DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

For those who are interested, the City of Denver Department of Environmental Health released its "Good Neighbor Study" on air quality and the I-70 project.

Part II here: https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/de...hbor%20Project%202015%20-%20Part%202.pdf

I'll copy the last bullet of the summary slide:

PCL [the Partial Cover Lowered alternative] is predicted to result in lower air pollution in the neighborhood due to added mixing and turbulence

And Part I released the other day: https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/de...hbor%20Project%202015%20-%20Part%201.pdf

[Denver Dweller]

http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/01/21...ast-colfax-but-not-for-at-least-5-years/

[bunt_q]

Oh look, streetsblog took an entirely good thing and still managed to slap it with a negative tagline. It's what it would be like if you gave me the reins of a blog on housing affordability in Denver. Grumpy cat David Sachs needs to get laid more.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29440180/colorado-right-expand-i-70-north-denver

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Oh look, streetsblog took an entirely good thing and still managed to slap it with a negative tagline. It's what it would be like if you gave me the reins of a blog on housing affordability in Denver. Grumpy cat David Sachs needs to get laid more.

Sachs is totally incapable of being optimistic on anything- save for biking. Streetsblog Denver should be called Cyclingblog Denver.

The editorializing on the I-70 rebuild is hilarious and the legitimacy to which the I-70 "alternative" is given is pathetic.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Sachs is totally incapable of being optimistic on anything- save for biking. Streetsblog Denver should be called Cyclingblog Denver.

He is exclusively on the cyclists team. It's quite unfortunate.

Real transit - Negative, complains about timelines, and nitpicks everything. We need bike lanes.

Infill - Parking are the only concerns. We need bike lanes.

Pedestrians - We need bike lanes.

Public works - We need bike lanes.

Traffic issues - We need bike lanes.

I-70 - We need bike highways.

Snow on bike lanes - We need special plows for the bike lanes.

[wong21fr]

Here's Sach's latest hit-piece on the I-70 re-do, complete with Unite North Metro Denver's grand proposal:

http://denver.streetsblog.org/

Somehow a total rebuild of 18-20 miles of I-270 and I-76 (I'm guessing it would end up being five lanes both ways), 60-odd new bridge structures (with a good number over sensitive waterways), sinking a rail line right before it enters a yard (which might be so impractical that you'd have to relocate the yard), and a 6-8 lane Grand Boulevard will be cheaper than a couple miles of trenching. Oh, and let's also mention improved mass transit and bikes lanes as well.

Yep, totally comparable cost-wise.

I realize that Streetsblog is meant to be for bicycling (err, muti-modal transit) advocacy, not journalism, and shouldn't be expected to meet any kind of standard of being accurate, truthful, etc. but it still rankles me they way they present these issues.

[CastleScott]

I once wrote a Thesis on transit for metro Denver that I not only suggested light and commuter rail corridors but also high frequency prioritized bus service on corridor streets like Colfax, Broadway, University, Colorado Blvd, Hampden and Federal. I also suggested the same or similar service for Wadsworth and Kipling on the west, Arapahoe Rd, County Line in the south, Havana, Sable and Tower in Aurora, 72nd, 92nd and 120th in the north metro. I wrote this dream plan-idea for a planning class I took at Metro State back in 1986, of course this was way before BRT was hatched.

Anyway something I thought I'd share and any thoughts?

Oh btw I'm still amazed about all the wasted parking space that many strip shopping centers seem to get away with that only fill during times around the Holidays or once in a great while during the summer during some special promotion events...

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/denve...tion-on-colfax-avenue-bus-rapid-transit/

[Cirrus]

If it doesn't have dedicated lanes then it's not BRT. It's a priority bus, which is legitimately nicer than a regular bus in many ways, but it's not BRT.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If it doesn't have dedicated lanes then it's not BRT. It's a priority bus, which is legitimately nicer than a regular bus in many ways, but it's not BRT.

Not according to FTA, but I know what you're getting at.

2.1 Small Starts
In addition to the cost and funding limits specified above, a Small Starts project must either (a) meet the definition of a fixed guideway for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period (The fixed-guideway portion need not be contiguous, but should be located to result in faster and more reliable running, (b) be a new fixed guideway project, or (c) be new corridor-based bus project with all of the following minimum elements:

• Substantial transit stations,
• Traffic signal priority/pre-emption, to the extent, if any, that there are traffic signals on the corridor,
• Low-floor vehicles or level boarding,
• Branding of the proposed service, and
• 10 minute peak/15 minute off peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours per weekday.

These elements have been identified because experience shows that they represent key features which contribute to transportation and economic development benefits. Further, research has shown that the service frequencies represent the maximum wait times for which passengers are likely to arrive randomly rather than having to consult schedules.

Only projects which feature all of these elements are eligible for Small Starts funding. Projects proposed in corridors with any pre-existing elements are not eligible for Small Starts funding, but would be eligible under FTA's formula capital and discretionary bus programs.

And this definition has changed a bit since the FAST Act.

Eligibility

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Here's Sach's latest hit-piece on the I-70 re-do, complete with Unite North Metro Denver's grand proposal:

http://denver.streetsblog.org/

Somehow a total rebuild of 18-20 miles of I-270 and I-76 (I'm guessing it would end up being five lanes both ways), 60-odd new bridge structures (with a good number over sensitive waterways), sinking a rail line right before it enters a yard (which might be so impractical that you'd have to relocate the yard), and a 6-8 lane Grand Boulevard will be cheaper than a couple miles of trenching. Oh, and let's also mention improved mass transit and bikes lanes as well.

Yep, totally comparable cost-wise.

I realize that Streetsblog is meant to be for bicycling (err, muti-modal transit) advocacy, not journalism, and shouldn't be expected to meet any kind of standard of being accurate, truthful, etc. but it still rankles me they way they present these issues.

Sometimes I wish I could just hit "Like."

[bunt_q]

If you have 20 minutes there was a good interview on CPR today, David Sachs vs. the CDOT spokesperson for the I-70 project.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Isn't our highway use supposed to go down now, given our new way of thinking here?

I have nothing good to contribute to this conversation.

I just love how all the Downtown mentalities think the big evil highway is going to a) effect them in any sort of way and b) think it's not needed given the not-so-great alternatives we offer and influx in population. It's like saying, we don't support... [blank (gun control, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc, etc, big bad evil highways, etc, etc)], even though it won't effect their everyday lives, or the city around them.

I agree. I live in Stapleton and really don't use I-70 much at all, but it appears to be backed up all day, er' day. I will use the train to get to the airport

My thought is that with all the development downtown, more housing downtown (and in Stapleton), and the convention draw of our downtown, it needs to be relatively easy to get from the airport to downtown. I would think most people who fly in and are only going downtown (for work or conventions) would take the train. But it seems like the freeway needs widening as well. Between this widening and the train, I-70 should be good for a few decades.

[RyanD]

Just listen to it.

CDOT is on it.

Streetsblog aka Sachs... Yikes.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/expansion-plan-i-70-through-denver-draws-closer-reality

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

If you have 20 minutes there was a good interview on CPR today, David Sachs vs. the CDOT spokesperson for the I-70 project.

Bunt, can you clarify if what Sachs says regarding FASTER permitting the state to turn general purpose lanes on interstate highways into managed lanes is accurate?

From what I gather, FASTER does permit this on state highways, but this wouldn't be feasible for interstate highways that were built as part of the Federal Highway Act as there is only a limited federal tolling pilot program that is completely filled up with existing projects and would require Congressional action to be opened up further.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Bunt, can you clarify if what Sachs says regarding FASTER permitting the state to turn general purpose lanes on interstate highways into managed lanes is accurate?

From what I gather, FASTER does permit this on state highways, but this wouldn't be feasible for interstate highways that were built as part of the Federal Highway Act as there is only a limited federal tolling pilot program that is completely filled up with existing projects and would require Congressional action to be opened up further.

At a bar, sure. I would agree with him that it isn't impossible. I would also say that it's nearly impossible.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

At a bar, sure. I would agree with him that it isn't impossible. I would also say that it's nearly impossible.

Okay. Bar. Beer.

[mr1138]

You guys are kind of narrowing in on my beef with this particular line of criticism against this project. Right, wrong, or otherwise, people like Sachs and the folks at COPIRG are asking for the near impossible. In a city that has nowhere near the walking or transit culture, they are asking that we act like San Francisco and remove a freeway. It just seems like they are about 20-30 years too early in fighting this kind of fight, and the energy would be better spent doing something positive like advocating for better inner-city transit. Instead, they're wasting their time, breath, and potentially even making enemies; going negative and trying to throw sand in the gears of a project that most agree needs to happen sooner than later for reasons other than just congestion.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

You guys are kind of narrowing in on my beef with this particular line of criticism against this project. Right, wrong, or otherwise, people like Sachs and the folks at COPIRG are asking for the near impossible. In a city that has nowhere near the walking or transit culture, they are asking that we act like San Francisco and remove a freeway. It just seems like they are about 20-30 years too early in fighting this kind of fight, and the energy would be better spent doing something positive like advocating for better inner-city transit. Instead, they're wasting their time, breath, and potentially even making enemies; going negative and trying to throw sand in the gears of a project that most agree needs to happen sooner than later for reasons other than just congestion.

There are so many other criticisms that can be leveled at the relocated I-70 crowd due to the impratical nature of their proposal that it's funny:

-Sachs and the like are also using spur freeways, nut thru freeways, in their examples of freeway removal which is a false comparison.

-The tree-lined boulevard replacement is really a 100,000 car per day major traffic corridor, the traffic will not simply move elsewhere along the street grid due to the nature of the I-70 corridor being Denver's logistics corridor with a ton of originating and terminating vehicle traffic (along with a ton of thru traffic). You'd be replacing I-70 with a street that has twice the daily traffic of Colorado Boulevard- a street that Sachs has vilified for being an auto nightmare. Just what kind of tree-lined boulevard with meandering bicycle facilities will support 100,000 vehicles per day? It's called a surface highway.

-Their cost estimates are beyond ridiculous in being optimistic.

-They equate managed lanes with general purpose lanes when talking about induced demand which is a false equivalency. I don't think there have been any studies done thus far to see if managed lanes cause induced demand, but it seems very unlikely due to the market clearing dynamics of variable pricing.