard any talk of that yet.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Ryan - we have awareness groups. We just need to get more people aware of them.

Oh.. I was unaware of the awareness groups..

[Cirrus]

Usually those 2 visions line up, and what's good for one is good for the other. But this is a rare situation when they're not perfectly aligned. To have a retail downtown any residential vaguely nearby is good enough, but to have quality urban neighborhoods the residential has to be more carefully planned. That's why we're talking about this project 2 pages later. 300 non-walkable apartments do contribute customers to the retail downtown, but work against the walkable neighborhood goal, because it gobbles up the demand for residential development in the core. On the other hand, 300 apartments in a better location would work for both goals.

If there's unlimited demand for development in the core then it's not a problem. But if there's only so much demand for core development, then we need to prioritize where we want it.

But again, this is all just for our academic/discussion purposes. I don't actually oppose this.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I live 100 yards from a grocery, 50 yards from Chinese takeout, pizza, dry cleaning and a liquor store, and 1.5 blocks from light rail, and I can't imagine having to go back to driving every time I need to shop. My point is having residents on the downtown side of I25 means less traffic commuting across the 15th or 20th street bridges and I still think residents there would walk or use other non-car modes at least as much as those in highland.

You have that in pretty much all of the west Highlands. There is a lot more to the neighborhood than Highlands square. I live 5 blocks from a grocery store, a couple of liquor stores, a fitness center, a laundromat, asian takeout, and within 10 blocks of something like 30+ bars and restaurants. Hell I often bike to a Target.

That's not unique either. The folks in Baker or Capitol Hill can certainly claim the same thing. It seems to me that neighborhoods (and the services they rely on) spring up organically in a lot of ways. Focus on the infrastructure (like intra-city rail) and sensible zoning (IE: lots of retail opportunities within neighborhoods) and the rest will almost take care of itself.

[OneWay]

When is it likely that there will be streetcars "throughout" downtown? Weren't there streetcars back in the old days in Denver and what effect did that have upon development? Is the idea to put in streetcar lines and let those act at the magnet for further infill? Are streetcar lines very expensive or a good revenue generator?


Sorry, lot's of questions, from a noob.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by OneWay

When is it likely that there will be streetcars "throughout" downtown? Weren't there streetcars back in the old days in Denver and what effect did that have upon development? Is the idea to put in streetcar lines and let those act at the magnet for further infill? Are streetcar lines very expensive or a good revenue generator?


Sorry, lot's of questions, from a noob.

There's no way we can get back to the good ol days of street cars since we had over 150 miles of street cars back then. However, I would love to see a system that compliments the light rail that will be in effect. I would like to see a streetcar running from Fitzsimmons near 225 all the way down Colfax to Auraria Campus. Then, in a perpendicular line, run a streetcar from38th and Brighton (near light rail) and go south all the way down Broadway to I25. All these end points would be within walking distance of Light Rail and effectively criss cross the most popular routes across the city in each direction. Add one from The Highlands (Speer and Federal) all the way to Cherry Creek - hang a right on University and go all the way down to DU.

These 3 lines would capture major transit routes and connect neighborhoods. And a majority of residents would live within 10 blocks of a line that could ultimately get them to the airport.

[Cirrus]

>> When is it likely that there will be streetcars "throughout" downtown?
Unknown. There is a study going on right now looking at maybe adding them to Colfax, but there is no reliable timeline. The study should be complete by this time next year, but even if it recommends streetcar it will be years before funding can be lined up. The first streetcar will likely be on Welton Street. RTD is considering converting the light rail north of downtown to streetcar. But that's not imminent either, and really depends upon whether or not the city wants to convert Welton to a two-way street.

>> Weren't there streetcars back in the old days in Denver and what effect did that have upon development?
Almost all medium-to-large cities had streetcars prior to World War 2. Even Boulder and Fort Collins had them. Most of central Denver was developed along streetcar lines. Sometimes developers built streetcar lines just to get people to their real estate developments.

>> Is the idea to put in streetcar lines and let those act at the magnet for further infill?
Partly. Streetcars do act as magnets. But they also have a lot of other advantages over buses. They have more capacity, offer a smoother ride, are quieter, are cleaner, generate higher ridership, and depending on the circumstances can be less expensive to operate.

>> Are streetcar lines very expensive or a good revenue generator?
Both, and neither. It depends how you count, and what you consider expensive. A streetcar line costs about the same as two big new high schools, so theoretically any city that can afford 2 high schools can afford a streetcar. That's much more expensive than a normal bus line (BRT is just as much or more), but a lot less than a major regional light rail line or highway project. Like almost all transportation, including highways and airlines, streetcars typically require an operational subsidy to run, meaning fares alone do not cover the costs. But they do typically raise land values along their routes, and the increased property taxes the city gets because of them are often enough to make up the difference, and be profitable. Some streetcars are built using bonds that are paid back by that higher property tax revenue.

>> Sorry, lot's of questions, from a noob.
It's great that there are a bunch of new people here to talk about these things.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

they do typically raise land values along their routes, and the increased property taxes the city gets because of them are often enough to make up the difference, and be profitable. Some streetcars are built using bonds that are paid back by that higher property tax revenue.

And this is where I come in. This is what I do now, I figure out how to finance infrastructure at the local level. If the city wants to do it through some sort of local bonding, or local streetcar district, we could make that happen. (IF the adjacent property owners are on board - that's the tough part). However, I suspect that if the City and County of Denver decides to go forward with this, they will do it on a citywide taxing basis - it just seems to be how Denver rolls.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And this is where I come in. This is what I do now, I figure out how to finance infrastructure at the local level. If the city wants to do it through some sort of local bonding, or local streetcar district, we could make that happen. (IF the adjacent property owners are on board - that's the tough part). However, I suspect that if the City and County of Denver decides to go forward with this, they will do it on a citywide taxing basis - it just seems to be how Denver rolls.

If we are talking Colfax specifically, I doubt the City would bond it. Maybe, but doubt it. There has been a lot of discussion regarding a district and if I were a betting man, that's what I'd imagine the City to try first.

City-wide tax would more likely be for a "system" (2 or 3 lines throughout) and would correspond with some kind of RTD initiative (regional/finish FasTracks).

All educated guesses.

[mountain time]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Maybe we should start an awareness group. Make flyers or something.. Maybe get enough people to hold a meeting so we can figure out how to get some transit options on a ballot? We keep throwing the ideas out on this forum, and some ideas are good enough and should be known / familiarized with a broader public eye. Just saying?

Require all citizens to read the "High Cost of Free Parking" prior to being able to vote?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

If we are talking Colfax specifically, I doubt the City would bond it. Maybe, but doubt it. There has been a lot of discussion regarding a district and if I were a betting man, that's what I'd imagine the City to try first.

City-wide tax would more likely be for a "system" (2 or 3 lines throughout) and would correspond with some kind of RTD initiative (regional/finish FasTracks).

All educated guesses.

The election would be tough at the local level, though, very tough. Still the best idea, I agree.

Who else is talking about the district, and what structure? Just curious (pm me if you want).

[bcp]

did somebody say throughline?

[rla82]

All of this discussion about transit is great, but it demands that this be said. We have to stop thinking about transit only by how it can physically and functionally compete with cars. It can't and it won't. Using transit requires an adjustment to how you get around and how you think about navigating the city. It will not take you, the individual, door to door like your car will. There is no rational way for a system to accomplish that for millions of people, yet we continue to hold it to the same expectations as our cars. Denver has one of the most robust transit systems for a mid-sized city in the U.S., especially if you live anywhere within a couple miles of downtown. RTD has a very easy-to-use new website, and even Google will tell you how to get around. We need to stop with this BS about "there's no way to get from here to there." Sure, we could have some more frequent service on some lines, some later services, some more branded services that are easier to understand. There is always room for improvement. But this argument that there just is no way to get from point A to point B is simply not true. You may have to walk a few blocks. You may have to use a couple different buses. RTD does not exist to solely transport hipsters from Capitol Hill to the Highland bars. It exists to serve the greater good not you the individual and your daily needs. Until we stop demanding that transit function just like a private car we will never be able to have actual productive conversations about how to improve what we do have.

Lastly, we also need to stop complaining about how expensive it is. RTD fares are in line with all other transit systems nationwide, if not cheaper. If you only use it a few times a month just pay as you ride. If you use it frequently it can't possibly be more expensive than the car that you had to purchase, insure, maintain and fuel. Once again, transit is not the same as a car. It never will be and it is not designed to be. We're not having the right conversations about transportation in Denver. It's time we stop thinking about transit like a car-addicted city, acknowledge our car-addiction, and take the most productive steps to reduce that addiction.

We are certainly providing entirely too much parking in all of these new developments though...