DENVER | Transportation Thread

[RyanD]

Thoughts?? I would MUCH rather use some of Broadway for something better than a 3% mode share...

[wong21fr]

^Absolutely not. No ad hoc bike lane improvements to Broadway w/o a comprehensive multi-modal plan for the corridor. There are two streets that we need to get right from the start- Colfax and Broadway. Putting in bike lanes without having a transit plan in place should be a non-starter at this point for Broadway.

[Cirrus]

Good opportunity to advocate for that multimodal corridor plan we all really want. Which, conveniently, also gives the city a way of saying "yes" to the bike advocates today without really committing to anything. Use this as a tool to get what you want. Not to slam the door shut on anything and make more enemies. I agree ad-hoc changes to Broadway are not a good idea.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Good opportunity to advocate for that multimodal corridor plan we all really want. Which, conveniently, also gives the city a way of saying "yes" to the bike advocates today without really committing to anything. Use this as a tool to get what you want. Not to slam the door shut on anything and make more enemies. I agree ad-hoc changes to Broadway are not a good idea.

You know I've noticed with all of the construction going on down south of Alameda, the cross section of Broadway feels about right with 3 lanes taken away. (Granted, I haven't driven it at rush hour southbound.) My vote is bidirectional transit - it's do-able, and cycle track. Keeps the chaos off Lincoln. Or take a lane on Lincoln for a cycle track and two for transit on Broadway.

[bobg]

What Bike Denver is talking about is ensuring the cycletrack makes it into the Golden Triangle Neighborhood plan. Major road changes on corridors like Broadway that are proposed in neighborhood plans usually end with some sort of caveat in the final plan of 'needs further study' along the entire corridor. Right now the draft has that 'needs further study' in italics on the broadway section.

But this is from that draft of the Golden Triangle neighborhood plan that BikeDenver is talking about and it also includes some transit elements you may or may not like (from pg 55 and 56 of a draft of the Golden Triangle plan):

Crosscut


Rendering


Pg 54 has a dedicated bus/transit lane on Lincoln as well.



Only issue I can see is people parking in the flex lanes could block the transit lanes.

[Cirrus]

Oh that's entirely different. We should fully support that.

I'd rather have a bidirectional transitway on Broadway, but if we're talking about a sector plan with an asterisk to do a corridor study, it's fine, and we definitely want it to say the corridor should have both a good bike lane and dedicated space for transit.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Imagining is unnecessary. How humiliated are you to take visitors and family to events at the Pepsi Center, Sports Authority Field, Coors Field, or our Landry's-restaurant-owned aquarium?

Apples and oranges. The Denver Broncos is a business owned by some billionaire.

The city's transportation infrastructure should be off limits to corporate naming rights. Not only does it erode a city's culture, but it makes public transportation less functional. How lost and confused are we going to be when the stations and lines keep changing their names every other year?

And where do we draw the line? If the Brooklyn Bridge had its name changed to the Tide With Bleach Bridge, that would obviously be a problem. Right? Where do we draw the line?

You know, I have a lot of opinions that I realize are just opinions and that many people - sometimes most people - would disagree with me. But in this case I'm actually pretty shocked to find that sensible, intelligent people are disagreeing with me on this one. It just seems so blatantly obvious to me. Are our cities homogenous clusters of mindless consumers, or are they real places? My perception of society and where I stand in it has changed just a little bit today. Maybe I'm even weirder than I thought I was.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Apples and oranges. The Denver Broncos is a business owned by some billionaire.

Except that Sports Authority Field is not owned by the Broncos; it is owned by a public entity. And not only a public entity, but nearly the exact same type of public entity as RTD. It's the exact same thing, actually.

The same applies for Coors Field. Also owned by a public entity, like RTD.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Are our cities homogenous clusters of mindless consumers, or are they real places?

Why can a homogenous cluster of mindless consumers not be a "real" place. Most maps I see show the "United States" as a place. Isn't that, in effect, what we are?

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except that Sports Authority Field is not owned by the Broncos; it is owned by a public entity. And not only a public entity, but nearly the exact same type of public entity as RTD. It's the exact same thing, actually.

The same applies for Coors Field. Also owned by a public entity, like RTD.



Why can a homogenous cluster of mindless consumers not be a "real" place. Most maps I see show the "United States" as a place. Isn't that, in effect, what we are?

I had no idea sports stadiums worked that way. If that’s the case, then they shouldn’t be named after corporations IMO. But I still say it’s apples and oranges. …or at least apples and pears. Nobody’s going to get confused about what the stadium is, or where the stadium is, no matter how ridiculous its name is or how frequently its name changes. Transportation infrastructure that’s intended to help people get from point A to point B is a different matter.

And to better explain what I mean by eroding culture let me give you another example. One of the problems I have with suburbia is its lack of culture due to its homogeneous nature. When virtually none of the homes is unique because it’s all cookie-cutter tract-housing, and virtually all of the retail options consist of corporate franchises that are lumped together in a giant strip mall every eight blocks, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between a suburb of Cleveland and a suburb of Denver or a suburb of Seattle. Greater Cleveland’s cul-de-sac’s and meandering “Lanes” and “Courts” lined with cookie-cutter ranch houses look and feel just like greater Denver’s; and the greater Cleveland’s giant strip mall with a Target, a Lowe’s and a McDonald’s looks and feels just like greater Denver’s giant strip mall with a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, and a Burger King.

The City retains more local culture because a larger proportion of the businesses are mom-n-pop’s that offer something unique, and each individual house, office building, etc., is also at least somewhat unique. As a resident or visitor, you don’t feel like you’re just anywhere; you feel like you’re somewhere. (For the record, I’m a born and bred capitalist who appreciates the availability of cheap stuff, so I think every city needs its fair share of corporate franchises too, so don’t think I’m some anti-corporate hippie or whatever.)

Anyway, I think selling the naming rights for public infrastructure is a very similar culture-eroding phenomenon – except far more blatant and in-your-face.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Imagining is unnecessary. How humiliated are you to take visitors and family to events at ....... Coors Field

More people should be.

I'm with Sam Hill on this though, let companies name HOT lanes or something.

In addition to a difficult to define line that I think "I know it when I see it" seems to maybe be crossed my objection is practical. I DO NOT want Siri or Google to have to say "Take the exit onto Westbound I-70, US40, Colorado Conglomerated Widgets, Whatsits and Whatnots Freeway toward Denver" By is also crossed but the time it's done telling me that I've probably missed the exit. Long highway or street names are annoying. It's bad enough when several different routes overlap the same road as it is.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Nobody’s going to get confused about what the stadium is, or where the stadium is, no matter how ridiculous its name is or how frequently its name changes.

So funny story, this actually is not true. Back in high school, I went to Boston for spring break (this was pre-Internet, pre-cell phone). And I was trying to find my way to the Fleet Center (what Boston Garden was called at the time, IIRC). The only Fleet Center I ever found was a tall office building of the same name.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

And to better explain what I mean by eroding culture let me give you another example. One of the problems I have with suburbia is its lack of culture due to its homogeneous nature. When virtually none of the homes is unique because it’s all cookie-cutter tract-housing, and virtually all of the retail options consist of corporate franchises that are lumped together in a giant strip mall every eight blocks, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between a suburb of Cleveland and a suburb of Denver or a suburb of Seattle.

I strongly disagree with you on this. I think you focus too much on the buildings. When cities are really about the people. And in terms of diversity of people, you will find more diversity in the look-alike houses of Aurora than you could ever dream of finding in Central Denver. Just because the houses look different in most central Denver neighborhoods doesn't mean they are not filled with the same upper-middle-class white people, with the same group-thought, the same interests, the same stuff, and the same look. People are what matters, and Denver is sadly lacking in interesting ones. I suspect you might find similar patterns in other central cities. It's not all about the architecture.

[Brainpathology]

I grant that it's less diverse than it used to be .. BUT... I do have a cousin scraping by (very happily) as a textile artist (hope that's the right term) in 5pts with friends living with and around her which are really very diverse, at least racially. Looking for political diversity though.. nope... it's different shades of blue. Like finding interesting color patterns on Neptune.

[Cirrus]

If we were talking about replacing legitimate character with corporate names, I'd vote against it. But that's not what we're talking about, because RTD has completely failed to come up with good character names. We're talking about replacing names that have no character, that are just cross streets.

Get RTD to agree to change "I-25/Broadway" to "Gates Town Center" (or whatever) and I'll change my vote. But as long as it's named for an interchange, I have zero loyalty to it. Better to put advertising pros at work and make some money off it than have nothing at all.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I strongly disagree with you on this. I think you focus too much on the buildings. When cities are really about the people. And in terms of diversity of people, you will find more diversity in the look-alike houses of Aurora than you could ever dream of finding in Central Denver. Just because the houses look different in most central Denver neighborhoods doesn't mean they are not filled with the same upper-middle-class white people, with the same group-thought, the same interests, the same stuff, and the same look. People are what matters, and Denver is sadly lacking in interesting ones. I suspect you might find similar patterns in other central cities. It's not all about the architecture.

It is certainly more about people than it is about architecture. I'm not saying that the ubiquitous architecture and retail options of suburbia make it completely void of culture; I'm saying it diminishes it. In terms of naming transit stations, "Civic Center Station" gives one a sense of place (which is reflective of local culture), while "Geico Station" does not. Geico Station could be anywhere.

Anyway, I feel like I've taken us on a detour by getting too philosophical. When it comes down to it, I just think it's obnoxious. Naming transit stations, or even (god forbid) entire transit lines after a corporation/brand/product is obnoxious. But of course that's just my opinion. Apparently my assumption that virtually everyone would agree with me was way off.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If we were talking about replacing legitimate character with corporate names, I'd vote against it. But that's not what we're talking about, because RTD has completely failed to come up with good character names. We're talking about replacing names that have no character, that are just cross streets.

Get RTD to agree to change "I-25/Broadway" to "Gates Town Center" (or whatever) and I'll change my vote. But as long as it's named for an interchange, I have zero loyalty to it. Better to put advertising pros at work and make some money off it than have nothing at all.

But people know what and where I-25/Broadway is. They know that if they get off at that station they'll end up somewhere near I-25 & Broadway. But it's a little trickier figuring out where Geico Station is - especially if last year it was called Red Bull Station.

Anyway, dead horse at this point I guess...

[Brainpathology]

What RTD OUGHT to do is remove names from stations that reference named venues. So no Sports Authority Field stop.. no Pepsi Center stop... Name them Nuggets/Avalance venues stop and Denver Broncos stadium stop.

Then demand payment for advertising by naming the places properly.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Name them Nuggets/Avalance venues stop and Denver Broncos stadium stop.

How is that not advertising? The sports teams are privately owned corporations too. You'd have to name them "Arena" and "Stadium" if you want to get out of the advertising business. Of course, that's boring and would be bad place-making.

[Brainpathology]

Well why not? If we want to leave more things to the private sector leave advertising to them. The gub'mint shouldn't be in the advertising business anyway. Football Stadium, Basketball/Hockey arena stops sound like a great start to me.

Meh I'm sorry I can't take this any farther.. it's too ridiculous even for me. Lets please not sell naming rights for roads though k?

[mr1138]

I'll preface this by saying that there is something about the naming of transit stations for the highest bidder that bothers me as well, but that said, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with naming civic icons for companies. Wrigley Field anyone?? Even something like New York's Penn Station has a corporate origin... at some point our corporate history becomes our REAL history, and the name becomes iconic. Like the Chrysler Building (Does Chrysler still have any involvement there?). I, for one, have always loved the name Coors field. It's an iconic Colorado company and it helps reinforce the age-old association between baseball and beer!

And let's be honest, constant renaming as was done when Mile High became "Sports Authority" only serves to undermine the effectiveness of those naming rights... Most people I know, even the ones who used to diligently call it "Invesco," have now switched to calling it Mile High Stadium (like it should be). The same can be said (in a way) for the Sears Tower, which will ALWAYS be the Sears Tower regardless of what the current owners wish we would call it.

I'm not entirely sure how to draw the line between what's okay and what's not, it's probably a subjective call anyway. But I can't help but feel that that line is out there somewhere. All this theoretical absolutist talk is nonsense, things aren't ever that black and white.