DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If you want a fun fact RTD did look at tying into the CBD with LRT down Broadway in the early 2000's. You would have rail from I-25 & Broadway going past the Capitol, Civic Center Station, and tying into the existing downtown loop. There were concerns about wires disrupting the view of the Capitol from Civic Center Park, along with other issues, and RTD ultimately went with additional trackage in the CPV.

There's a few things that RTD could do to improve train frequency downtown for relatively cheap; but, given the total resource allocation to FasTracks asides from O&M, nothing is likely to happen.

This is definitely fun to imagine - though it makes me question if at this point service along Speer connecting to Cherry Creek (or somehow through Cap Hill) wouldn't be more useful given the redundancy of the C,D,E,F,H lines all connecting to I25/Broadway anyway.

Speaking of train frequency improvements and resource allocation - something that recently caught my eye is in the CDOT Central I-25 PEL where they mention "a long-term capacity need of RTD is the addition of two additional light rail tracks between I-25 and
Broadway and the Colfax Junction" and depict this as a potential component of various I-25 alternatives (perhaps funded independently of FasTracks???).

Is anybody here savvy enough with light rail operations to understand the full implications of this? Is this to allow for the possibility of express routes that skip certain stops? Somebody recently suggested to me that it may be to allow W-line trains to enter the Stout/California loop, but I'm not entirely clear how new tracks along the Central corridor would help in this regard. Much of what I know about light rail trains I learned from this forum so I figured I'd put this question out there while on the topic!

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Those are all fair points although your numbers are a little off. Ride-sharing is popular for legitimate reasons and I don't expect those reasons to disappear. However, my interest is in having a city, like San Francisco or New York, where you have options. Rail is not the sole solution but a tool upon which to direct future development of the city alongside other multimodal options, such as ride-sharing, bikes, scooters, buses, regular cars, etc... I would just like to avoid the car-dependent fate of Los Angeles and Houston. I think that is desirable for a litany of important reasons.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/23/electric-cars-transport-train-companies


https://futurism.com/the-byte/researcher-electric-cars-arent-answer-climate-change


https://phys.org/news/2020-09-electric-vehicles-wont-climate.html

Finally, this:

these opinion pieces seem disingenuous and miss the point.

1. the first article doesn't understand that future EV will be solar powered. So we can ignore that one.

2.The second article suggests we're in bad health because of cars and cars are scary? This is just stupid. Denver is the healthiest city in the country just about and there are plenty of cars about. Cars are scary, but we also know autonomous vehicles are going to be much safer for everybody. It's also absurd to think we'll all just be fine bicycling everywhere or happy to walk miles to get our groceries and somehow haul them back home.

3. Same thing as before. The goal isn't to plug your car into the wall. Eliminating the need to travel is a strange concept at well. Everybody stay home!

4. Streets are for transportation. I don't even know what the point is of that montage, honestly. You cannot take a train door to door. Most cannot take a bike anywhere. Cars moving freely without the constraints of human drivers will do just that. They'll get you directly from point A to point B efficiently and safely. Contrast that with the death traps that are bicycles. It's also pretty thin reasoning to say that roads take from potential green spaces without mentioning that everything else in a city that's not a green space does the same thing. And with autonomous vehicles, you could easily convert some or many streets to ped/bike only without losing anything, especially since one won't need to worry about parking a car right next to their destination. drop off locations and such could easily be designed to integrate with a multi modeled approach.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Those are all fair points although your numbers are a little off. Ride-sharing is popular for legitimate reasons and I don't expect those reasons to disappear. However, my interest is in having a city, like San Francisco or New York, where you have options. Rail is not the sole solution but a tool upon which to direct future development of the city alongside other multimodal options, such as ride-sharing, bikes, scooters, buses, regular cars, etc... I would just like to avoid the car-dependent fate of Los Angeles and Houston. I think that is desirable for a litany of important reasons.

if we want to make trains viable in the near/medium term going forward, we have to force uber to compete fairly. i just don't see the political will to do so from our city, even though we'd all benefit. this really goes to the unequal economy we face and the desperation that drives people to drive for uber in the first place.

i've been very outspoken about uber for a long time and right before covid i put my money where my mouth was and signed up to be a driver to see firsthand what was going on. everything i'd read about it was true. you don't make any money at all when considering expenses and depreciation, and the riders are absolutely getting from point a to point b at artificially low rates, in large part supplemented by the unsuspecting driver.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Pro-employer biases in our labor laws (employee vs independent contractor) seems to subsize the cost of ride-sharing. Many of us here would also argue that there are many other built-in subsidies that make driving a car much less expensive than it should be if all the externalities are accounted for.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If you want a fun fact RTD did look at tying into the CBD with LRT down Broadway in the early 2000's. You would have rail from I-25 & Broadway going past the Capitol, Civic Center Station, and tying into the existing downtown loop. There were concerns about wires disrupting the view of the Capitol from Civic Center Park, along with other issues, and RTD ultimately went with additional trackage in the CPV.

I'll be darned; I did not I know that.

Of course, it's all about those views.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Interesting comments, TakeFive. I didn't know about those service reductions. Imagine how much better the system would work if the south corridors went underground at I-25 and Broadway and went straight North with stops at Broadway and Alameda, Broadway & 6th, Denver Art Museum/Denver Public Library, Civic Center Station, 16th and Stout/Convention Center, 16th and Market, and then Denver Union Station. Fun to retrospectively envision those possibilities but we have to work around the system that we have.

It's easy to forget as wong points out with respect to the T-REX SE Corridor project how much has changed since then.

It was also the early 2000's when the FasTracks plan was created for a 2004 vote approval. At that time, there's wasn't that much density downtown; but it was the hub for (most) all the government employment as well as typical banking and other professional services.

Now, fast forward to include all the changes in density (patterns) including the growing density along So Broadway. Really, light rail would still be your best choice. The growing density along So Broadway, mostly north of Speer would make the route part commuter, part local service. Putting the train underground wouldn't speed up trips unless you're spacing out your stations which would be counterproductive in serving local neighborhood traffic including businesses.

Not to be a Spoilsport by why not?

The biggest obstacle would be funding. The 7-county RTD district wouldn't be interested in funding Denver city center subways. That means it would be up to the City of Denver taxpayer-voters; I don't see Denver city-wide voters wanting to cover the significant costs for a 'neighborhood' subway either.

No harm in speculating about what could have been, of course.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

This is definitely fun to imagine - though it makes me question if at this point service along Speer connecting to Cherry Creek (or somehow through Cap Hill) wouldn't be more useful given the redundancy of the C,D,E,F,H lines all connecting to I25/Broadway anyway.

As I pointed out above, currently, there is no C Line nor any F Line service. The E and H Lines ofc diverge at I-225.

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

i've been very outspoken about uber for a long time and right before covid i put my money where my mouth was and signed up to be a driver to see firsthand what was going on. everything i'd read about it was true. you don't make any money at all when considering expenses and depreciation, and the riders are absolutely getting from point a to point b at artificially low rates, in large part supplemented by the unsuspecting driver.

Won't say it's easy but down here many are still making $1,000 to $1,500 per week or maybe I should say in a good week. The key is that as much as 40% of your income should come from the various bonus options, add in tips and you may need to drive as much as 50 hours a week.

You do make some great comments above and I'd agree with much of what you've pointed out.

With Rideshare the convenience is huge and as you point out can often be just as economical.

bunt also alludes to a couple of things beyond convenience and that is safety and privacy along with the ability to zone out on your cell phone or review work.

At one end of the spectrum, strippers may expose everything but when it's time to go home they want the privacy, safety and ability to zone out that rideshare gives them. Same goes for many food service workers. They may even take a bus to work but AFTER work they want a rideshare trip home for any combination of the above reasons and the gals are very concerned about their safety.

BTW, one of my (blog) friends has shifted to Uber Eats delivery from rideshare. He works the area where he lives: businesses and mostly single family neighborhoods. He's making the same money with much less wear and tear on his vehicle. Uber is just trying to survive these COVID times like everybody else.

Soon as I get my vaccine shots, I can't wait to get back out there. I won't make as much money as others since I'm not interested in driving full-time hours.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Speaking of train frequency improvements and resource allocation - something that recently caught my eye is in the CDOT Central I-25 PEL where they mention "a long-term capacity need of RTD is the addition of two additional light rail tracks between I-25 and
Broadway and the Colfax Junction" and depict this as a potential component of various I-25 alternatives (perhaps funded independently of FasTracks???).

I don’t believe I have ever seen a comment on this from RTD - only the passing mention in that CDOT document. My cynical side says it is a way for CDOT to help push through the highway widening with a small carrot, but maybe there are people there that actually care about the rail system working for CDOT.

I also saw today that a day after RTD’s new CEO floated killing the Boulder/Longmont train, the Governor’s climate roadmap included a statement that the state is “working to ensure that RTD funds completion” of it. I have a suspicion that CDOT will eventually fold the line into it’s Front Range Passenger Rail project and hope for helicopter loads of infrastructure cash from the Biden administration:

https://twitter.com/nbminor/status/1349801038384041985?s=21

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Pro-employer biases in our labor laws (employee vs independent contractor) seems to subsize the cost of ride-sharing. Many of us here would also argue that there are many other built-in subsidies that make driving a car much less expensive than it should be if all the externalities are accounted for.

That borders on being Trumpism. People just make up stuff to fit their agenda.

Not only do car owners pay for the capital and maintenance costs of their car they also pay for the capital and maintenance costs for roads. In addition car owners also pay for most of the capital and maintenance costs of transit systems and even help subsidize the fares of riders. It's called taxes and fees.

Rideshare 'costs' are what they are as a result of free markets.

https://careertrend.com/types-of-independent-contractor-jobs-13654945.html

Consultants, small businesses, trades people, artisans and self-employed individuals in general can all be termed independent contractors in certain situations, and many jobs would easily fall into all of the example types.

Consultants
Advisers, whether in the legal, financial, health care, or personal services sectors of the economy all may classify as independent contractors
Trades People
Electricians, plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, painters, hair stylists, wedding planners, auto mechanics, florists, and many other skilled workers that specialize in a trade can be regarded as independent contractors,
Artists
Many individuals who work in the arts and crafts industry fit the definition for independent contractors. Examples include glass cutters, woodworkers, musicians, photographers, graphic designers, sculptors and writers

Other examples would include truck drivers that deliver everything that we depend on in our daily lives. Most blog writers and many media writers are also independent contractors.

Originally Posted by jhwk

I don’t believe I have ever seen a comment on this from RTD - only the passing mention in that CDOT document. My cynical side says it is a way for CDOT to help push through the highway widening with a small carrot, but maybe there are people there that actually care about the rail system working for CDOT.

Pretty sure there has been some intensive but preliminary analysis for this. bunt or EngiNerd may be able to provide a link to source material?

[gopokes21]

Pleasantly surprised to have sparked a pretty substantive local discussion on a worldwide urbanism forum. I just wanted to respond or add to several points by several posters.

1. jhwk.- I didn't realize the technical issues with the southern lines, but I say that as someone who isn't quite sure why they are better-served than any other region (besides timing, T-REX and politics). They still enjoy the best rail coverage and the nesting of routes to strategically provide one-seat rides (as much as possible) is great.

2. TakeFive - the reason East Colfax BRT is a boondoggle is (exactly as you point out) that the 15 Bus serves like 50,000 riders a day. Does anyone really think BRT ridership (nicer bus with glorified streetscape elements) will exceed marginal ridership growth? Okay maybe 60-70,000 riders per day, after spending $500 million on BRT. It will also require a complete rebuild of the narrowest section of Colfax for 2+ years. Subway, on the other hand, would absolutely multiply ridership given our pre-existing density and strong market trends toward TOD.

3. mr1138 - I 100% agree that Baker isn't practically served, but it is still transit-adjacent and I don't know why that station can't be added at Santa Fe. I actually literally asked RTD to look into this (just as a citizen) and the response I got was NEPA review process and stuff. All of that said, Baker and adjacent neighborhoods are infinitely better served than Cap Hill and adjacent neighborhoods, which is the bullseye for urban density around here. We can all agree that the #10 bus on 12th Street, which usually doesn't even stop for new riders during rush hour bc it's so overfilled, is not cutting it. I hate to pit neighborhoods against each other but we really need to bring transit into that bullseye of urban density above all other goals. Being that it just so happens to also be a logistically ideal dual-hub corridor (Downtown to Cherry Creek), this really seems like the focus of future transit need.

4. SirLucas - one of the problems with Transit Agency planning processes is that they are overly stakeholder-focused. Their planning processes do not account for ubiquitous ridership but always assume the rider is traveling to a stakeholder destination like pro sports games, Downtown offices, or a college campus. They do not serve people just going shopping say for groceries or clothes, or going out to bars / restaurants. They don't plan to pick up informal ridership but rather from landmarks on a map. The untapped transit potential in Denver is to actually serve people along natural corridors and in between points on a map.

5. TakeFive - you're 100% right that a 7-county region wouldn't be interested in raising taxes to fund subways in Denver. There may not be a future for Denver in RTD, just as Boulder is considering its options as well. RTD may be better off providing a regional network with commuter rail and reduced baseline bus service, and Boulder and Denver (or other cities) supplementing with their own systems. This is actually a pretty common model and examples include Detroit/SE Michigan and WMATA/DC Connector. Regardless the bottom line is if Denver isn't getting anything out of RTD besides commuter rail to the suburbs, why should we continue paying into that?

6. Re: Uber/Lyft - Regardless of how to make money doing it (I did it in grad school and agree that you have to hit concerts and bar crowds in order to make any money) the bottom line is that the model doesn't work for all or even most drivers. The rides are definitely artificially subsidized off the backs of workers who Uber/Lyft won't even own. It is completely inevitable that regulators clamp down on this and then you'll have most urbanites needing public transit again.

Bottom Line: Denver is growing dangerously fast to not be investing in transformative transit improvements. More LRT or BRT is just tinkering around the edges of infrastructure investment and we are long overdue to go underground and truly maximize potential efficiencies. We have actually invested over $7 billion for a transit network that nobody really loves because we're too spread out, too incremental and only operate within a very small box. RTD is at a breaking point and something has to change, either for better or worse.

[PLANSIT]

East Colfax BRT will likely end up in the $200-$250M range.

The 15 carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic
The 15L carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic

Please don’t make up facts for argument’s sake.


We aren’t getting a subway.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

East Colfax BRT will likely end up in the $200-$250M range.

The 15 carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic
The 15L carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic

Please don’t make up facts for argument’s sake.


We aren’t getting a subway.

Thanks for the quick reality check on Colfax. A $250M investment that will likely double ridership on a major transit corridor is a no-brainer. Especially as that same amount might get you a half-mile of subway if we're lucky.

Now if Biden does get an infrastructure plan pushed through composed of a couple of trillion dollars what would that get the Denver Metro? Colfax BRT for sure. Probably Front Range Rail, the fix of I-25 through the Valley, Boulder to Longmont BRT, maybe the other extensions of FasTracks (assuming that the NW line is rolled up into Front Range Rail). What else do you think? A couple other BRT lines? I-270?

[gopokes21]

Wong - What you just described above is what I call the nightmare scenario for Denver. How can we spend more billions of dollars to serve as few people as possible (but as many different counties as possible yay!) with a system nobody really likes. Another grab bag for the region that provides nothing to Denver proper, which will continue to see the bulk of development.

Also I truly fail to see what is so wrong with I-25 - bc it's slow at 5 o'clock, in the middle of a Top 15 largest and Top 4 fastest growing metro?? It's already being "fixed" in the gap south of Castle Rock and its already in advanced stages of induced traffic cycles (earlier than even projected). Building our way out of I-25 congestion is a lot less likely than reducing congestion by providing more viable transit alternatives. It would honestly help more suburban commuters to explore a full freeway upgrade for Parker Road, providing an alternative to 25.

Why should Denver pay into another transportation package that doesn't really benefit Denver any? Especially after we have (very astutely) paid for the BRT experiment ourselves? Subway or bust, seriously. Why should Seattle, Austin, Pittsburgh and other peer cities and/or lower tier cities have subway but not Denver? Even my home town of Dallas (ew) has 1-2 mile sections of subway.

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

East Colfax BRT will likely end up in the $200-$250M range.

The 15 carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic
The 15L carries ~11k per day pre-pandemic

Please don’t make up facts for argument’s sake.


We aren’t getting a subway.

Sorry, I was confusing it with the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts for some stretches of Colfax, which I saw in the East NPI Plan. Thanks for the correction on ridership, but you're also shorting it by nearly 10%. Combined the two carry around 24,000 riders, and pandemic numbers are obviously not relevant.

Source:
https://www.rtd-denver.com/projects/east...(15,than%20some%20RTD%20rail%20corridors.

Unfortunately this means that prospective BRT ridership will be much lower than I had spit balled. Again BRT only provides incremental improvement rather than multiplying ridership. Maybe it will grow ridership by 50% but the actual service will be slower than the 15L and signal prioritization never works with urban BRT corridors.

There is no way that the Colfax BRT costs less than $250 million, but at least it's not RTD's problem as the City will provide I believe $77 million for the required FTA match. I believe FTA dropped the local match requirement down to 20% so that will be good for around $350 million.

__

In Cleveland, whose HealthLine is considered the national gold standard for BRT, the BRT similarly replaced their region's busiest bus route along the eastside's main drag. Their $200 million, 7.1-mile BRT (funded in 2005) system only increased ridership by 48%. This is despite (allegedly) over $9 billion in "TOD." This for a line that serves a much higher share of transit-dependent riders in a denser, older urban environment that's also seen about as much infill and new development as east Denver. This is the best comparable for what to expect.

It also literally takes about 45 minutes for a rush hour trip on just the 4-mile central stretch between downtown Cleveland and University Circle. Not only does signal prioritization not work well for urban BRTs but it often makes things worse as each signal has to have a separate signal cycle for each traffic movement per FTA.

http://www.riderta.com/healthline/about

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Now if Biden does get an infrastructure plan pushed through composed of a couple of trillion dollars what would that get Denver? Colfax BRT for sure. Probably Front Range Rail, the fix of I-25 through the Valley, Boulder to Longmont BRT, maybe the other extension of FasTracks. What else do you think?

Pure Politics
Both Parties are already starting to look ahead to mid-term elections in 2022. That means passing legislation will be dicey.

An Infrastructure Bill - is one that's a guarantee.

Afaik, the Dems are planning to use the reconciliation process (needing only a simple majority to pass in the Senate) for infrastructure. This tells me that, on what is normally a (relatively) non-controversial topic, they want their way on how the money is spent. This is why I expect an emphasis on electrification; the environmental wing of the Dem party is Big and it will mean Big Business. Yes, there should also be good money for transit & transportation.

East Colfax BRT


City of Denver

This will be a 'flagship' project for BRT in Denver; it's important they get it right. With (lots of) money becoming available this project can become a reality. They've done all the analysis and won't need to do any 'value' engineering; in fact, I'd look for enhancements. They can now go with nice, new, branded BRT buses with all the bells and whistles. They could look to enhance many of the stops.

Boulder to Longmont BRT
While East Colfax is a Denver allocation, this would be a regional RTD led project, presumably in partnership with CDOT. I know they've done background work but haven't started the NEPA process afaik. This project should be easy enough to accelerate and this is a no-brainer priority. Buying nice new zero-emission Proterra buses would be perfect for this route.

CDOT
The next two 'bigger' priorities for CDOT are 1) I-270 Corridor Improvements and 2) the I-70 Floyd Hill to Veterans Memorial Tunnels Project


Source

CDOT Winds Up For I-70 Floyd Hill Rebuild, But Costs Remain A Steep Climb
November 19, 2020 By Nathaniel Minor - CPR

"This project has been our absolute top priority project for many, many years now,” I-70 Coalition Executive Director Margaret Bowes told the Colorado Transportation Commission this week.

An expansion of Interstate 70 at Floyd Hill, where paralyzing traffic often kills dreams of a quick drive from Denver to ski country in Summit County and beyond, could be under construction as early as 2023. The Colorado Department of Transportation has been preparing a revamp of the bottleneck about 30 miles west of Denver for years.

Both these two projects have already been scheduled to start in 2022/2023 by CDOT. It shouldn't be difficult to accelerate the start of initial construction.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Wong - What you just described above is what I call the nightmare scenario for Denver. How can we spend more billions of dollars to serve as few people as possible (but as many different counties as possible yay!) with a system nobody really likes. Another grab bag for the region that provides nothing to Denver proper, which will continue to see the bulk of development.

You know a whole lot more than I would have guessed. Props to you. You've obviously read a lot as have I; although I suspect we've read different stuff.

One thing that would be good to appreciate is that we're just blog jockeys. PLANSIT lives this stuff; he knows more than you and I and the rest of us blog jockeys put together.

I believe FTA dropped the local match requirement down to 20%

That sure jumped off the page when I read it so I did a quick search. Found it here - Last updated: Tuesday, December 22, 2020. I'm sure it gets complicated and I hardly understand the NEPA process. I do know they 'grade' projects based on established standards. I would add that Phoenix Metro recently got a Schnitt-load of money for their current South Central light rail extension project.

If they pass a nice Infrastructure Bill that 20% match requirement would be waaay . As you might guess, everybody including their cousins and step-children will have their hands out for their 'fair' share. FWIW, the FTA has their own standards for evaluating proposals and that won't change.

In Cleveland, whose HealthLine is considered the national gold standard for BRT, the BRT similarly replaced their region's busiest bus route along the eastside's main drag.

That is what (most) cities do; they use their busiest bus routes for their 1st light rail project. Cleveland couldn't afford to light rail so they went with BRT. It's comparing apples and oranges and anything can be criticized - we live in a world full of Monday Morning Quarterbacks - but the context for planning is very different between cities. I would have a different take on the Health Line but it's getting too far off-topic for further discussion here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Another grab bag for the region that provides nothing to Denver proper, which will continue to see the bulk of development.

Hate to break it to you, but despite all of the pressure Denver proper has been feeling (and the perception that leaves people with), the City and County of Denver is not absorbing the bulk of the region's development.

We are of course waiting for the actual 2020 census data. But per estimates published through 2019, and projections for 2020, from the State Demographer's Office, the Denver-Boulder region added approximately 467,000 people between 2000 and 2010. Of that, here is the breakdown by county:

Adams 80,549 17.2%
Arapahoe 487,241 18.6%
Broomfield 15,772 3.4%
Denver 131,719 28.2%
Douglas 70,063 15.0%
Jefferson 549,690 10.6%
Boulder 32,747 7.0%

The North Front Range added another 139,000. Colorado Springs another 106,600.

That leaves Denver-proper capturing only 18% of total Front Range growth.

[Agent Orange]

Interesting numbers Bunt. So in the end, despite the locally held belief that Denver's growth in the 10s has been shocking and unprecedented, it grew essentially just as fast in the 10s as it did in the 00s (18.3% this past decade versus 17.9% in the aughts). Its rate of growth was 68% faster in the 1990s, 64% faster in the 1970s, 58% faster in the 1960s, 196% faster in the 1950s (!!) and 56% faster in the 1940s.

The last two decades have been the slowest years for growth in this region in the postwar era, excepting the 80s when the oil crash happened (even then, the growth rate was only discounted by 25% compared to the Teens).

Really puts a hole into the overwhelmingly widespread belief (outside this forum anyway) that Denver/Colorado's extreme housing price growth since the Great Recession is because we suddenly got "discovered" and started an unprecedented boom that no one saw coming (and has ruined our way of life forever, literally the most unjust thing that's occurred in North American for generations).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Wong - What you just described above is what I call the nightmare scenario for Denver. How can we spend more billions of dollars to serve as few people as possible (but as many different counties as possible yay!) with a system nobody really likes. Another grab bag for the region that provides nothing to Denver proper, which will continue to see the bulk of development.

Bulk of the development comment asides, I fail to see how the implementation of BRT along busiest RTD lines, which are almost exclusively located in Denver, doesn't benefit the city. BRT on Colfax, Broadway, Federal, Alameda, Colorado, Speer/Leetsdale, etc. is exactly the kind of local service improvement that is a game-changer for car-free/car-lite living.

Also I truly fail to see what is so wrong with I-25 - bc it's slow at 5 o'clock, in the middle of a Top 15 largest and Top 4 fastest growing metro?? It's already being "fixed" in the gap south of Castle Rock and its already in advanced stages of induced traffic cycles (earlier than even projected). Building our way out of I-25 congestion is a lot less likely than reducing congestion by providing more viable transit alternatives. It would honestly help more suburban commuters to explore a full freeway upgrade for Parker Road, providing an alternative to 25.

That's a fair point. I was looking more at what is realistically in the pipeline for an infrastructure package than dreaming about a fantasy subway network. Even if it was on the table, we know that a subway would begin downtown and end downtown. It would be a small miracle if it was to touch Cap Hill in an initial phase.

Why should Denver pay into another transportation package that doesn't really benefit Denver any? Especially after we have (very astutely) paid for the BRT experiment ourselves? Subway or bust, seriously. Why should Seattle, Austin, Pittsburgh and other peer cities and/or lower tier cities have subway but not Denver? Even my home town of Dallas (ew) has 1-2 mile sections of subway.

FasTracks didn't benefit Denver? Where does every single rail line terminate? It might not benefit the Cap Hill Crowd, but it certainly benefited downtown Denver in spades. RTD's focus on FasTracks has shortchanged the local component of the bus network, no one probably remembers that part of FasTrack's was supposed to be increased local bus frequency that would then tie into the rail stations, which is to the detriment of Denver. Still, Denver probably pulled in 50% of the benefit of FasTrack's and has contributed maybe 30% of the cost if I had to guesstimate.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Hate to break it to you, but despite all of the pressure Denver proper has been feeling (and the perception that leaves people with), the City and County of Denver is not absorbing the bulk of the region's development.

We are of course waiting for the actual 2020 census data. But per estimates published through 2019, and projections for 2020, from the State Demographer's Office, the Denver-Boulder region added approximately 467,000 people between 2000 and 2010. Of that, here is the breakdown by county:

Adams 80,549 17.2%
Arapahoe 487,241 18.6%
Broomfield 15,772 3.4%
Denver 131,719 28.2%
Douglas 70,063 15.0%
Jefferson 549,690 10.6%
Boulder 32,747 7.0%

The North Front Range added another 139,000. Colorado Springs another 106,600.

That leaves Denver-proper capturing only 18% of total Front Range growth.

"Bulk of development" was an inartful way of saying the bulk of dense development. You can't even build over 3 stories anywhere in Boulder County or Jeffco without a petition and most suburban counties are trying to cap growth. Denver is simultaneously pushing to absorb more growth while struggling to keep up with the growth it does have. Even across raw population figures it's not insignificant that Denver is growing more than a third faster than any other metro county.

Regarding the loci of RTD's network, you're right about the focus on rail and shift away from promised bus improvements. One relevant factor though is that RTD has struggled to maneuver its bus fleet through neighborhoods like Cap Hill or the Highlands due to cars badly parked, double parked, no visibility corner to corner. RTD also kinda shies away from choice ridership and operates an aging bus fleet that they can't easily upgrade bc they're laden with unique accessibility features that other transit agencies don't order. This makes sense considering the Dial-A-Ride service to suburban counties costs RTD over $100 per ride but it still alters the functionality of the regular bus network.

Regarding specifically rail, every route except the L Line bypasses Denver's natural corridors (see: 1.7-mile station gap around Baker) to more quickly ferry people between stadiums/Union Station and suburban counties. It's obviously been amazing for the Union Station area and the Broncos, but it doesn't serve very many neighborhoods. You really have to serve neighborhoods to have a system that people really utilize and love.

____

The crazy thing is we know we need to build at least twice as much development as the market has delivered. Average home price is now over $600,000 in Denver due to housing shortage and I am worried that cost is going to make Denver uncompetitive. Due to the development density required for Denver proper, the high cost of structured parking pushes housing costs up.

This is the CNU's report on TOD:
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/a/326/files/2019/06/FTA19.pdf

Page 15 illustrates metro rankings for walkable nodes and notes that Denver has the nation's 2nd highest share of space in walkable nodes. This is highly skewed because we have by far the highest percentage of office in walkable nodes versus an average share of residential and one of the lowest shares of retail.

That's a very interesting snapshot what uses our transit serves. It's a commuter park-and-ride model, which you can't do in Denver, so for the most part the system swerves Denver neighborhoods. I'd really contest how much utility Denver gets out of a system that doesn't really serve Denver neighborhoods.

On Page 21 you'll see that Denver is also 2nd for highest rent premium for transit-served/walkable spaces. Also indicative of the screaming demand for more transit and walkability.

These datasets really underscore why subway makes sense for Denver at this point. Something needs to be done to tangibly scale up mobility improvements rather than continuing to tinker around the edges.

[PLANSIT]

Transit Signal Priority already exists on East Colfax at 15 intersections and is working well.

Current expectation is for the project to seek CIG Small Starts with max grant of $100M. It could seek New Starts with more money available, but would have significantly less chance of award. Better to be a big fish in small pond than small fish in big pond. City will need to find ~$150M; of which ~$55M has already been identified through Elevate Bond.

And improved transit operation isn't the only outcome of the effort. It's as much a vison zero project as anything. It's a complete street opportunity with transit at it's heart.

We aren't getting a subway.