DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Except that we collectively have had the good sense to stop that project in its tracks. Which might have been made harder if commuter rail had hordes of single-minded advocates who give no thought to any other mode. Meanwhile, the 15th Street project has been greeted as Christ's second coming, and I've heard not a word about what else could have happened in its place. And we're not just talking resources, we're talking a discrete this vs. that, where "that" wasn't given so much as a look. In part because you guys have made it your mantra, and convinced politicians and the public, that there's great benefit with "little or no downside." That's blatant deception and somebody has to call it out. Or else the cheerleading process that got us 15th might become the template, and we'll find ourselves turning over even more limited right of way with no serious analysis given to it.

Heck, if you want to be treated as an equal mode, then perhaps the Trojan horse masquerading as harmless low hanging fruit should be made to play by the same rules. Next time something like 15th comes up, I'll be looking for that formal alternatives analysis. Why should the city give over such valuable real estate without some formal study and modeling of whether that's the best use of those 8 feet? Why are we guessing about what effect a dedicated transit might have had on ridership, there could have been a study we could pull up right now that would tell us how the bike lane "ridership" matches up again possible other uses of that space.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except that we collectively have had the good sense to stop that project in its tracks. Which might have been made harder if commuter rail had hordes of single-minded advocates who give no thought to any other mode. Meanwhile, the 15th Street project has been greeted as Christ's second coming, and I've heard not a word about what else could have happened in its place. And we're not just talking resources, we're talking a discrete this vs. that, where "that" wasn't given so much as a look. In part because you guys have made it your mantra, and convinced politicians and the public, that there's great benefit with "little or no downside." That's blatant deception and somebody has to call it out. Or else the cheerleading process that got us 15th might become the template, and we'll find ourselves turning over even more limited right of way with no serious analysis given to it.

Heck, if you want to be treated as an equal mode, then perhaps the Trojan horse masquerading as harmless low hanging fruit should be made to play by the same rules. Next time something like 15th comes up, I'll be looking for that formal alternatives analysis. Why should the city give over such valuable real estate without some formal study and modeling of whether that's the best use of those 8 feet? Why are we guessing about what effect a dedicated transit might have had on ridership, there could have been a study we could pull up right now that would tell us how the bike lane "ridership" matches up again possible other uses of that space.

You do realize that bus congestion on 15th was the driving force behind the 16th street mall right? Or that the city has tried giving road ROW to bus lanes more then a few times and RTD has nixed it?

I am sorry but it's completely disingenuous to say that the cyclists are doing something that transit never could accomplish in Denver. Because it has been done and it could have happened more if their was a cohesive vision between the two entities.

As far as 15th goes you have made your opinion known that you don't like it. Guess what it's a vital part of the bike network and there's still room for transit improvements on that road. Nothing was taken, no opportunity has been lost. This is akin to saying the pepsi center is blocking through rail in Denver. 15th and bike lanes are just some imaginary physical obstacle when the biggest thing lacking is the will, not the ROW.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bobg

the biggest thing lacking is the will, not the ROW.

The biggest yes. To say the two are unrelated though, is incorrect.

And to say that the City can't think about transit because RTD is uncooperative (so instead, let's placate 100 or so of our own loudest citizens with a bike lane) is foolishly shortsighted.

Bus congestion was most certainly not "the driving force" behind the 16th Street Mall. It may have been a factor. But we were building pedestrian malls all over the country at the time - there was a much bigger vision there than relieving transit congestion.

But sure, cherry pick bad examples all you want. Won't change the fact that that 8-feet of bike lane on 15th now probably moves fewer people in a day than any other 8-feet on any numbered street in downtown.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And to say that the City can't think about transit because RTD is uncooperative (so instead, let's placate 100 or so of our own loudest citizens with a bike lane) is foolishly shortsighted.

Yes it's shortsighted that we do not include transit in these discussions. But to stall everything just because we can make progress in one area but not in another is equally shortsighted.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bus congestion was most certainly not "the driving force" behind the 16th Street Mall. It may have been a factor. But we were building pedestrian malls all over the country at the time - there was a much bigger vision there than relieving transit congestion.

Yes people were building pedestrian malls that's what got the business community behind it. This was a transit mall that relieved congestion for buses and that's what got it federal funding. Money = driving force.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But sure, cherry pick bad examples all you want. Won't change the fact that that 8-feet of bike lane on 15th now probably moves fewer people in a day than any other 8-feet on any numbered street in downtown.

Saying something is a fact and then qualifying it with a probably. Classic.

EDIT: We need to work on getting the transit community to catch up to the bike community. Not stall cycling until transit advocates and policy makers get their act together. That's what is frustrating me most about this blame the biking community mantra.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bobg

EDIT: We need to work on getting the transit community to catch up to the bike community. Not stall cycling until transit advocates and policy makers get their act together. That's what is frustrating me most about this blame the biking community mantra.

Why not? In my mind we are currently crowding out other transportation alternatives for the benefit of the bike and I can't imagine the backlash that we would hear from the cycling community if we were to go back and eliminate the 15th Street bike lane for something like a streetcar.

The low hanging fruit is about picked. Now that we are talking about cycling tracks on 15th Street, Broadway, etc. such ideas need to be weighted against concepts like transit lanes versus bike lanes.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why not? In my mind we are currently crowding out other transportation alternatives for the benefit of the bike and I can't imagine the backlash that we would hear from the cycling community if we were to go back and eliminate the 15th Street bike lane for something like a streetcar.

How are they crowding transit out on 15th? There isn't a transit plan on 15th, and the buses seem to be moving fine with the bike lane there. As far as the future the bike lane is taking up 8 feet on a ROW that's 80 ft wide, and the bike lane probably could be narrowed without much fuss as long as there's still some physical protection.

Additionally, how do you know cyclists will not be open to alternative routes in the future? If you are talking about just shutting off 15th without providing realistic alternative, then hell yeah people will be up in arms. But most cyclists believe in complete streets, transit, walkability, etc. and know a balance must be struck.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The low hanging fruit is about picked. Now that we are talking about cycling tracks on 15th Street, Broadway, etc. such ideas need to be weighted against concepts like transit lanes versus bike lanes.

1) The low hanging fruit is far from picked. They are just also going after key bike connections in addition to the low hanging fruit.
2) It's not bike vs transit. It's bike vs transit vs car vs pedestrian that needs to be weighed

Sorry, all I am seeing here is scapegoating of the cycling community for the advocacy failures of those who believe in a better mass transit system. We need to fix what is failing not break what is working.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why not? In my mind we are currently crowding out other transportation alternatives for the benefit of the bike and I can't imagine the backlash that we would hear from the cycling community if we were to go back and eliminate the 15th Street bike lane for something like a streetcar.

The low hanging fruit is about picked. Now that we are talking about cycling tracks on 15th Street, Broadway, etc. such ideas need to be weighted against concepts like transit lanes versus bike lanes.

Why does it have to be either/or? Especially in corridors with plenty of capacity/ROW? Every street you named has the capacity/ROW for all modes.

And if there is a case of either/or, then we can evaluate. Colfax was looked at for bike infrastructure. It was deemed that transit was more important in that alignment. And capacity didn't allow both. Bikes lost.

[Wizened Variations]

If we were to map transportation usage in Lodo, we would have to include pedestrian, bus, light rail, bicycle, and, auto/truck traffic.

In addition, we would have to look at multiple modes per individual trip. When we go downtown, we use (at least) one mode of transportation to get arrive/leave, amd we always walk at least twice per day during our time to either get something to eat or get to our transportation.

Within the confines of the Civic Station DUS Axis, in terms of occurrences, the vast majority of people...walk.

Transportation usage changes during any given 24 hour period. For example, between say 1am and 5am the only people on the street either are in cars, or indigent and on foot. Another, between the hours of 6p and 1am, most people are either walking somewhere from their parked vehicle or walking to their parked car. In addition, during this time period, vehicle traffic level is surprisingly high.

Likewise, the transportation matrix changes with weather: the colder and wetter the climate is in downtown Denver, the more people take public transportation and/or drive their cars.

Doing a census based on time of day and days of the week would, IMO, provide an accurate portrait of usage mode.

I suspect that the vast preponderance of 'transportation occurrences' are walking occurrences. A distant second might be mall shuttle users. Somewhere after that would be auto users, and, 'paid for' public transportation users. Finally, there would be bicycle users.

This census would provide, IMO, an accurate index of how much money should be spent on what kind of transportation.

Right now the most urgent need is for improved pedestrian infrastructure and support, based upon numbers. "Transportation equality" should be based on equality per user occurrence, not mode of conveyance without rate of occurrence.

[DenverRider2]

bunt is going to burst an aneurysm when he finds out what public works is planning for 2014

But really most streets downtown can afford to give up two lanes for bikes and transit. The idea that building a protected bike lane precludes streetcars or BRT is ridiculous. So when $500 million becomes available for transit we will gladly support its implementation. In the meanwhile the bike community will keep forging ahead .

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

bunt is going to burst an aneurysm when he finds out what public works is planning for 2014

But really most streets downtown can afford to give up two lanes for bikes and transit. The idea that building a protected bike lane precludes streetcars or BRT is ridiculous. So when $500 million becomes available for transit we will gladly support its implementation. In the meanwhile the bike community will keep forging ahead .

Haha, that's fine. Win the battle, lose the war. You keep thinking short-term and make traffic too bad in central Denver, and the silent (driving) majority is going to turn against you big time. Then transit can ride in to the rescue (and maybe we'll just propose to convert bike lanes to streetcars at that point - that'll be the future net-vote-getting low hanging fruit for rail - nobody's taking a traffic lane, they're taking that bike lane). You folks might actually help us win an election long-term. I'll just view your bike facilities as right-of-way preservation and go on my merry way. After all, it wasn't some sense of urban enlightenment that got Fastracks passed - it was fear of nasty traffic and growth that transit folks wisely capitalized on.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You keep thinking short-term and make traffic too bad in central Denver, and the silent (driving) majority is going to turn against you big time.

Or maybe just the opposite. When the city realizes that removing a lane of traffic and a few parking spaces isn't the end of the world they might be game for a more ambitious plan. I promise, bikes are not the reason why denver is lacking for intra-city transit.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

removing a lane of traffic and a few parking spaces

If you put a street car on say the other side of 15th street, you're removing a quite a few parking spaces. Personally I don't think that would fly with any city especially given the fact we are injecting 6-8 thousand cars into the core due to all of the development.. I'm with Bunt on this one, I think they would look at the bike lane before they shed another lane with bus stops and metered parking..

[bunt_q]

Well, they'd look at it. Might not get it, but certainly look at it.

Ah well, one thing is true - bikes are not the reason we don't have inner-city transit. Just not helping our long-term prospects (until my latest right of way preservation theory, which I am sticking with. )

[bunt_q]

A little odd that I cannot get to DIA for an 8:30am flight without use of a car. Buses don't run early enough to do it without driving to a train station at a minimum (and at $2/day plus the fare, it's cheaper to drive and park at airport).

Has anybody done the sleep-park-fly stuff? Oddly that's the cheapest. Get a hotel room out there the night before and they let you park for up to 14 days for free.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by RyanD

If you put a street car on say the other side of 15th street, you're removing a quite a few parking spaces. Personally I don't think that would fly with any city especially given the fact we are injecting 6-8 thousand cars into the core due to all of the development.. I'm with Bunt on this one, I think they would look at the bike lane before they shed another lane with bus stops and metered parking..

While each case is unique and requires careful consideration, if I had to give an order of removal, it would look something like this (this assumes a bike facility is currently within ROW and you are trying to add transit capacity):

1. Traffic Lane - most useful in that it can be mixed-traffic if need be. It is rarely "owned" by any one group, person, or business. And if argument can be made that it increases person-trip capacity, then it's even easier (relatively).

2. Parking Lane - depends on context, if a residence or business feels like they "own" the spot(s), then it is much more difficult, but still very doable. If it is indirect parking (like left-side 15th St. parking removed for bikeway) it's much easier. Can also do shared lane like Lincoln/8th Ave.

3. Bike Lane - Very low probability, but it's possible in a situation where transit ROW is needed and all other options are exhausted. I can't think of a particular case where that is true today, but it could happen. Another possibility is if a parallel bike facility (similar facility to original) is available. In that case, I think this option moves above Parking Lane and possibly Traffic Lane.

4. Houses/Businesses (ROW acquisition) - this is probably last resort in most cases. In cases where high-capacity transit is warranted, the built environment wouldn't allow for this (too many built-to-sidewalk structures). Think Colfax or Broadway.

[Cirrus]

We came to a workable design agreement on Broadway. Let's do 15th.

Here's the existing layout, best as I can tell from google maps. They just took the one curb lane and switched it to bikes.



If we threw in a full-on transitway on the other side, this is what it would look like. The complicating factor is reverse-direction buses on the one-way street. The need for a landing wipes out another car lane, leaving only one. This, I think most would agree, is not practical.




But we have many options. Here's an alternate that I think could work. The contraflow lane is dedicated to buses all the time. The right-most lane could be dedicated to buses or operate as mixed flow, or vary based on time of day.

[PLANSIT]

17th is the transit couplet. Let's keep it simple and leave it one-lane directional for buses on 15th.

[Cirrus]

Curbside dedicated lane on each one? Is 17th Street the same width? Would it look the same (cycletrack and all)?

[bcp]

how about some street parking? good buffer for those nice sidewalks...and, provides parking (duh)

[Cirrus]

Use the bus lane as parking at off-peak? Sure, why not. Or do you want to take one of the 3 remaining general purpose lanes?