DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Probably not if the bus still takes fives times longer to travel to a destination versus driving a car.

It's not the stops (generally) in Denver that keep people from switching from private automobile to the bus.

You may be onto something here.

Using Denver transit takes up to 3 times as long, city finds
March 12, 2017 by Megan Arellano - Denverite

In their analysis of 13 sample trips, using transit took anywhere from 1.5 to three times as long as driving. All told, the average was 1.98 times as long for transit trips.

This this this:

Denver Director of Transportation Crissy Fanganello has said that to increase ridership, there needs to be an incentive to taking it — namely that it’s faster than the alternative.

Better than a slow boat to China?


Courtesy of Tippin the scales

[TakeFive]

Would a trolley (modern streetcar) named East Colfax Desire pass the Daniel Malouff test?


A streetcar crosses an intersection in Portland, Oregon. | Visitor7 via Politico Magazine

Streetcars are “not a magic bullet,” says Christopher Zimmerman of Smart Growth America, an urban planning advocacy group.

They work best in places with some fundamentals already in place, says Daniel Malouff, a Washington transportation expert. There are a few basic things he says a city needs for a streetcar to work: dense population, easy walkability, a line that moves relatively quickly and some frequency of service. “If you can get all four, you will have a smashing success,” Malouff says.

So You Want to Build a Trolley
By DEBRA BRUNO March 16, 2017 - Politico Magazine

TBH, this article is only worth reading if you're highly curious or have nothing better to do.

[COS]

^The four basic components listed above would seem to indicate why a streetcar line from downtown to Cherry Creek could work. Connect two areas with walkability, plenty of amenities/services, and a large population living in and between both areas.

Those same components are why I find the streetcar idea in the Springs to be more of a touristy toy rather than a real transit idea. The only one of the four components that could be satisfied would be the frequency of service.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by COS

^The four basic components listed above would seem to indicate why a streetcar line from downtown to Cherry Creek could work. Connect two areas with walkability, plenty of amenities/services, and a large population living in and between both areas.

Those same components are why I find the streetcar idea in the Springs to be more of a touristy toy rather than a real transit idea. The only one of the four components that could be satisfied would be the frequency of service.

It would work, but it seems as if the 1st step should be to improve the 83L so that it can serve as a high-frequency, high(er) speed transit line that connects downtown, Cherry Creek, Glendale and all the way to Nine Mile. There's more ridership between Glendale and Cherry Creek then between downtown and Cherry Creek and we'd be fools if we think that Country Club is an underserved area where ridership would boom if not for the lack of a trolley.

[Cirrus]

That article is a who's-who of my friends list. It's hilarious.

Anyway, of my 4 criteria, 2 are environmental (density + walkability) and 2 depend on the design of the project (frequency + speed). Colfax has the first 2 and could have the latter 2 if it were designed well. It could also be designed poorly and lack the latter 2, in which case it would be a waste of money.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There's more ridership between Glendale and Cherry Creek then between downtown and Cherry Creek and we'd be fools if we think that Country Club is an underserved area where ridership would boom if not for the lack of a trolley.

There's more ridership in the retail areas because the current bus line is terrible at serving downtown-to-Cherry Creek trips. That's a situation where there is two strong nodes with a lot of transit-rider gravity (downtown and Cherry Creek), but where speed is supremely important. Because nobody who'd ride much cares about anywhere between the two nodes, minimizing the travel time between them takes on more importance than usual (unlike on Colfax where there are destinations all along the corridor). TBH, given the constraints of the street grid, I'm not sure any kind of surface transit would be fast enough. A subway would be fantastic and would get monster ridership. But a streetcar or light rail, even in dedicated lanes, might be too slow. Maybe a good transitway on Speer, but there are so many lights I'm kind of skeptical.

[COS]

I think you both make great points, and I would argue for no stops within the country club area (maybe at Logan/Speer area?). Most of those folks won't take the line anyway, but stops in Cap Hill and Golden Triangle seem reasonable.

I lived next to the mall for a year, and when weather kept me from the bike, the bus was so awful into downtown there were days that driving was the right choice for me. A reliable and relatively quick streetcar/LRT would've solved that problem for folks like me.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by COS

I think you both make great points, and I would argue for no stops within the country club area (maybe at Logan/Speer area?). Most of those folks won't take the line anyway, but stops in Cap Hill and Golden Triangle seem reasonable.

I lived next to the mall for a year, and when weather kept me from the bike, the bus was so awful into downtown there were days that driving was the right choice for me. A reliable and relatively quick streetcar/LRT would've solved that problem for folks like me.

But how does that benefit the other users along the corridor in Glendale, all along Leetsdale and down Parker, and Nine Mile? While roughly a third of transit usage is realized in the span between CC and downtown, the vast majority of that usage are people traveling in from further down the corridor. Boarding from CC to downtown or visa versa are almost non-existent. Downtown to CC is a tough nut to crack: we can't make the argument that it will serve as a development catalyst as we won't be densifying Country Club, there's been practically no talk of what happens outside of CC and downtown (which is the more important discussion), but the highest profile portion (with the least benefit on the whole) is downtown to CC.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But how does that benefit the other users along the corridor in Glendale, all along Leetsdale and down Parker, and Nine Mile? While roughly a third of transit usage is realized in the span between CC and downtown, the vast majority of that usage are people traveling in from further down the corridor.

Boardings between downtown and Cherry Creek are low, but according to every rule of transit ever there's gigantic latent demand there. The fact that boardings are low northwest of Cherry Creek but high southeast of there, in this case, proves only that the existing service is capturing the market for one type of trip but not for another. The existing bus is probably capturing service workers and getting ridership to the destinations that service workers need, but not capturing the other latent market that should be there.

This is not to say that capturing that market should be Denver's highest transit priority. It shouldn't be. Only that the absence of riders there today proves very little.

[COS]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But how does that benefit the other users along the corridor in Glendale, all along Leetsdale and down Parker, and Nine Mile? While roughly a third of transit usage is realized in the span between CC and downtown, the vast majority of that usage are people traveling in from further down the corridor.

I absolutely agree that it shouldn't end at CC, but I also agree with Cirrus in that the demand for downtown to CC is essentially hidden at this point. If money gets spent on the interior stretch, might as well connect all the way out to Nine Mile. There's actually quite a bit of infill potential along that corridor, good opportunities for TODs.

[CharlesCO]

It also seems like as the retail center of gravity remains in CC while CC is also densifying, the need for transit options between downtown and CC beyond the private automobile will only grow.

Downtown is doing well obviously, but I don't think it will ever become the retail destination that many of us hoped/predicted when that was a hot topic around these parts 5-7 years ago. I'm also not sure whether people would have predicted just how fast CC appears to be building density.

And on the subject of transit, I think Denver is turning into what Seattle has been for the last two decades or so— gridlock traffic everywhere and underbuilt transit solutions for the city center. Getting to my sister's house in Park Hill from my parents' in south Denver/Englewood can easily take 45 minutes at rush hour now.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by COS

I think you both make great points, and I would argue for no stops within the country club area (maybe at Logan/Speer area?). Most of those folks won't take the line anyway, but stops in Cap Hill and Golden Triangle seem reasonable.

I lived next to the mall for a year, and when weather kept me from the bike, the bus was so awful into downtown there were days that driving was the right choice for me. A reliable and relatively quick streetcar/LRT would've solved that problem for folks like me.

Except for their staff. Weatlthy neighborhoods ofen find that transit for staff is in their best interest.

[DUPio]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

And on the subject of transit, I think Denver is turning into what Seattle has been for the last two decades or so— gridlock traffic everywhere and underbuilt transit solutions for the city center. Getting to my sister's house in Park Hill from my parents' in south Denver/Englewood can easily take 45 minutes at rush hour now.

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next decade assuming the influx of people continues at the current rate. The traffic and housing prices alone are enough to give you an aneurysm.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by DUPio

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next decade assuming the influx of people continues at the current rate. The traffic and housing prices alone are enough to give you an aneurysm.

Interesting to see you all talk about Seattle here, as I was just thinking about how Seattle recently completed the University Link Tunnel light rail - about 20 years in planning, and 3.15 miles of tunnel for under $2 billion. The area it goes through appears to be only slightly more dense than Denver's Cap Hill neighborhood (denser closer to downtown Seattle, with decreasing density further north).

I'd love to hear from anybody who knows more about this project... I can't help but think that this could be analogous to a Downtown Denver-Cherry Creek link. I have always assumed that a subway tunnel was nothing but a pipe dream in Denver until I become an old man, but the Seattle project makes me re-assess this assumption just a little bit. I haven't done a deep dive looking into the population densities, but it looks like Seattle's route goes through an area that is maybe only slightly denser today, and could be roughly equal in density if Denver keeps infilling the way that it has been. Lower Highland to Cherry Creek via 17th street, with a stop near Union Station, and continuing on under Cap Hill is only about 4 miles. The A-line cost over $2 billion. And, unless there's something I'm really not taking into account, the cost of construction should be less in Denver than in Seattle.

I know it's kind of crazy talk, but could something like this be viable? The numbers all seem to be within a similar range, and it seems like a rapid-transit link directly connecting Lower Highland, downtown, Cap Hill, and Cherry Creek should be at least as valuable to the city (and therefore worth the cost) as one of our suburban commuter lines - assuming the city could find a way fund it without suburban buy-in and with RTD still on the hook for the B-line boondoggle.

[DUPio]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Interesting to see you all talk about Seattle here, as I was just thinking about how Seattle recently completed the University Link Tunnel light rail - about 20 years in planning, and 3.15 miles of tunnel for under $2 billion. The area it goes through appears to be only slightly more dense than Denver's Cap Hill neighborhood (denser closer to downtown Seattle, with decreasing density further north).

I'd love to hear from anybody who knows more about this project... I can't help but think that this could be analogous to a Downtown Denver-Cherry Creek link. I have always assumed that a subway tunnel was nothing but a pipe dream in Denver until I become an old man, but the Seattle project makes me re-assess this assumption just a little bit. I haven't done a deep dive looking into the population densities, but it looks like Seattle's route goes through an area that is maybe only slightly denser today, and could be roughly equal in density if Denver keeps infilling the way that it has been. Lower Highland to Cherry Creek via 17th street, with a stop near Union Station, and continuing on under Cap Hill is only about 4 miles. The A-line cost over $2 billion. And, unless there's something I'm really not taking into account, the cost of construction should be less in Denver than in Seattle.

I know it's kind of crazy talk, but could something like this be viable? The numbers all seem to be within a similar range, and it seems like a rapid-transit link directly connecting Lower Highland, downtown, Cap Hill, and Cherry Creek should be at least as valuable to the city (and therefore worth the cost) as one of our suburban commuter lines - assuming the city could find a way fund it without suburban buy-in and with RTD still on the hook for the B-line boondoggle.

DenverInfill did a fun visionary look at the possibilities for subway, light rail etc back in 2005. http://denverinfill.com/streetcar/

"Alternative D" is an especially interesting look at how things could be set up

A future subway connecting Lohi/Union Station/CBD/Cap Hill and Cherry Creek makes too much sense... so don't get your hopes up.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by DUPio

DenverInfill did a fun visionary look at the possibilities for subway, light rail etc back in 2005. http://denverinfill.com/streetcar/

"Alternative D" is an especially interesting look at how things could be set up

A future subway connecting Lohi/Union Station/CBD/Cap Hill and Cherry Creek makes too much sense... so don't get your hopes up.

I'll have to take a closer look at those DenverInfill alternatives when I'm on a bigger screen. I would point out though, that depending on the substrate and tunneling technology chosen, such a route wouldn't necessarily have to zigzag with the cardinal directions through CapHill. The Seattle tunnel, similarly, goes underneath a large hill and appears to move at a diagonal to the street grid. I could certainly envision something similar under CapHill with maybe only a single stop in the neighborhood at a key intersection.

Maybe I'm just way off and the density simply isn't there for the project like this to be feasible. Or perhaps the substrate would make the tunnel far more expensive (which, considering Seattle's location and earthquake considerations, I doubt is the case). But it seems like it's much more a problem of political vision than feasibility. Denver is stuck in the mindset that it can't even get a commuter rail system completed, and the highest it can set its sights inside the city is arterial BRT. Even us transit geeks talk as though a Speer Blvd light rail may be as big as we dare to dream. I'm beginning to think that the city could set its sights way higher, and may be stuck in a bit of a cow town mentality here.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by mr1138

The A-line cost over $2 billion.

A-Line didn't cost $2 billion. It was actually much cheaper. The entirety of the Eagle P3 did (A, G, B Segment).

Eagle P3 is part of RTD’s 2004 voter-approved FasTracks plan to expand transit across the Denver metro region.

The $2.2 billion project comprises the East Rail and Gold lines, the first segment of the Northwest Rail Line to Westminster, procurement of 54 commuter rail cars and a commuter rail maintenance facility, all scheduled for completion in 2016.

Look, the Denver region made its bed. They chose to build a commuter, suburb to downtown, focused system largely built on the notion of park-n-rides. Arguably, it's really the only system that could have been built politically. If a system was built only for need, it would be substantially more Denver focused and other municipalities would have never voted for it. At least not in 2004. If anything, we would have gotten a much smaller, more concentrated system, with a couple lines - maybe. And maybe that would have been better, but we'll never know.

Having said that, it's also important to take into account the long-play. What we have now (commuter, park-n-ride) will eventually (50-100 years) evolve into the region's best hope for more efficient/sustainable growth and density. It effectively shifts some (not all or close to all) development to station areas with somewhat higher densities than would be built if not for the system. Lone Tree, for instance, would never be working toward TOD type of densities without the SE Line. Albeit mostly still car focused unfortunately.

Now, being realistic, even then, most of the true TOD opportunity still lies in Denver - places where it's possible to replace parking with enough housing density and office intensity to make up for park-n-ride ridership (it takes a shit ton of units to replace parking). And ridership is/was the greatest determinant for Federal funding. The formula basically requires immediate built-in ridership opening day and horizon year (like 2030). We chose this reality based on my above statements.

So, we have a fixed guideway system that's car-oriented now, but has potential to be a driver of "better" growth if folks put into place the right policies and make the right choices. It CAN be a good system in the long run.

However, Denver specifically, has a huge need now. The current system does not service the highest density, most transit-dependent areas of the region (majority being in Denver proper). These neighborhoods are dependent on a bus system that has not expanded (in any meaningful way) for a long time (mostly due to fact that FasTracks has taken all attention).

It leaves Denver in a precarious spot - one that likely requires it (Denver) to get more involved in the future of transit. Hence, why the city has finally started the conversation with Denver Moves: Transit.

What hopefully comes out of this is a blueprint of studies/projects that will define what transit is for Denver, how the city wants to continue to grow, and what investments (likely Denver alone) will have to be made to get there.

Without a real mechanism for funding transit above and beyond what RTD provides, it's unlikely we will see capital intensive projects like a subway. And with the Fed CIG program (Small/New Starts) and TIGER likely being cut over the next few years (maybe this year in their entirety), Federal help is less likely.

That leaves Denver with a big decision. Find a way build the recommendations that come out of Denver Moves: Transit, Denver Moves: Bikes, and Denver Moves: Peds + Trails, or continue to grow without true alternatives and face the consequences of that dependence on a single mode - ultimately suffocating ourselves with high cost of housing and high cost transportation.

Would love to hear other opinions.

[mr1138]

^Thanks for the correction. I seemed to remember it being slightly over $1 billion, but the article I looked up this morning for the number must've been quoting the full Eagle P3. Ultimately, comparing a subway to a commuter rail line is like comparing apples to oranges anyway. It's really a values judgment if a given piece of infrastructure is worth the cost. And I think the Seattle example is still worth thinking about.

I completely agree with your assessment. Fasttracks is a very good investment for the metro area, even if it isn't perfect, and it's hard to imagine anything else having made sense in 2004. But it's been over 10 years now, and the city center has some very real needs that Fastracks doesn't address in the slightest. It's time for the city to think about turning the page and think about what BIG idea comes next.

[TakeFive]

PLANSIT... That's easily the best comment of yours I've ever read.

Originally Posted by mr1138

Interesting to see you all talk about Seattle here, as I was just thinking about how Seattle recently completed the University Link Tunnel light rail - about 20 years in planning, and 3.15 miles of tunnel for under $2 billion.

That was an amazing extension with a fascinating history. The Seattle Times just reported that the ridership in Feb was nearly 75% higher than Feb of 2016. Opening the University of Washington and Capitol Hill stations is a one-time highly unique event. Ridership quickly increased by 50%. I don't see it as analogous to a downtown to Cherry Creek line.

I'm not familiar enough with Seattle to articulate a lot but it's clear that while there are similarities there is also some Yuge differences. The most glaring difference that jumps out (for me) is Amazon.

Amazon is in the process of accumulating 10 million square feet of office space by 2019 with a revised goal of attaining 12 million square feet by 2022. That includes their new campus just north of downtown which employs 25,000 people and around downtown, especially in the Union Lake neighborhood and now in the Denny Triangle neighborhood where they just leased all of a still under construction 306,000-square-foot office building. 12 million square feet is the equivalent of of TEN Republic Plaza's or if you prefer, five of those and five "cash register" buildings. And don't forget today's much more compact and efficient use of space per employee. On an unrelated but interesting note Jeff Bezos has had a good week. He just became the 2nd richest person in the world about $10 billion behind Bill Gates.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

...a high(er) speed transit line that connects downtown, Cherry Creek, Glendale and all the way to Nine Mile. There's more ridership between Glendale and Cherry Creek then between downtown and Cherry Creek and we'd be fools if we think that Country Club is an underserved area where ridership would boom if not for the lack of a trolley.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But how does that benefit the other users along the corridor in Glendale, all along Leetsdale and down Parker, and Nine Mile? While roughly a third of transit usage is realized in the span between CC and downtown, the vast majority of that usage are people traveling in from further down the corridor.

...there's been practically no talk of what happens outside of CC and downtown (which is the more important discussion), but the highest profile portion (with the least benefit on the whole) is downtown to CC.

I gotta support my good friend wong although Cirrus makes good points too. I'll call it the Best of Both Worlds.

The Urban Segment
I'd define as downtown to Colorado Blvd/Glendale. Connecting two employment centers can't be a bad thing ofc but the notion of much retail customer traffic... I don't see it either. Unlike Old Town Scottsdale which attracts large crowds of $30,000-a-year millionaires to their nightlife, in Denver that belongs to LoDo. Is there longer term potential for growing ridership? Sure.

Still, I interestingly see potential for after-hours and weekend traffic being strong. I see the draw as starting with the cultural arts venues and all those interesting shops and entertainment venues along So Broadway. Consider the great access provided for all those large weekend events at Civic Center Park - or even downtown. But a lot of that ridership would come from.....

The Commuter Segment
I'll define as from Colorado Blvd as far as you wish to imagine along Leesdale/Parker Rd and Mississippi Ave.

For reference visualize the intersection of Leetsdale/Parker with Mississippi Ave and the High Line Canal Trail. The Indian Creek neighborhood between Quebec and the High Line Trail and from Parker to Iliff Ave was densely developed with patio homes, townhomes, condos and apartments. That was density at that time and still reflects good suburban density. Also access to the Cherry Creek Trail to the west is easy.

Riding the HL trail south of Iliff along a golf course to the west and between the HL trail and Parker Rd we find very nice townhomes, condos, plus a very affordable condo project and three nice Simpson-built (all-brick) apartment communities. On the south end next to Babi Yar Park and sort of tucked away is a Jewish-oriented patio home community.

Jumping to Parker Rd between Iliff and Mississippi and Parker to Havana is a dense area of moderately priced townhomes and condos but mostly a great variety of apartments including some designated affordable housing.

Most of the density west of Parker Rd is more upscale with a professional profile and lies within Unincorporated Arapahoe County. That plus everything south of Mississippi from Parker Rd to Peoria lies within Cherry Creek School District. Including the homes east of Havana, this area appeals to many Asian families who want to be in CCSD. The more dense areas east of Parker Rd provide more affordable options for all manner of demographics desiring CCSD.

Along Leetsdale Dr and So Monaco Pkwy are many denser areas. This corridor just cries out for a light rail line and wong is correct to emphasize the value of the Whole Corridor.

[COS]

Love the breakdown of what's currently in the commuter segment, and I also think there's huge potential for a transit line to spur even more development along the corridor. There are so many areas which have lots that could be developed with for sale units. And TakeFive hits in on the head with the assessment that there's a good mix of all types of demographics, and the continued development wouldn't have to rely on single demographic to get their sales.