DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by laniroj

RTD's prices are a joke and if not the highest, among the highest in the country. While there's no science or data behind it, I believe that's a main reason for their ridership issues. As they dig their heels in for a poorly planned system, they raise prices to maintain revenue. Local planning hasn't done a damn thing to help them though.

Regarding ride shares, until a better alternative comes along people will continue utilizing ride share services. I,

yeah, uber makes plenty of sense for consumers. unfortunately it's robbing every other mode in the system by playing with a different playing field. rtd has to pay their employees. uber really doesn't. it's a labor isssue along with just being a disaster for any other option out there.

again, until we make uber pay their fair share, rtd will never be able to become the best option.

[TakeFive]

Confluence Cos makes Sunnyside relevant with both condos and apartments

Project Snapshot: Zia Sunnyside
November 12, 2019 By Thomas Gounley - BusinessDen

Sunnyside hasn’t seen scale like this before. At the neighborhood’s eastern edge, along the railroad tracks, single-family homes have historically given way to small industrial tenants. But now, there’s a construction site that spans an entire block. Dubbed Zia Sunnyside, the two-building project ranges from between six and eight stories, and is set to include a mix of condos and apartments, some of which are income-restricted.

All photos by Thomas Gounley via BusinessDen




...

The finished product:


Courtesy Confluence/Craine Architecture

Due Date: Spring of 2020

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That's interesting. The R Line should have been routed along I-225 for better speed and if Aurora wanted the "city center shuttle" that should have been separate and Aurora should have had to pay for a good portion of the cost.

The R Line should actually run from the Belleview Station then along I-225 up to Peoria Station.

Yeah, exactly. It takes forever to wind around Anschutz, makes stops where 1 or 2 people get on/off, crawls under the freeway, stops again for nobody, twice, then crawls around the Aurora mall. That's what makes it all so useless for me. I only take it if there's snow and need to be in the office. Then it actually saves me time, and no threat of getting in a wreck.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive;

[U

But there's plenty of data; after RTD's fare increase in January:[/U]

• 1st quarter bus ridership was up 11%
• 1st quarter light rail ridership was down 11%
• 1st quarter commuter rail was up 4%

After the 2nd quarter when light rail started to bounce back, the year-to-date numbers:

• Bus ridership up 8.5%
• Light rail ridership down 6.7%
• Commuter rail was up over 17%

Total RTD ridership for all modes after two quarters was 48.5 million (trips) while in 2018 after two quarters total ridership was 49.0 million.

Just a guess that by the end of the year total ridership will equal 2018 or even surpass it by a little.

Your comments and mine have strange timing.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/12/rtd-fares-regional-n-line/

Apparently RTD sees the ridership issue too.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/12/rtd-fares-regional-n-line/

You're comparing terrible numbers through percentage increases, it's not super relevant. What RTD should be doing is lobby every damn municipality their trains run through and convincing them that hundreds of thousands of housing units need to be built adjacent to their tracks. Does RTD do that? I'm guessing not because why would the G ever sell their own product sensibly?!

Perhaps all the people angry with growth in Colorado will just get so frustrated they leave, paving the way for the density we need to make the transit system a worthwhile investment, among other important reasons.

[TakeFive]

This is wrong-headed IMO

RTD will lower its fares when the regional N Line to Thornton opens next year in a pilot to boost sagging ridership.
For those of you who are subscribers; the headline was enough for me.

What RTD should do if it wants to promote better ridership is follow the lead of what other agencies have tried specifically SANDAG in San Diego.


Commuters use the Green Line. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Free Ride Day | San Diego Metropolitan Transit System

On October 2nd we're opening up our whole system again to show how MTS can change the way San Diego moves.

That's right - on October 2 all fixed route MTS buses and all three Trolley lines will be TOTALLY FREE* to ride. That includes our non-stop Rapid Express services from the I-15 to downtown - Rapid Express 280 (Escondido to downtown), Rapid Express 290 (Rancho Bernardo to downtown) - plus the newest limited-stop Rapid route from Otay Mesa and east Chula Vista to downtown - Rapid 225.

This year, Free Ride Day is also California's Clean Air Day, so when you choose transit October 2, you're helping to keep the Golden State golden.

This is not the first time MTS has done this. I recall their having great success a year ago.

Trips on MTS Buses and Trolleys Spike by 47,000 on ‘Free Ride Day’
OCTOBER 4, 2018 BY CHRIS JENNEWEIN - Times of San Diego

The Metropolitan Transit System recorded 47,000 additional trips — a 15 percent increase — during the “Free Ride Day” on Tuesday.

Trolley ridership was up by 19 percent, and MTS bus ridership by 12 percent. The Sycuan Green Line had the biggest jump in the system, increasing by 37 percent or 13,000 extra passenger trips over the same day last year.

FYI, in San Diego they call their light rail "Trolleys."

With respect to light/commuter rail, why not pick a month (say June) and make every Friday "Free Ride to Work Day". The idea is obviously to get new people to try the system, what it's like to use a Park N Ride or other means to get to the station and then reinforce the promotion.

[TakeFive]

RTD isn't as bad as some may think.

Originally Posted by laniroj

You're comparing terrible numbers through percentage increases, it's not super relevant.

Houston rebuilt its bus network from scratch in August of 2015 and enjoyed a nice bump in ridership as a result. Subsequently, the 5th largest MSA with seven million people now equals RTD's ridership which is the 19th largest MSA with three million people.

Originally Posted by laniroj

What RTD should be doing is lobby every damn municipality their trains run through and convincing them that hundreds of thousands of housing units need to be built adjacent to their tracks. Does RTD do that? I'm guessing not because why would the G ever sell their own product sensibly?!

I appreciate your frustration but you're preaching to the choir on this site. Plus you're thinking ahead three decades which is fine.

Prior to and in conjunction with the FasTracks vote and implementation most cities including specifically Denver, Lakewood, Arvada and Aurora did do extensive planning along with RTD for future TOD. Planning and good intentions, unfortunately aren't the same as doing.

My issues go to RTD being dysfunctional due to an outdated system and thinking as wong alluded to but that's another topic better discussed on the Transportation thread.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Free Ride Day | San Diego Metropolitan Transit System

This is not the first time MTS has done this. I recall their having great success a year ago.

Trips on MTS Buses and Trolleys Spike by 47,000 on ‘Free Ride Day’
OCTOBER 4, 2018 BY CHRIS JENNEWEIN - Times of San Diego

FYI, in San Diego they call their light rail "Trolleys."

With respect to light/commuter rail, why not pick a month (say June) and make every Friday "Free Ride to Work Day". The idea is obviously to get new people to try the system, what it's like to use a Park N Ride or other means to get to the station and then reinforce the promotion.

Indianapolis is currently doing this with their new Red Line BRT line. Get people to "try before you buy", get them hooked on the efficiency of it, then they'll find justification to give $$ toward it in the future.

[DenvertoLA]

That Ridge Gate video makes me want to puke

There is nothing sustainable about sprawl no matter how they spin it. I grew up in Parker in the 2000s. Glad I got out of there.


Colorado needs some land use reform IMO

[The Dirt]

That's a shit ton of greenfield land behind gobbled up for only 8k new homes. The 350 affordable homes is plain laughable. Also, office campuses on the periphery? Welcome to early 90s planning.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

That Ridge Gate video makes me want to puke

There is nothing sustainable about sprawl no matter how they spin it. I grew up in Parker in the 2000s. Glad I got out of there.

I suspect that sustainability means different things to different people. They do include a ton of open space. It may be that an overview video leaves out a lot of detail that will become more apparent over time. They got a nice start when Kiewitt chose Lone Tree for their new regional campus being designed by Stantec. The 400 acre City Center SE of I-25 and Lincoln will be the densest area and will be surrounded by three mixed-use mixed density villages.

That said, it's a suburban approach to mixed-use and mixed density which may not be to your taste.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I really didn't see anything in that Ridgegate video that seemed to suggest that it would be sprawling like Parker or Highlands Ranch. Rather, I saw a Cherry Creek North-sized mixed used area built around the Lone Tree City Center light rail stop. Lone Tree is still a suburb so you are going to see more low to moderate density housing than you would see in Denver. Plus, Lone Tree has a free shuttle service that would further connect the different office campuses and housing villages. I don't think it's bad for a suburb.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That said, it's a suburban approach to mixed-use and mixed density which may not be to your taste.

Spot on. The issue is that many people still prefer the suburbs and sprawl WILL occur no matter how much some of us don't want it to - we can't just become mother russia and say, "no you can't do this". So, if it's going to sprawl, it might as well have as much density as possible with employment centers and neighborhood amenities as close to the density as possible. Think if DTC had this kind of density instead of mcmansions surrounding it, that would take a whole lotta cars off the roads.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Spot on. The issue is that many people still prefer the suburbs and sprawl WILL occur no matter how much some of us don't want it to - we can't just become mother russia and say, "no you can't do this". So, if it's going to sprawl, it might as well have as much density as possible with employment centers and neighborhood amenities as close to the density as possible. Think if DTC had this kind of density instead of mcmansions surrounding it, that would take a whole lotta cars off the roads.

Right. Lone Tree is doing their part to take cars off the road. Beyond explicitly mentioning that as a goal on Ridge Gate's website, they forked over A LOT of money to get those light rail extensions. Some people might be mad that 25% of the SE area is being preserved for natural uses but I think that is a fair exchange to the extent that it enhances the desirability of the area and results in 30,000 more people actually moving there.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Spot on. The issue is that many people still prefer the suburbs and sprawl WILL occur no matter how much some of us don't want it to - we can't just become mother russia and say, "no you can't do this". So, if it's going to sprawl, it might as well have as much density as possible with employment centers and neighborhood amenities as close to the density as possible. Think if DTC had this kind of density instead of mcmansions surrounding it, that would take a whole lotta cars off the roads.

Sure you can. Growth boundaries mandated at the state level. It's common in the US.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure you can. Growth boundaries mandated at the state level. It's common in the US.

Well, Colorado isn't on the Left Coast. Common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary#United_States

The U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Tennessee require cities to establish urban growth boundaries. California requires each county to have a Local Agency Formation Commission, which sets urban growth boundaries for each city and town in the county.

Notable U.S. cities which have adopted UGBs include Portland, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii;[12] Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lexington, Kentucky; Seattle, Washington; and San Jose, California. Urban growth boundaries also exist in Miami-Dade County, Florida and the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota.

So outside cities then... and everyone 'round these parts is familiar with the mess that Liberal Elitist Boulder is. With Miami it's about protecting the Everglades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Range_Urban_Corridor

The Front Range Urban Corridor stretches from Pueblo, Colorado, north along Interstate 25 to Cheyenne, Wyoming.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I really didn't see anything in that Ridgegate video that seemed to suggest that it would be sprawling like Parker or Highlands Ranch.

The 8000 new detached homes hints at massive sprawl. It's great this community has a train station, but only a % of homeowners will use it. It's developments like this is that create traffic.

With this development $100 of millions of investment on infrastructure will be needed for new piping, roads etc. It would be more effective to spend that on renewing current infrastructure and find a location for these 8000 homes in existing urban areas, like that huge urban ranch people were talking about a few weeks back.

It's not elitist to commit to smart growth as long as economic accessibility is central.
There is a real debate on what smart growth looks like, but uninhibited suburban developments like this have proven not to be the solution. They are solely focused on the developers profits, not the tax payers cost effectiveness of maintaining the development or the cohesiveness of the greater Denver community.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well, Colorado isn't on the Left Coast. Common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary#United_States

So outside cities then... and everyone 'round these parts is familiar with the mess that Liberal Elitist Boulder is. With Miami it's about protecting the Everglades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Range_Urban_Corridor

A lot of people would argue that mountains, prairie, farmland, and rangeland are worth saving. There's a ton of US precedent as you've shown. It's simply a question of will.

BTW, Wikipedia appears to omit the essential role of counties in my state at least, because non-incorporated places are crucial. Far more than fully built-out central cities in this case.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

The 8000 new detached homes hints at massive sprawl. It's great this community has a train station, but only a % of homeowners will use it. It's developments like this is that create traffic.

With this development $100 of millions of investment on infrastructure will be needed for new piping, roads etc. It would be more effective to spend that on renewing current infrastructure and find a location for these 8000 homes in existing urban areas, like that huge urban ranch people were talking about a few weeks back.

It's not elitist to commit to smart growth as long as economic accessibility is central.
There is a real debate on what smart growth looks like, but uninhibited suburban developments like this have proven not to be the solution. They are solely focused on the developers profits, not the tax payers cost effectiveness of maintaining the development or the cohesiveness of the greater Denver community.

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

Well done. I instinctively guessed that Lone Tree might be denser than Denver; I was certain it would be denser than Denver outside the core city.

Best I can recall Parker to the east/SE is mostly upscale 'country' development. Certainly west of Parker it's standard suburban sprawl. Totally different from what Lone Tree will be.

Originally Posted by mhays

A lot of people would argue that mountains, prairie, farmland, and rangeland are worth saving. There's a ton of US precedent as you've shown. It's simply a question of will.

The western slope of Colorado, while growing is mostly dense development. Those mountains are sacred. There's no shortage of farmland or rangeland either although not nearly as revered.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Another important consideration is that Lone Tree is much less of a bedroom community than Parker, Highlands Ranch, or virtually any other Denver metro suburb. Charles Schwab, Sky Ridge Medical Center, Park Meadows, and soon Kiewitt are all massive employers. The eastern edge of Ridge Gate is going to be mixed use with a significant amount of office and retail space. I don't have a special attachment to Lone Tree beyond the fact that they seem to be growing more smartly than any other regional suburb that I can think of.