DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

How is RTD allowed to change the routing at whim, considering that the alignments in FasTracks were voted on?

You never voted on alignments. You voted for tax and debt authorization. And you voted for RTD Board representatives.

The alignments themselves were certainly presented, but they were only ever voted on by the elected Board (and I suppose, DRCOG). As you know, we do not live in a democracy; we live in a representative democracy.

The more interesting question is what RTD will need to do with respect to the federal environmental approvals. But this is probably negligible enough.

[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.

Also, I'm constantly seeing complaints from Denverites about the poor/cheap design. People seem to have this idea that developers don't think Denver deserves quality design, or that some kind of cheap-design precedent has been set for Denver so developers feel they can just go with the precedent. But don't think that's it at all. One has to remember Denver is dirt cheap. Yes it's rapidly getting more expensive, but it's still dirt cheap. In a city like SF, Chicago, or NYC, investors can spend what needs to be spent for quality design without it cutting into their margins too much and adding too much risk. In a dirt-cheap city like Denver, quality design might wipe out your entire margin. It really adds a ton of risk to your investment. When Denver gets expensive it will get good, quality design. It will.

(Also, one must bear in mind that Denver is in the midst of an apartment boom right now, and apartment buildings usually look cheap compared to for-sale condos. Once Denver enters it's next condo boom, there should be a noticeable improvement in the design quality of its developments.)

I'm somewhat new here so forgive me if I'm just repeating the same crap that's already been said a thousand times. Also, I'm no real estate expert by any means so my opinions could be totally wrong and that's fine.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Though you'll have to control for a lot of people who will probably debark and embark at the Colfax Station. It's probably a wash, slightly longer at the worst, for commuters to Children's Hospital. CU Hospital was probably always too far away for pedestrians. The real people getting screwed are those at the Anschutz Campus. Guess Benson has a penchant for screwing CU students.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You never voted on alignments. You voted for tax and debt authorization. And you voted for RTD Board representatives.

The alignments themselves were certainly presented, but they were only ever voted on by the elected Board (and I suppose, DRCOG). As you know, we do not live in a democracy; we live in a representative democracy.

I was surprised to learn RTD lied about the cost of Union Station's makeover, so as not to scare the suburbanites who might be upset to know that a disproportionate amount of their tax-dollars would be invested in the city of Denver. Apparently RTD can get away with being pretty vague about exactly what we're voting for.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The more interesting question is what RTD will need to do with respect to the federal environmental approvals. But this is probably negligible enough.

the article says it might cause a 2-YEAR delay...i assume this is more studying to qualify for federal funds...yeesh...i would think CU should bear some cost here if that's the case. sigh.............

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

the article says it might cause a 2-YEAR delay...i assume this is more studying to qualify for federal funds...yeesh...i would think CU should bear some cost here if that's the case. sigh.............

I think the 2-year delay was for the Montview alignment. Not the Fitzsimons Parkway alignment.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I was surprised to learn RTD lied about the cost of Union Station's makeover, so as not to scare the suburbanites who might be upset to know that a disproportionate amount of their tax-dollars would be invested in the city of Denver. Apparently RTD can get away with being pretty vague about exactly what we're voting for.

When the hell did that happen? As I recall, RTD said that they were going to budget something like $250 million for the Union State redevelopment as part of FasTracks and would use a private developer to make up the rest whatever that might have been. The original estimate was $500 million (with an underground bus terminal and light rail going underground beneath the commuter rail terminal), swelling up to $1 billion, before ending at the $450 million project we are getting today.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

When the hell did that happen? As I recall, RTD said that they were going to budget something like $250 million for the Union State redevelopment as part of FasTracks and would use a private developer to make up the rest whatever that might have been. The original estimate was $500 million (with an underground bus terminal and light rail going underground beneath the commuter rail terminal), swelling up to $1 billion, before ending at the $450 million project we are getting today.

Hmmmm... The way a certain someone you all know and respect described it in a recent podcast, it sounded like RTD purposefully underestimated the cost of what was supposed to be a fancier, mostly-underground terminal, in order to get voter approval from suburbanites who might be wary about seeing much more of their tax dollars invested in Denver than in their own neck of the woods. But I could be wrong.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I could be wrong.

But this is highly unlikely considering the fact that I'm always right about everything. <crosses arms>

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

"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.

Sounds like some other place at closer to home...*cough* Boulder *cough*

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Hmmmm... The way a certain someone you all know and respect described it in a recent podcast, it sounded like RTD purposefully underestimated the cost of what was supposed to be a fancier, mostly-underground terminal, in order to get voter approval from suburbanites who might be wary about seeing much more of their tax dollars invested in Denver than in their own neck of the woods. But I could be wrong.

Well, a certain someone also knows how to play to an audience.

I think the more accurate way of describing it would be that the entire program was underestimated in order to get voter approval (or at least pushed downward through what should have been recognized as unrealistic assumptions). It would be news to me if there was any sort of ploy to dupe suburbanites into subsidizing Denver. I am still taking the position that Denver gets less out of Fastracks than a number of other metro area counties. (Unless you count the airport as a Denver-only benefit, which I most certainly do not. Only the good people of Adams County, who are presumably too poor to fly, get apparently no benefit out of the existence of DIA.)

[bcp]

interesting about SF...however, it already has...double or triple the density of denver? to get to that point, the environment (and transit) had to be just right....

probably not necessary, but want to point out that the no-high rise concept though is not the same as no-density concept...height doesnt always mean more dense when you consider parking, setbacks unit size etc. (e.g. my neighborhood in chicago was very dense, but nothing over 4 stories for miles around)

then in SF you have the affordability / rentals contingency push...some friends of mine bought a duplex near mission, and they wanted to knock out a wall and make it an SFH...they were told NO because it would have removed a rental unit from the market...huh? property rights?

[bcp]

suburbs DEFINITELY got the better end of the fastracks deal...even though we get the coolest part!

http://www.earthcam.com/client/kiewit/

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

interesting about SF...however, it already has...double or triple the density of denver? to get to that point, the environment (and transit) had to be just right....

To get to that point, the era had to be just right. Find me a city (not just a few blocks here and there) built substantially in the last 50 years with those densities. That's the difference. It has nothing to do with the mindset of the citizens today. I am sure that SF has just as many West Highlands as we have, probably more. Just that the "surrounding context" allows for a wee but more base density before NIMBY screeching becomes too ridiculous. If SF had grown up 40 years later, it wouldn't look like that, favorable geography or not.

[bcp]

yeah...most of our cities grew up in the "just right" era (small homes, transit, low car ownership)...it's gone, but returning!

[bunt_q]

Is it returning? Small homes, yes. Transit and low car ownership, I am very skeptical. There is very little evidence to support that (in this country, or others). And even less transit construction to back that up.

Frankly, with the non-auto infrastructure we have in place now, I sincerely hope you are wrong. Because folks relying solely on U.S. transit and bicycles would represent the biggest step backward in U.S. worker productivity in 100 years. Talk about a lot of people wasting a lot of time. Devastating for the economy.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Hmmmm... The way a certain someone you all know and respect described it in a recent podcast, it sounded like RTD purposefully underestimated the cost of what was supposed to be a fancier, mostly-underground terminal, in order to get voter approval from suburbanites who might be wary about seeing much more of their tax dollars invested in Denver than in their own neck of the woods. But I could be wrong.

I'm going to go with the Bunt line of reasoning; since RTD underestimated every single aspect of FasTracks I cannot conclude that Union Station was purposefully underestimated to appease suburban voters wary of transferring too much of their wealth to mean ol' Denver. Rather it's just one aspect of a situation where RTD went with a better (wildly optimistic) cost estimate scenario in order to deliver a sub-$5 billion ballot measure.

[bunt_q]

It's also one area where RTD had something to offer the private sector: prime land in the middle of Denver. That's slightly more appealing to investors than the fare revenue generated by the 17 or 18 non-eco-pass-holding commuters coming out of Thornton and Boulder.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Is it returning? Small homes, yes. Transit and low car ownership, I am very skeptical. There is very little evidence to support that (in this country, or others). And even less transit construction to back that up.

Frankly, with the non-auto infrastructure we have in place now, I sincerely hope you are wrong. Because folks relying solely on U.S. transit and bicycles would represent the biggest step backward in U.S. worker productivity in 100 years. Talk about a lot of people wasting a lot of time. Devastating for the economy.

bunt that's an all new, all time low for you and skepticism :-)....devastating? biggest step backwards? sky is falling?

keep in mind that i'm cheerleading and just painting a hopeful picture for denver...not quoting any data or country-wide development patterns...that said, in cities like denver that are putting in the transit infrastructure, we're getting there...slowly...

while i never argued for zero-auto use in the US...it can work for some people - i lived in chicago and new york city - both without a car...i relied solely on transit and my bicycle...not sure how i survived or got anything done!!

[bunt_q]

That can't possibly be a low for me; I go much lower.