DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Zmapper]

Without transit a "Transit Oriented Development" would just be... "Development".

[Cirrus]

You can accomplish much higher densities with rail than without. The issue here is that almost none of the TOD anybody actually builds is dense enough to reach that threshold. A few notable exceptions notwithstanding.

If you're just going for something like downtown Englewood, it doesn't matter.

[Cirrus]

Something else: Political buy-in matters. The market might be able to build high density without transit, but if you can't get political buy-in to approve the denser zoning, it's for naught. Transit isn't the only tool available to get political buy-in, but it is definitely one of the more powerful.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You can accomplish much higher densities with rail than without. The issue here is that almost none of the TOD anybody actually builds is dense enough to reach that threshold. A few notable exceptions notwithstanding.

If you're just going for something like downtown Englewood, it doesn't matter.

True. And that's not likely to change as long as we're building primary suburban-focused commuter rail. Because (a) the transit doesn't really help you get anywhere other than work and home - which isn't particularly helpful for dense urban-type development; (b) you're dealing with jurisdictions that don't really want extreme density; and (c) there isn't a whole lot of market demand for it - why live in that environment in Lone Tree (or even Englewood) - if you want that, you'll choose Denver.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Something else: Political buy-in matters. The market might be able to build high density without transit, but if you can't get political buy-in to approve the denser zoning, it's for naught. Transit isn't the only tool available to get political buy-in, but it is definitely one of the more powerful.

That's my (b) - we posted at the same time.

[bunt_q]

I'll add, though, that while part of the reason we get political buy in for higher densities in suburban locations is to do with the train... part of it is also that RTD's trains happen to be in marginal locations to begin with. It's not like we have rail piercing through neighborhoods, and we're using "TOD" to justify denser development that the neighborhood might otherwise oppose. We have trains along highways and freight railroads. Where you probably could've gotten those development approvals anyways. Or at least, if you were going to get them, that's where you would've gotten them.

But take Alameda Station. That strip mall could be redeveloped with or without the rail. That's a great example of someplace where the train is probably irrelevant to the ultimate redevelopment.

[EngiNerd]

So we call them TOD when they are near a rail station, but what do we call them when they are in a Belmar like setting, mixed-used town center? Because really we aren't doing anything different at any of the so-called TOD than we are at say Belmar or Southglen. Parking is about the same, the style of mixed-use, and densities are also about the same as Vellagio at the Dry Creek station. They get to charge more for calling it TOD, and they don't get to call it TOD unless they have the T.

Its just like that strange little Prospect development up in Longmont off of 287...they build them because they can, and because they can charge more for the mixed use "urban-esque", "walkable" living. Homes and condos in that area go for between 200-250/sf, whereas elsewhere in Longmont condos and homes go for closer to $150/sf.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'll add, though, that while part of the reason we get political buy in for higher densities in suburban locations is to do with the train... part of it is also that RTD's trains happen to be in marginal locations to begin with. It's not like we have rail piercing through neighborhoods, and we're using "TOD" to justify denser development that the neighborhood might otherwise oppose. We have trains along highways and freight railroads. Where you probably could've gotten those development approvals anyways. Or at least, if you were going to get them, that's where you would've gotten them.

But take Alameda Station. That strip mall could be redeveloped with or without the rail. That's a great example of someplace where the train is probably irrelevant to the ultimate redevelopment.

This is something the City struggles with all the time. RTD built all the good stuff (rail) in all the worst places. Why would the City want to invest in all these stations that won't yield ROI for generations? Why not invest in the neighborhoods that are already established and in the basic sense of the term are somewhat transit oriented (bus).

If I had a pot of money and wanted to invest it. Only a fraction would go to the station areas (probably 38th&Blake, few others) and the rest would go to establishing higher standards of transit for Denver (higher frequencies, more routes, branding, streetcar, etc.).

RTD put Denver in a tough spot. All the hype is TOD, most of the practicality is boosting current service.

[The Dirt]

Because NIMBYs.

[bcp]

^ great points...its not just spot density, but extended density is what really makes these things work...critical mass etc...denver did a great job selling the MS zoning as a "buffer" to protect less dense / quieter areas.

Whats really sad is that we still need to sell these concepts in urban denver, and that political buy-in is even an issue (see sf and vancouver for success stories)

[bunt_q]

I think you are always going to have to sell these concepts, even in urban Denver, until we have intracity transportation alternatives in place that appeal to the mainstream voting population. Average Denver Joe knows that their options right now are the bus or driving and parking, and if you can afford a place in most of central Denver, that's no choice. You don't change the mindset relying on by-choice local bus commuters. Folks have been making that choice for 50 years, and they've chosen the car. We have to provide a better option first. For all the hype about transit, we're getting people to choose dense living much more easily than we're getting them to stop driving.

[bcp]

Oh i get "why".....i just find it disheartening..

[bunt_q]

Well, let's build a streetcar then!

Actually, I wonder if Colfax is too close to the CU hospitals...

[bcp]

Agreed!! Oh those vibrations...

[The Dirt]

Good thing they demolished those seedy pay by the hour motels across from the hospital on Colfax. I'm sure they produced a lot of vibrations too.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bcp

Whats really sad is that we still need to sell these concepts in urban denver.. see sf for success stories)

I dunno. SF NIMBYs are pretty legendary.

[bcp]

Im sure they exist as one-offs...but the spirit seems to be morehomes, more people, less parking, good design.

[bunt_q]

By the way, this was quick work. I'd like to see some new ridership modeling, compare before and after. Might be a good little controlled experiment in the effect a now-required shuttle connection has on ridership, as compared to walkable proximity.

Managers: RTD should move I-225 line north of Fitzsimons campus

Regional Transportation District managers agree with the University of Colorado that light rail trains don't belong next to expensive and delicate research equipment at the Anschutz/Fitzsimons Medical Campus.

That's why they're recommending that a ½-mile segment of the I-225 Light Rail FasTracks project be moved from its current proposed alignment along Montview Avenue through the campus to near Fitzsimons Parkway along the northern edge, according to an RTD report.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23429981/managers-rtd-should-move-i-225-line-north

[Zmapper]

How is RTD allowed to change the routing at whim, considering that the alignments in FasTracks were voted on? An argument they make for the NW area is that RTD is powerless to change alignments, because they would have to go back to the voters for approval. It would appear that if the voters approved the Montview Alignment, and the EIS by RTD also supported the Montview Alignment, then the board should theoretically be powerless to change the alignment.

Earlier in the thread wong joked about how he expects a lawsuit from CU alleging that RTD made an "arbitrary and capricious decision with no public input". It appears that RTD in switching to a different alignment in the timespan of only a month with zero non-CU public input is bordering on an arbitrary decision.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by bcp

Im sure they exist as one-offs...but the spirit seems to be morehomes, more people, less parking, good design.

"More homes, more people" is the opposite of the spirit in SF.

I lived in SF for a few years and the NIMBY-ism there was pretty hard core compared to Denver, IMO. Most of the established residents are concerned about the so-called "manhattanization" of the peninsula. Most people outside of SF don't know this, but there's a complete ban on high-rises throughout the entire city with the exception of CBD, Soma (basically an extension of CBD), and a small stretch of Market St (which is why all the high-rises outside of downtown look like they're from the 60's or earlier) and I don't see that ban ever getting lifted. SF is literally zoned - per the voters demands - to never become any more dense than it already is. That's literally the main goal of its zoning. Every so often, some politician or columnist comes along and proposes a zoning change that would allow SF to become slightly more dense to help alleviate their severe housing crisis, but the proposal is always immediately shot down by an uproar form the citizenry.

There are NIMBYs everywhere, but the NIMYs in SF are legendary.