DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is wrong. Even putting aside the obvious example of Boulder (and potentially every other activity center), one of the key bike user groups is people who need a last mile connection to transit. Places like Englewood are perfect for that.

Sure, there are others at the margins. But surely you're not saying that cycling's ceiling is as high as transit's? Let's be real. The two modes can complement each other where it fits. And no transit advocate likes the 2% arguments... but bicycles, I'd be shocked to see it at 0.2%.

[OneWay]

Are the direct flights to Japan likely to have any impact on investment/development in Denver? Has this happened in other cities with direct flights? Or is this thought a bit "out there?"

[Cirrus]

Not as high as transit in those outer areas, but potentially higher closer in. Also, 1) in that instance you'd count the cyclist as a transit rider, so s/he wouldn't be reflected in the bike mode share number; 2) certainly biking is a great benefit to transit if it means we don't need to use the most prime TOD land around every rail station as a car parking lot.

Anyway, you know better than to say existing mode share is indicative of future mode share, and 0.2% isn't anywhere close to the potential for bikes. Here's a chart of Amsterdam's mode share, for trips of various distances. I like this one because it's based on distance, and while Amsterdam may have more trips at short distances than Denver, a short distance in Amsterdam is the same in Denver (or can be, at least).



For trips ~2 miles, bikes account for about 50% of all traffic. In a first world country. The mode share does not have to be inconsequential. It's objectively wrong to say it must. Yeah yeah yeah, Denver ain't Amsterdam, but the point is the scale of what bikes can do is not constrained in the way you say.

More specifically, I'm on board with carefully planning where we need dedicated transit lanes and cycletracks, and I agree that transit has to be on the main streets, whereas it doesn't hurt bikes as much to be a block over (and by the same token it doesn't hurt cars as much to be a mile over). That's all fine. If Lincoln or Acoma is a better fit for a cycletrack, so be it.

But your anti-bike diatribes in general are wrong. You know they're wrong because they're all the same arguments Wendell Cox and Randall O'Toole use against transit. Pardon me for being condescending, but I think it would be more productive if you'd channel that energy into thinking about how bikes might be accommodated in a way that doesn't conflict with transit. Because critical multimodal thinking is actually something we need, unlike another voice joining the car-centric hate chorus from Highlands Ranch.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I think it would be more productive if you'd channel that energy into thinking about how bikes might be accommodated in a way that doesn't conflict with transit.

Let's do that. Here's how we can squeeze it all in on Broadway. This may or may not be the best solution; I don't endorse it without looking a lot more closely. And of course there are myriad other alternatives. But it can be done.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

2) certainly biking is a great benefit to transit if it means we don't need to use the most prime TOD land around every rail station as a car parking lot.

True, although (as we've discussed many times), TOD at the densities we do it around here generates far less ridership than the park-n-ride does. Add in the fact that we have a transit system that's regionally funded, and you will never eliminate the parking. At best, you'll push it slight farther from the station and structure it. That's our goal here.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Anyway, you know better than to say existing mode share is indicative of future mode share, and 0.2% isn't anywhere close to the potential for bikes. Here's a chart of Amsterdam's mode share, for trips of various distances. I like this one because it's based on distance, and while Amsterdam may have more trips at short distances than Denver, a short distance in Amsterdam is the same in Denver (or can be, at least).

...

For trips ~2 miles, bikes account for about 50% of all traffic. In a first world country. The mode share does not have to be inconsequential. It's objectively wrong to say it must. Yeah yeah yeah, Denver ain't Amsterdam, but the point is the scale of what bikes can do is not constrained in the way you say.

Yeah yeah yeah, Denver ain't Amsterdam. And more importantly, it never will be, because we don't have the land use for it. In a city where we need a year of costly litigation to approve a 5-story apartment building in a neighborhood, you might as well plan for the City we have, not the one you wish we had.

As for bikes comprising 60% of commutes 5-7.5 kilometers - good luck with that. That would represent one hell of a cultural shift. And not one I want. I'm no raging southerner, but I'd prefer their vision for America over one where 60% of us have to ride a bike 5 miles a day. Eek. Good data though, I never would've guessed so many ride so far. So I'll admit, it's apparently possible. It also sounds terrible. Crazy Dutch.

EDIT: I feel like Anakin, slowly turning over here. Bicycles are (and always have been) the one aspect of contemporary urbanism that I have no love for. When I lived in Europe, I didn't ride them - ped and transit for me. If that becomes fundamental to being an "urbanist" in America - as in, if you're not a proponent of bike lanes, then you can't be an urbanist - then the dark side will have me. I would rather drive from Castle Rock than be relegating to cycle commuting. I fundamentally do not believe that a mode that isn't available 12 months a year, and requires you to sweat, should be something we sacrifice precious space and funding for. It seems like a step backwards to me - more developing country than forward progress.

[Cirrus]

Actually I think Amsterdam's bike mode share may be too high too. I haven't been there to see first hand, but I've seen enough pictures of huge bike parking lots and heard often enough that being a ped can be more intimidating than it needs to be, that I wonder. I'd prefer to shoot for a bike mode share of more like 20% and reevaluate after that. But that's a lot.

And it's not that you individually have to be a cyclist to be an urbanist, but I do think the urbanist tent has to include cyclists, especially in a place like Denver where they're both relatively small and need all the help they can get. At the very very least I don't think being actively confrontational with cyclists is helpful.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I like this, a lot. But how do you persuade the businesses to give up that much on-street parking? The City has fights on its hand over losing a couple spaces here and there.

You're right that the only reason we have these tit-for-tats is because we're fighting over the scraps. But I also want to be realistic about what we can achieve politically. We're still a city that can't pass a grocery bag fee, after all. So let's not get too carried away with the progressive ideas.

EDIT: Correction, I misread, looks like you kept all parking, just the drive lanes reduced. Well, guess it's just a question of capacity then. I could live with that, though - 3 at peak, I approve.

[bcp]

just losing peak parking...that's what 6-9am and 4-7pm?

looks solid. when are we getting those blue buildings?

[bunt_q]

I was looking at the assessor parcel maps. There are a few spots where we don't have a full 100' looks like. Wonder what we'd scrunch where it's tight...? Great cross section though.

[bcp]

"single-track" the buses in some spots?

[bunt_q]

I was thinking go to 10' on the sidewalks and pull the median between the transitway and traffic - go to a 2' separation like the cycle track. That can buy 8'.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I was thinking go to 10' on the sidewalks and pull the median between the transitway and traffic - go to a 2' separation like the cycle track. That can buy 8'.

I was thinking the same thing... maybe even cut the sidewalks down to 8 or 9 feet.

do we really need 10 foot (or even 12 foot) wide sidewalks?

[bcp]

^ yes if we want to continue the patio-culture developing nicely on broadway

[bunt_q]

We could single-track the cycle track in places. They can dismount and walk, no biggie.

[Cirrus]

All right here are some notes about this:

• I've already narrowed the sidewalks down from 15' to 12', which I think is a big sacrifice. Big commercial streets shouldn't be less than 10', and really if we want cafes or anything like that we need more.
  

  ---

• The median is as narrow as I can make it and still fit a San Francisco style bus stop, which we need for a two-way transitway. We could go down to 4' wherever there's not a stop, but we really need at least that much in order to give people exiting parked cars a place to go. A 2' median wouldn't be enough for that.
  

  ---

• Parking lanes are often 8', so we could theoretically take 2' from the one next to the cycletrack, but I'd rather have the buffer. Meanwhile, the transitway-side parking lane should be 10' if we expect it to double as a travel lane at rush hour. Even then it's tight when you factor in the gutter (which this software annoyingly doesn't automatically include).
  

  ---

• The cycletrack is already 2' narrower than the minimum standard and it counts the gutter as part of the bike lane, so we absolutely cannot lose any more there unless we wanted to make it one-way only.
  

  ---

• Theoretically if we had a transitway on Broadway we could repurpose the bus lane on Lincoln. That might be a workable place for the cycletrack if this Broadway cross section is too tight.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'm also sure the collective forum brainpower can figure it out better.

Challenge accepted! We can talk about two streets at once, can't we? Here's the situation right now:


Here's my proposal (known future city improvements included):

- E. 20th Ave. between Lincoln and the intersection of Glenarm Pl. and E. 20th Ave. will reverse direction and flow east
- 20th St. between the intersection of Glenarm Pl. and E. 20th Ave. and Lincoln is widened from 3 westbound traffic lanes and 1 parking lane to 2 lanes in each direction, with no parking
- 20th St. between the intersection of Broadway and Lincoln is reconfigured from 5 westbound traffic lanes to 3 westbound and 2 eastbound
- 20th St. between Arapahoe and Broadway is reconfigured from 4 westbound lanes and 1 parking lane to 3 westbound lanes and 2 eastbound lanes
- 20th St. between Lawrence and Arapahoe is reconfigured from 1 eastbound lane, 3 westbound lanes, 1 parking lane into 2 eastbound lanes, 3 westbound lanes, with no parking

The benefit of this reconfiguration is that now you'll have a consistent amount of traffic lanes (3 westbound, 2 eastbound) all along 20th St., which will eliminate chokepoints. There is room to acquire ROW between Broadway and 20th Ave (not sure how feasible) that will allow better flow of northbound Lincoln traffic and westbound 20th St. traffic to flow into northbound Broadway as an alternative (and preferred route). I've eliminated some on-street parking, which isn't highly utilized due to little or no businesses located along 20th., and is not wholly appropriate along a major downtown arterial. Alternatively, if parking is deemed more important, that 3rd westbound lane can be converted to either off-peak parking or full-time parking. Although, I think that parking on the eastbound side would be better utilized as people are more likely to be headed into downtown going east, whereas people headed west are usually heading out.

[bunt_q]

Are choking NB Lincoln down, because there are four lanes making that turn now.

Also, 20th just east of Lincoln is only 3 lanes. I suppose you could pull out the triangle island and reconfigure the whole thing, but you still have to do something with Lincoln - pull it back from the intersection.

My guess is this solution has to happen without taking row (which would have to be from the blacks to the north - One Lincoln Park is in the way to the south).

[Zmapper]

Cirrus, a bus stop only 6 feet wide is two short of ADA accessibility - which requires a level pad 8' perpendicular to the bus door, and 5' parallel.

My idea for restriping Broadway and Lincoln into more multi-modal streets is to prioritize bidirectional bus traffic on Broadway, and a two-way cycletrack on Lincoln, while preserving three lanes of vehicle traffic on each street during peak hours.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Cirrus, a bus stop only 6 feet wide is two short of ADA accessibility - which requires a level pad 8' perpendicular to the bus door, and 5' parallel.

Yes, it is sub-standard. But it works in San Francisco on a much busier transit street, and you can't just leave it out. Where are southbound buses going to stop on your design? I'm certainly not going to prioritize a 5th car lane over anything else.

But you're right there are a lot of sub-standard pieces in the squeeze-it-all-in layout. I think it could work, but am more doubtful the traffic engineers would approve it, especially if CDOT has any say in the matter. Moving the cycltrack to Lincoln would make everything easier.

[The Dirt]

If the cycle track is gone, why wouldn't you just put the southbound bus on the west side of the street? That way, you don't need the median. The parking lane just gets eliminated at bus stops so the bus can pull out of he lane and allow other busses to pass ahead. You could do the same thing on the east side and have parking there as well. You'd need to just borrow a couple of feet from the sidewalks.