DENVER | Transportation Thread

[EngiNerd]

I used to live in SE Aurora near Southlands mall, and many of my neighbors worked at Anschutz.

[TakeFive]

bunt... Thanks. Easier to guess why that route would work.

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I used to live in SE Aurora near Southlands mall, and many of my neighbors worked at Anschutz.

Ah, I know the area. Alberta developed Southlands.

Even though a bit of a distance that should be a fairly easy commute via E-470 or even Gun Club Road I'd think.

What impresses me:

Courtesy of Cherry Creek Schools

...especially if you like HS football. I believe the projection is for Cherokee Trail HS to some day be as big as "Creek." Their football stadium is the bookend to Creek's Stutler Bowl.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

Go for the list. It's one station. You are making it sound like the jog over to service the Aurora Municipal Center is one hell of a trek. We're talking going around the mall - it adds a whopping 3/4 mile to the corridor (hope you're rested up for that detour).

If your whole argument is based on serving important employment centers along the corridor, you might as well include the center of government for the city it's serving on your list. I'm pretty sure the city wouldn't mind having a rail station within walking distance and would probably put up a fight if some trains didn't take that route.

If people are choosing to not ride the corridor because of a 5 minute detour, they weren't going to ride it in the first place.

Thats right Mulligan !!! !!

Toe the RTD / East West party line.







Do you work for RTD / East West??? or just contracted out??

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I thought the primary purpose of rail transit was to enable workers a car-free option to jobs.

Absolutely not.

1. The primary purpose of TRANSIT (put aside the rail part for now) depends on where you are located. In dense walkable places, it's the main way to get around for all non-walking trips. In suburban areas it's just for commuting or for poor people. Denver has areas that fit both categories. Think about the 16th Street Mall shuttle. Yes, commuters use it, but also so do many non-commuters, and they are an important part of its market, and its purpose.

2. There are basically 2 reasons to build RAIL transit instead of bus: Either A) You need the added capacity rail offers, or B) You want to try and spur urban development in order to build more dense walkable places where transit is for more than commuting. I'm oversimplifying but those are the big ones.

When you put a transit line on a highway, you are basically admitting it will never do a very good job accomplishing B. This is why Aurora moved the 225 line off the highway through its new downtown.

Now let's talk about A. The threshold where you start to need rail capacity rather than bus capacity varies a lot depending on the characteristics of your line. But as a general rule, you start to hit that threshold somewhere around 30,000 riders per day.

Now let's go back to the 225 line. Projections today say it will carry about 30,000 riders per day a decade after it opens. But a big portion of those riders are getting on and off in Aurora. Without them, ie just the "bypass" riders, the 225 line simply isn't likely to reach the threshold where it needs to be rail.

So are you jumping on the conservative bandwagon that buses are the best alternative for transit?

Uh, that's not what I'm doing. In the real world it's not an either/or situation where one answer is always correct, and the other is always wrong. The best transit systems use every technology available, to meet the needs of the corridor they're serving in the most efficient way.

Of course, it would be wonderful to build 1,000 extra miles of light rail lines all over everywhere. Actually it would be great to forget about light rail and build subways. Or hell, how about maglevs? But in the real world we have to deal with budget constraints, which mean that every dollar we spend on a project we don't really needs means we have a dollar less to spend somewhere else.

The problem with a 225 bypass is that it's about the lowest possible priority you could imagine. You don't need the capacity for rail there, and you don't need it to build a nice downtown. So instead of throwing money away there, you spend those dollars extending the SE line, or the NW line, or whatever.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Thats right Mulligan !!! !!

Toe the RTD / East West party line.







Do you work for RTD / East West??? or just contracted out??

You ask because I happen to have a different opinion?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

2. There are basically 2 reasons to build RAIL transit instead of bus: Either A) You need the added capacity rail offers, or B) You want to try and spur urban development in order to build more dense walkable places where transit is for more than commuting. I'm oversimplifying but those are the big ones.

...

The problem with a 225 bypass is that it's about the lowest possible priority you could imagine. You don't need the capacity for rail there, and you don't need it to build a nice downtown. So instead of throwing money away there, you spend those dollars extending the SE line, or the NW line, or whatever.

There is a third important reason to build rail that you didn't include. (C) To buy votes and support - rail is good for the ego; real cities get rail not buses - for money for other rail that meets criteria (A) and (B). In our case, we did that successfully in the 225 corridor; less successfully in the US 36 corridor.

[TakeFive]

Cirrus... Eh, that sounds like an "urbanist" or "professional planner's" POV; it's not wrong but maybe incomplete.

When you put a transit line on a highway, you are basically admitting it will never do a very good job accomplishing B. This is why Aurora moved the 225 line off the highway through its new downtown.

REALLY?

The reason why the R Line goes through Aurora City Center is strictly politics. I understand their motivation and hope it works out. Obviously, as I've argued, I have a different view. I do believe that connecting to the SE Line and the A Line will be the key. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll address the Aurora blindness in a different post.

2. There are basically 2 reasons to build RAIL transit instead of bus: Either A) You need the added capacity rail offers, or B) You want to try and spur urban development in order to build more dense walkable places where transit is for more than commuting.

The SW Line was Denver's first real or extended LRT line. The amazing, surprising success of that line is what got the whole Denver metro area excited about light rail.

BTW, the SW Line parallels U.S. Highway 85. Hmm. So what about the next line that was built? The SE Line was built along two freeways, I-25 and I-225. Triple Hmmm. Clearly these lines were built as commuter lines and nothing about being walkable or creating density. In fact the whole reason that Fastracks was approved by voters is because it was sold as relieving traffic congestion. So B) would seem to be highly irrelevant in Denver?

Now it may be that more density and walkable nodes develop over time... (just don't ask bunt about that).

The threshold where you start to need rail capacity rather than bus capacity varies a lot depending on the characteristics of your line. But as a general rule, you start to hit that threshold somewhere around 30,000 riders per day.

Thank you, thank you, that answers a key question that I had. Stay tuned. One additional question might be although I'd love maglev would a line that has twice the ridership but also cost twice as much be more worthwhile, less worthwhile or about the same?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Cirrus... Eh, that sounds like an "urbanist" or "professional planner's" POV; it's not wrong but maybe incomplete.

At what point in America did a layperson's opinion become just as important as a professional's? Is this the same phenomenon that has us giving participation medals at elementary school field days?

I heard echoes of climate change deniers at work. "That sounds like a "scientist's" point of view. It's not wrong, but maybe incomplete. Because it's snowing outside, I saw it with my own eyes, so you must be at least partially wrong about the climate warming."

[TakeFive]

Denver is not really comparable to cities in the NE, nor Chicago or San Francisco.

Let's Flip the Script
Lets compare transit in Denver to auto-centric Phoenix.

How 'bout that density?
Up until about 10-15 years ago density in Phoenix meant a two-story apartment building. Then some developments started combining two and three story buildings. A bit of an over-simplification perhaps and there were exceptions like in downtown Phoenix.

More recently near Scottsdale Fashion Square/Old Town, in downtown Phoenix and especially in Tempe, 10 to 20-story apartment or condo towers are not such a stranger. A Chicago developer is the "preferred" choice to build a new 30-story tower at the downtown Phoenix transit station (such as it is).

Early in life, Phoenix adopted the sprawl model and it still thrives; they make no apologies. BTW, Phoenix was just named the best city in the World for drivers according to the Waze Global Driver Satisfaction Index. Just wait until 2020 when they complete the new 22-mile 8-lane I-10 by-pass South Mountain Freeway. I digress.

The initial 20-mile light rail line in Phoenix was completed the end of 2008 for $1.4 billion or $70 million per mile.

Image courtesy of Valley Metro

Light rail in Phoenix is very different from Denver as it operates on city streets using a "center reservation" model. Except for one 9-mile stretch with just a few stops as it leaves downtown Phoenix headed for Tempe it has lots and lots of stops. Downtown Phoenix has an employment base of 61,500 according to DTPHX. Tempe, I don't know but I'll guess there's about 40,000+ employees or should be by the time State Farm drops in 8,000 employees along with other development.

So how does Phoenix LRT ridership compare to Denver's ridership

Valley Metro makes this easy peasy: See HERE and HERE or on the Valley Metro site page. So on a per weekday basis Phoenix has about 44,000 riders.

Somebody else will have to dig out the numbers for RTD as I have no clue how to find them. I shudder a bit to know the numbers on the W Line which is the first Fastracks line but the SE Lines might be more interesting.

One question that arises is how important is density, really? Clearly Phoenix is not a particularly dense place (a work-in-progress perhaps) and the 44,000 daily riders would seem to be respectable; Valley Metro seems pleased.

Given Phoenix (city not metro) voters recently approved a transportation tax that will raise over $17 billion which they hope to leverage of course, they have two new LRT lines in mind for earlier development. One would extend light rail service along Central Ave. to the south through a lower socioeconomic area but would also provide access to a newer area. The second line would run down the middle of I-10 to the west where right-of-way has been preserved for this.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

here is a third important reason to build rail that you didn't include. (C) To buy votes and support

Yes, true. I suppose I should've said "technical" reason.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

BTW, the SW Line parallels U.S. Highway 85. Hmm.

I said ON a highway, not vaguelly nearby one. The difference between an old freight right-of-way and the median of a freeway is huge.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

In fact the whole reason that Fastracks was approved by voters is because it was sold as relieving traffic congestion.

It may have been sold that way to voters because that's easy for laypeople to grasp, but that's not what it's really for. At best, it allows people to escape traffic congestion (I haven't been in a traffic jam in ages), but it does not cure them (suburban DC certainly has plenty).

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So how does Phoenix LRT ridership compare to Denver's ridership

Phoenix takes Denver to the woodshed and beats the crap out of it.

The key metric is not overall ridership, because Denver has a huge system and Phoenix has a small one. The key metric is ridership per mile, which measures the EFFICIENCY of your system.

So let's just do a simple calculation, using easily available data.

Denver: 86,300 daily LRT riders / 47 LRT miles = 1,836 riders/mile.

Phoenix: 44,800 daily LRT riders / 22.7 LRT miles = 1,973 riders/mile.

So Phoenix's much smaller system gets slightly higher ridership per mile, meaning it's more heavily used and more efficient. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. Because of a little thing called "network effect," a system like Denver's, with multiple lines going in several directions, should always beat a system like Phoenix's, because the more places it's possible to go on a system, the more people can use that system. So Denver SHOULD be blowing Phoenix out of the water. The fact that Phoenix is actually higher than Denver, with just one line, is staggering.

Wanna know why Phoenix does so much better? You've already said it. Here's the answer:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

light rail in Phoenix is very different from Denver as it operates on city streets using a "center reservation" model.

This is a much better way to go than Denver's model of running them next to interstates, because there's always more destinations within walking distance of an arterial street than an interstate. Besides downtown offices, the commercial main streets of a city are where all the transit trip generators actually are, so the best places to put transit lines are commercial main streets that also connect to downtown. By totally ignoring those places and instead focusing on interstates, Denver has made a huge mistake.

Well, I take that back, sorta. I won't really say "huge mistake" because Denver had to make a lot of political compromises in order to get anything at all, and political reality is reality. So maybe it would be better to say that Denver's light rail is a big missed opportunity.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Besides downtown offices, the commercial main streets of a city are where all the transit trip generators actually are, so the best places to put transit lines are commercial main streets that also connect to downtown. By totally ignoring those places and instead focusing on interstates, Denver has made a huge mistake.

And by this measure, even the southwest corridor fails. It's an old freight right of way, but it also along Santa Fe. That line only ever had 180-degrees of available destinations. From the start, you're 50% handicapping your destination options. The correct place for that line would've been straight down the middle of Broadway.

[Cirrus]

BTW, I don't have the exact figures, but a quick back-of-the-napkin estimate tells me Denver's Colfax Avenue bus line carries somewhere between about 1,500 and 2,000 riders/mile, as a bus in mixed traffic. If you made it light rail and put it in a median median transitway like Phoenix's light rail, it would EASILY be the best transit line in the time zone.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

even the southwest corridor fails. It's an old freight right of way... The correct place for that line would've been straight down the middle of Broadway.

Yup. Better than an interstate median, but far from ideal.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you made it light rail and put it in a median median transitway like Phoenix's light rail, it would EASILY be the best transit line in the time zone.

From RTD's pathetic public meeting on Colfax. I asked about them using medians:

"We explored the option of using the medians and it just wasn't a isn't viable option."

I followed up with, "This model works in cities like Los Angeles and SLC; two drastically different cities, why couldn't it work here in Denver?" I got:

"A median transitway is out of the picture. It has been eliminated from all future studies."

Dumb.

[Cirrus]

It takes more street width to do a median transitway than to do curb lanes, because you need width to build in stations and sidewalks too. It takes basically 3 car lanes worth of street space. Whereas if you put it on the curb you can use the existing sidewalk for stations, and only use 2 car lanes worth of space.

But curbside transitways have to deal with turning (and sometimes parking) cars, making them much less effective for transit.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I said ON a highway, not vaguelly nearby one. The difference between an old freight right-of-way and the median of a freeway is huge.

That freight right-of-way runs along U.S. 85; splitting fine hairs there.

So can I assume the the SE Line runs ON a highway? The only place where it runs in the median (or will) is along the existing I-225 SE line to Nine Mile Station which just happens to be one of the busiest suburban stations, I believe.

It may have been sold that way to voters because that's easy for laypeople to grasp, but that's not what it's really for.

I believe I've read that piece by Jarrett before. He was recently part of a panel in Austin where he touted the heck out of Bus Rapid Transit.

Wanna know why Phoenix does so much better? You've already said it...

This is a much better way to go than Denver's model of running them next to interstates, because there's always more destinations within walking distance of an arterial street than an interstate. Besides downtown offices, the commercial main streets of a city are where all the transit trip generators actually are, so the best places to put transit lines are commercial main streets that also connect to downtown. By totally ignoring those places and instead focusing on interstates, Denver has made a huge mistake.

Yeah, I gathered as much. But Phoenix doesn't have a traffic congestion problem, at least one worth mentioning. BTW, the 22.7 miles for Phoenix is spot-on up-to-date but that includes the just opened extension to downtown Mesa for which there are no ridership numbers yet.

Missed opportunity or not Denver has a traffic congestion problem that will only get worse. The conservative talking point that rail transit doesn't cure congestion misses the point of it mitigating congestion being even worse, sooner.

Looking at the list of proposed apartment projects it appears that transit lines will stimulate more dense develop near stations although it's just an early start.

[Cirrus]

The SW line is not great, but it does deviate off 85 at downtown Littleton, something the SE line should have done at DTC. The point is, highway based transit doesn't work very well, including on I-225.

As for the Mesa extension: That means the calculation I just did undercounted how good Phoenix's line is, because its ridership is really over a shorter distance. It's probably over 2,000 riders/mile! Even better!

You seem to be assuming an ant-rail bias on my part. That could not be further from the truth. I merely don't want to waste precious rail dollars on highway-based lines, which take money away from better rail projects elsewhere, and undermine public support for rail spending. The fact that I said I-225 could be a bus does not make me anti-rail. The fact that I said Colfax buses are good does not mean I think we shouldn't build rail; it means I think we should have spent our limited budget on rail on Colfax, rather than wasting it on highway lines.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by RyanD

From RTD's pathetic public meeting on Colfax. I asked about them using medians:

"We explored the option of using the medians and it just wasn't a isn't viable option."

I followed up with, "This model works in cities like Los Angeles and SLC; two drastically different cities, why couldn't it work here in Denver?" I got:

"A median transitway is out of the picture. It has been eliminated from all future studies."

Dumb.

Classic RTD....pretending to present options...but then they will listen to the fringe over new and better ideas. I stopped going to meetings after seeing the RTD-shutdown a dozen times...but then they absorb and applaud marginal ideas....odd, and path of least resistance kinda stuff..

[bcp]

^ oh. And way to go with the follow up question! !

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by RyanD

From RTD's pathetic public meeting on Colfax. I asked about them using medians:

"We explored the option of using the medians and it just wasn't a isn't viable option."

I followed up with, "This model works in cities like Los Angeles and SLC; two drastically different cities, why couldn't it work here in Denver?" I got:

"A median transitway is out of the picture. It has been eliminated from all future studies."

Dumb.

This illustrates why Denver will need to establish its own transit agency. RTD has political limitations which will prevent it from providing the sort of intra-city transit the city needs for future growth. A half-a$$ed BRT light like proposal for our busiest urban corridor is the sort of bottom dollar 'solution' I expect from them. Until we get the sort of leadership that refuses to punt to the REGIONAL Transportation District we're in for more of the same.