DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Image courtesy: City Observatory

I shot the Sheriff.
Ah, that's nothing. I shot down the Purple LIne

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

What would you suggest instead?

Good question but I see where transit ridership is down across the country including Denver although not in San Francisco. It's also up in Phoenix which coincidentally also has he best freeway system in the country. It would seem that roads and transit can coexist just fine.

[BrennanW]

Hello!

I was just in Denver again this weekend and was again riding the light rail & commuter rail trains. I have one question about the Central Platte Valley route and specifically the Sports Authority Field at Mile High Station. Obviously it is extremely close to the Auraria West Campus Station. On multiple trips, I have not seen anybody alight or embark at this station because Auraria West better serves the local population and the stadium station is only (slightly) better for special events.

My question is, after the relocation and reconstruction of the Auraria West Station does RTD continue to operate the Sports Authority Field station, or why not only stop there during special events? It seems a few minutes of travel time could be saved by closing the station and the same transportation benefit could be had at the West Campus station.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Good question but I see where transit ridership is down across the country including Denver although not in San Francisco. It's also up in Phoenix which coincidentally also has he best freeway system in the country. It would seem that roads and transit can coexist just fine.

The Bay Area has completely different dynamics from Phoenix. There's a giant body of water separating where many people work from where they live, so it's not like it's any cheaper to add more car capacity by building more freeways and bridges. In Phoenix, you can just keep building freeway after freeway into the desert. SF is also the second densest city in America, so there's not much room for more cars there anyway. And again, public transit in SF is great – probably the best of any city on this side of the Mississippi. BART from the East Bay to downtown SF would take me 30 minutes anytime of day versus 45-120 minutes' driving time. Transit doesn't come out ahead of the private automobile for every purpose everywhere in the Bay Area, but it's certainly a compelling option for more than a million people everyday.

I think Denver is probably somewhere in between the two — driving is still probably the easiest way to get around to almost anywhere in Denver, though every time I go back, I've noticed congestion getting worse from how I remember it. Whether or not we're building transit in the places people want it is another question (one that has been debated here many, many times).

Originally Posted by BrennanW

Hello!

I was just in Denver again this weekend and was again riding the light rail & commuter rail trains. I have one question about the Central Platte Valley route and specifically the Sports Authority Field at Mile High Station. Obviously it is extremely close to the Auraria West Campus Station. On multiple trips, I have not seen anybody alight or embark at this station because Auraria West better serves the local population and the stadium station is only (slightly) better for special events.

My question is, after the relocation and reconstruction of the Auraria West Station does RTD continue to operate the Sports Authority Field station, or why not only stop there during special events? It seems a few minutes of travel time could be saved by closing the station and the same transportation benefit could be had at the West Campus station.

The station is open at all times. It would make sense for RTD to only operate it during game days, but then again, RTD doesn't always act sensibly.

[Cirrus]

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous to question transit's role in San Francisco but praise it in Phoenix. Transit has nowhere to go but up in Phoenix, and the city as currently built could function without it (although it's great that that's slowly changing). San Francisco OTOH is totally built around transit and would fall apart without it; if you removed the transit from SF you'd have to bulldoze half the city in order to build the highways necessary to move people around.

You simply cannot serve neighborhoods that look like this with only cars. It's physically impossible. If you try, people move away because it doesn't work, buildings get torn down to be replaced by parking lots, and the neighborhood ends up in ruin.




And, crucially, San Francisco faced that exact choice decades ago, when there was *literally* a plan to bulldoze much of the city and replace it with highways. The city revolted against the plan, because guess what, nobody wants their city destroyed. Here's a map of canceled freeways in San Francisco. You'd have to build them if you removed the transit. It wouldn't be cheaper, either in the near term nor the short. Highways cost a lot to maintain too.


Via former Mountain West moderator J Church

[PLANSIT]

^That's terrifying.

I know it has been discussed here previously, but graphics like that always bring up memories of Denver's own highway plan history. This is why I have a fondness for 2-way couplets here. They probably saved us from a far worse reality - and they can be converted back if needed, far easier.

Below is just one of a dozen or so highways planned for urban Denver. The Mountain Corridor was an extension of 6th Ave. The northern routes would have completely destroyed a lot of Cap Hill, Congress Park, etc.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It wouldn't be cheaper, either in the near term nor the short. Highways cost a lot to maintain too.

How exactly does that link stand for the proposition that highways cost a lot to maintain? (I'm not disagreeing, but that's not what that article says.)

[TakeFive]

My bad. My question was partly rhetorical but mostly TIC (tongue-in-cheek) and my subsequent comment was more generic as to the Americas since ridership is down in (parts of) Canada as well. I just happen to see that ridership was up in S.F. which I noted and also Phoenix, that's all.

Specific to San Francisco I have no specific familiarity but it would seem that like WMATA they weren't properly allocating enough money to maintain what they have. It's both interesting and sad that too many places, municipalities especially that neglect their knitting and find pretending an easier option. Whether it's the poster children like Detroit or Petersburg VA or the Il/Chicago pension funds, kicking the can down the road is not a fix.

Not exactly on topic but I happen to do a good dive into Denver's Capital Improvement Program and I see that they are prioritizing any outstanding deferred maintenance and needed capital repairs. This come after an extensive assessment of existing assets and in fact the Better Denver Bonds of a few years ago was a substantial down payment on needed ketchup.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How exactly does that link stand for the proposition that highways cost a lot to maintain? (I'm not disagreeing, but that's not what that article says.)

That only reflects some bullet points of a very liberal think tank that is blinded by their own agenda.

"induced Demand" is about the silliest liberal talking point I can think of. CDOT projects additional demand in the future so of course when freeways are expanded they absorb demand from those that NEED it and those that just want an easier drive or route from Point A to Point B. For some reason this is sacrilegious...

CoPIRG et al treats I-70 like just another urban street instead of the critical commercial and commuting corridor that it is and has been since the 1950's. People still want their goods and services quickly but act as though they just show up out of thin air.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How exactly does that link stand for the proposition that highways cost a lot to maintain?

The simple fact that we're going to spend $1.2 billion to keep a fairly short stretch of I-70 working for another generation.

I admit I probably could've picked a less, uh, controversial link, but I didn't put a lot of thought into it. That came up near the top of google when I searched for "denver i-70 rebuild," and it has the cost info in the first sentence. That's really all I was looking for.

I'm fairly ambivalent about the plan itself.

[TakeFive]

So many things going on with Denver with respect to transportation planning it's hard to keep up with all of it. One thing that has caught my attention is the Go Speer Leetsdale Mobility Study. Other than Colfax and Broadway for their own reasons, Speer/Leetsdale is a most interesting opportunity IMO.

My fantasy would be to run light rail from Broadway all the way out to I-225. It'll never happen of course as the cost would be way too much. BRT, which would be more feasible is even likely too challenging for the near term. In any case this significant study is targeted to be finished by spring of 2017 so I'll be curious to see the results as well as what consideration it gets from the Denveright/Denver Moves transit analysis.

[COS]

After living near Parker and Iliff for a couple years, I can say without a doubt that light rail along Speer/Leetsdale would get huge ridership. That is definitely one corridor where there's no good way to get to and from downtown. My 10 mile bike ride to work along the Cherry Creek path typically took half the time of driving. I'm in agreement that it will never happen due to cost, but it was a huge missed opportunity from a light rail standpoint.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by COS

After living near Parker and Iliff for a couple years, I can say without a doubt that light rail along Speer/Leetsdale would get huge ridership. That is definitely one corridor where there's no good way to get to and from downtown. My 10 mile bike ride to work along the Cherry Creek path typically took half the time of driving. I'm in agreement that it will never happen due to cost, but it was a huge missed opportunity from a light rail standpoint.

I'm super close to Leetsdale and Monaco.. I tell you, any rail for that corridor would be godsend. But it's never going to happen

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I'm super close to Leetsdale and Monaco.. I tell you, any rail for that corridor would be godsend. But it's never going to happen

I really don't know how to put this any more kindly, pal, but if you can't afford to live in central Denver, we really don't want you there anyways. We certainly do not want to make it any easier for the Parker Road riffraff to get into the city. Drive backwards to Nine Mile and train in from there for special events. Sure, it's slow and inconvenient, but that keeps you from lingering for too long in our precious neighborhoods.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Drive backwards to Nine Mile and train in from there for special events. Sure, it's slow and inconvenient, but that keeps you from lingering for too long in our precious neighborhoods.

Wait... I think I just saw RyanD driving by.


Photo courtesy: Daily Mail

"Indian driver has installed FOUR extra gears on his car enabling him to drive everywhere in reverse"
17 December 2014 By ANNABEL GROSSMAN FOR MAILONLINE

[The Dirt]

Here's an xray of his back:

http://www.anatomybox.com/tag/x-ray/page/14/

[Scottk]

Riding the A line to DIA currently and the train is once again moving slowly.


Why do they still have construction workers at every at grade crossing?

Why does the announcement say "this is the university of Colorado A line to Denver airport station" at every single stop?? Last I checked there was no university of Colorado to Denver airport station.

Why is it moving so slow?


What the fuck is going on ?

[TakeFive]

Does everybody remember when I proposed a streetcar along 21st street?
Yes, yes I'm sure everybody remembers that but why?
Well, they haven't gotten there just yet but they're getting closer.



Image per Denvergov.org

Denvergov.org

Final Study
Read the Wynkoop Street and 21st Street Design Plan (126 Pg PDF)

However... once they adopt my Streetcar concept it would look more like this:


Barcelona via Chicago Streetcar Renaissance

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Riding the A line to DIA currently and the train is once again moving slowly.


Why do they still have construction workers at every at grade crossing?

Why does the announcement say "this is the university of Colorado A line to Denver airport station" at every single stop?? Last I checked there was no university of Colorado to Denver airport station.

Why is it moving so slow?


What the fuck is going on ?

I still haven't heard exactly what the problem is. It worked perfectly for me last night to DIA, horribly upon my return.

And on the way, the conductor blabbered all this trivia "the bridge we're crossing is 1000 ft. long", "On the right is the largest auto auction site in Colorado".... I just wanted him to shut up!

[The Dirt]

Sounds kind of neat and welcoming for out of towners, actually. I've never heard the conductor say anything other than "doors are closing".

The train was late this morning and I missed the last Metro Ride out by 30 seconds. This is why I only take it to and from work when I'm not in a hurry. Last Friday and Saturday were flawless. It's a bit discouraging that the train has been operational for nearly 5 months (and had a year of testing) and they can't seem to figure out the crossing guard issues. That's the number one issue, because if trains are delayed at all of the at-grade crossings, it screws up the timing on the single track sections.

On the bright side, the trains are comfortably full and clean. The light rail vehicles feel a bit worn out in comparison. Does anyone know when RTD is scheduled to get get new light rail vehicles and whether they're going to have level boarding?

[TakeFive]

Photo Credit: Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

"There are $64 million of plans for the 16th Street Mall, but it has barely changed lately. What gives?"
September 6, 2016 by Andrew Kenney - Denverite

So, when people say the 16th Street Mall is falling apart, they’re not wrong. In particular, the granite pavers — a fancy word for the individual tiles that make up the walkway and road for the shuttles — are in bad shape. That’s actually a huge part of the debate, which we’ll get to later.

“The mall is 34 years old, and it had a design lifetime when it was implemented in 1982 of roughly 30 years,” Desmond said.

The part most relevant to transit:

The mall is more crowded than ever, with both people and buses.

“The original design of the mall was to carry probably 15,000 people per day, and you know what we’ve got on there now is four to five times that,” said Rich von Luhrte, who played a huge role in shaping the mall when he was RTD’s architect.

That has brought way more buses onto the street than was originally anticipated, which makes it feel less safe and comfortable for pedestrians, he said. He also says the increased traffic is part of why the mall’s surface is in bad shape.

“There’s just so many buses on the mall that it ceases to become a pedestrian mall,” he said. “People can’t access the middle section, and they can’t cross freely, and it starts acting more like a street than a mall.”

Could Big Changes be in store for the 16th Street Mall?

The possibilities:

We’ve heard a number of ideas in the last week for a major redesign of the mall. While it may turn out to be a simple rehabilitation job, the popular options include:

• Taking one of the bus lanes off the mall. In that case, shuttles would run only one way on the mall, while returning on 15th Street or another road.
• Drawing the bus lanes into the middle of the mall. This would create bigger sidewalks, potentially allowing for more pedestrian activity, but it also could make it more intimidating to cross from one side to the other.

Aside from the issue of money my guess would be a significant redesign of the Mall. I'm not sure just applying some lipstick is all that useful. I also wouldn't be surprised to see using 15th street as part a couplet being the preferred choice but we'll see in time.