DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Wow this is an interesting post.

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

nobody is riding street cars when ubers will be a whole lot easier and not much more of a cost.
Exactly so let's stop wasting money on solutions that don't compete against uber

ya'll love to hype up trains, but new york sucks and that's why people live here. walking to and waiting for trains with huge crowds in disgusting stations with covid here for the long haul isn't a winner. we're nothing like new york in terms of stuff, so it's a dumb ideal. we also have the space they don't.
Did you know that other cities besides just New York have subway? In fact literally hundreds, most in Europe where density is actually comparable to east/central Denver (Stockholm?). In fact some have elevated. The point is bypassing traffic. Also, that New York sucks is both a hot take and irrelevant to subway. Crumbling and over-capacity infrastructure is what happens when you take money from an urban core and reinvest it elsewhere.

anti car thinking is so 10 years ago. clean cars are coming. in time they'll be autonomous and traffic won't be a thing. it's time to look forward.
Okay Elon, you got yours and don't see the point in a public realm. Cool

anyway, speaking of trains. has anybody ever seen somebody riding the train through five points? exactly...
Because it's the most useless train line anywhere on the planet, but it sure did yield some infill or gentrification or whatever the goal there was

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Wow this is an interesting post.

Well to say that east/central Denver has densities anywhere comparable to European core cities served by grade separated transit is just a lie.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Yes, Gov Polis is going to make sure that every inch of Boulder County is served by mass transit before any Denver neighborhoods get mass transit. We all knew this would be coming.

I would argue Boulder is adequately served by transit options....

Back in the "old days", I took the FF every day to my office from Union Station. You have (had?) express routes every 10 minutes that would fly up to Boulder in 30-40 minutes, servicing campus and downtown Boulder. The FF4/FF6 served the 28th st. corridor quite nicely, landing at Boulder Junction Depot.

Here's the thing about that train people whine about, not many folks would use it, even it magically showed up tomorrow. The original route didn't go along 36, comes in from the East, stops at Boulder Jct. Depot, then jets north to Longmont. No Campus.... No downtown Boulder..... No Interlocken.

In some ways, it's probably good that train never got built, as it probably would have lost tons of money. Now, if they realigned the route to hit campus and downtown Boulder while the the city decides to wake up and allow vertical dense growth within their core, then maybe my tune would change.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I like the discussion of rail in the abstract but I do not think that we will be in the position to make capital-intensive investments like that soon, especially when we already have a 100 mile rail system, despite being imperfectly designed. Like bunt_q said, we are not at European level density and won't be close unless virtually every planned unit in GT, AS, RiNo, and River Mile are constructed. I would just like to see neighborhoods like Golden Triangle, Arapahoe Square, LoDo, and River North maximize residential infill to make Denver's urban core much more vibrant. From a transit standpoint, I am really interested in projects like the 5280 loop and revitalization of the platte river. I went to law school in San Francisco. Much of SF is not very well served by either BART or Muni Rail. However, MUNI's bus system was great and I used multiple times every day for several years. It seemed like almost every stop had a real-time information monitor. It is so much more convenient walking to the end of the block in SF and knowing, based on real-time GPS data, how far away a bus is. I think RTD provides comparable functionality on their app but there is an appeal to having those features at the stops themselves. It makes transit much more visible and convenient. In addition, Denver can do a lot more with its bike system. If we had a bike system half as decent as Boulder or Ft. Collins, that would really add to the livability of the city.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well to say that east/central Denver has densities anywhere comparable to European core cities served by grade separated transit is just a lie.

Not true. Why do you keep insisting on this and then saying I'm the one lying.

Fakts:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/denver...--initiatives/neighborhood-profiles.html

I'd just do this in GIS if I had it on my personal device, but alas... since we keep going around on this point, maybe someone could find the size of the official hoods and we could get exact density figures. Here's a few roughly square mile hoods for easy/rough yet realistic figures based on 2017 ACS (so you should probably add 5-10% on each but we'll let that go).

Cap Hill - 15,853
Congress Park - 11,559
Five Points - 16,312
Speer - 11,793
S Park Hill - 9,491
N Park Hill - 10,351
Virginia Village - 10,983
Wash Park & WPW - 15,097
Wash Virginia Vale - 13,882

Smaller neighborhoods closer to 1/2 square mile (so double the pop for a ballpark density figure)

Cheesman - 8,895
City Park & CPW - 8,495
Cherry Creek - 7,140


Stockholm - 11,802 per square mile (goes without saying that the central islands are multiples denser than Swedish suburbia, which also has metro)
Helsinki - 3,670/sq.mi.
Oslo - 4,261/sq.mi.
Prague - 6,801/sq.mi.
Berlin - 10,900/sq.mi.
Budapest - 8,631 sq.mi.

So I'm not going to call you a liar, but it's irksome to encounter someone who's go-to argument is you're lying.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by twister244

I would argue Boulder is adequately served by transit options....

Back in the "old days", I took the FF every day to my office from Union Station. You have (had?) express routes every 10 minutes that would fly up to Boulder in 30-40 minutes, servicing campus and downtown Boulder. The FF4/FF6 served the 28th st. corridor quite nicely, landing at Boulder Junction Depot.

Here's the thing about that train people whine about, not many folks would use it, even it magically showed up tomorrow. The original route didn't go along 36, comes in from the East, stops at Boulder Jct. Depot, then jets north to Longmont. No Campus.... No downtown Boulder..... No Interlocken.

In some ways, it's probably good that train never got built, as it probably would have lost tons of money. Now, if they realigned the route to hit campus and downtown Boulder while the the city decides to wake up and allow vertical dense growth within their core, then maybe my tune would change.

The problem is we all know that Boulder is going to get this train. I wouldn't underestimate a popular governor getting his way when it comes to little details like train routes, special highway projects, state park maintenance, collegiate conference realignment, or other things governors typically try to influence.

I think you nailed it when you beg the question why we should spend billions on a train to a city that refuses to allow any development. To that I say, welcome to Denver...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Not true. Why do you keep insisting on this and then saying I'm the one lying.

Fakts:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/denver...--initiatives/neighborhood-profiles.html

I'd just do this in GIS if I had it on my personal device, but alas... since we keep going around on this point, maybe someone could find the size of the official hoods and we could get exact density figures. Here's a few roughly square mile hoods for easy/rough yet realistic figures based on 2017 ACS (so you should probably add 5-10% on each but we'll let that go).

Cap Hill - 15,853
Congress Park - 11,559
Five Points - 16,312
Speer - 11,793
S Park Hill - 9,491
N Park Hill - 10,351
Virginia Village - 10,983
Wash Park & WPW - 15,097
Wash Virginia Vale - 13,882

Smaller neighborhoods closer to 1/2 square mile (so double the pop for a ballpark density figure)

Cheesman - 8,895
City Park & CPW - 8,495
Cherry Creek - 7,140


Stockholm - 11,802 per square mile (goes without saying that the central islands are multiples denser than Swedish suburbia, which also has metro)
Helsinki - 3,670/sq.mi.
Oslo - 4,261/sq.mi.
Prague - 6,801/sq.mi.
Berlin - 10,900/sq.mi.
Budapest - 8,631 sq.mi.

So I'm not going to call you a liar, but it's irksome to encounter someone who's go-to argument is you're lying.

Show your sources. You're mixing and matching U.S. core neighborhood-level data with more gross density figures from European cities outside the core. And you're doing it to make a point that is factually invalid; to perpetuate a fiction that Denver is just as dense, and therefore should have, or at least be able to afford, the same transit those European cities enjoy in their cores. (I am distinguishing cores because, while European suburbs do undoubtedly enjoy vastly better transit than equivalent U.S. suburbs, they do not have the subways you are calling for. A better example might be to compare central Denver to equivalent densities in European suburbs - where light rail and commuter rail are more common.)

In any case, back to your bogus data. I'll pick on Berlin since I know that city well, and it has (at least in its core) exactly the type of subway network you seem to be advocating for Denver. My favorite rail system, actually.

You cite 10,900/sq.mi.

In fact, central Berlin - everything inside of the main S-bahn ring - has ~30,300/sq.mi.

This is down significantly from its peak, which is of course when many of these transit systems were built. Kreutzberg peaked in 1910 - the same year my house in central Denver was built - at 80,800/sq. mi.


As much as I'd love a subway to my office, that is 8x denser than my neighborhood (between Cheesman and Cap Hill) at the time, and 3x denser today. That difference matters.

https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edn606_01.htm

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

The problem is we all know that Boulder is going to get this train. I wouldn't underestimate a popular governor getting his way when it comes to little details like train routes, special highway projects, state park maintenance, collegiate conference realignment, or other things governors typically try to influence.

I think you nailed it when you beg the question why we should spend billions on a train to a city that refuses to allow any development. To that I say, welcome to Denver...

On this, we agree. Boulder never "deserved" this train. Pre-Fastracks, they couldn't decide between a bus that wasn't sexy enough, or a mediocre train, (the correct train was deemed not affordable). So being the arrogant folks they are, they decided they deserved both.

But this is what happens when Denver voters put Boulder in charge of every single arm of state government.

This will paralyze RTD for decades. The reality is, no matter what Polis says, he can't create magic money.

On the plus side, with each passing year, Boulder becomes less relevant from a pure numbers standpoint. Heck, democrats can even get elected these days without Boulder. Once we get to the point that they can also afford to run campaign without Boulder, maybe we can move on and not be beholden to their toxic brand of limousine faux-green liberalism.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

On this, we agree. Boulder never "deserved" this train...Once we get to the point that they can also afford to run campaign without Boulder, maybe we can move on and not be beholden to their toxic brand of limousine faux-green liberalism.

Spot on. I would like to expand on your point though and point out that MANY, nay most, front range communities are already following Boulder's footsteps. Lakewood growth measure, Golden has an annual permit cap, and the arrogants in Louisville wanted 800,000 SF of office without any additional housing. Communities up and down the Front Range are resisting growth of residential housing of all types Every time a municipal body denies a 1980's office suburban park rezone to high density housing or shopping center re-purposing they are throwing a tantrum just like the Boulderados (aka rich whinny white entitled boomers and the new class of similarly entitled stuck up white silicon valley transplant millennials). I am somewhat indifferent to it all because the more resistant all the transplants are to growth and change, the more successful I become personally and "I've got mine" so it doesn't affect me. On an existential level and with a mind your own business political affiliation, it really bothers me that these choices of entitled people mean average people can no longer live in quality places with good paying jobs. Every liberal city seems to go through this iteration - we were once filled with the working masses and now we are a playground for the rich. Much of Denver is already there, it's sad. As a native, it's really sad that many others who were born here won't be able to stay.

Resistance to growth is everywhere and while many communities may decry Boulder (they are by far the worst anti-growthers - can we coin that term like anti-vaccers?) most all of them are guilty of the same crime, albeit second degree.

[gopokes21]

I'm going to let the NYC v. Denver v. European density debate go because we are going in circles here. There is a whole gradient of density in between say Phoenix or Boulder (not dense) and NYC (too dense) and the bottom line is that Denver and most of Europe is in the middle. Denver could obviously stand to become denser, as is happening before our eyes, but my point is that there's more density than you'd think in central Denver. We don't need to be as dense as NYC. Europe is a better model.

After I posted those numbers I was thinking on it and realized this may be why time is actually our friend when it comes to mass transit. If this has to be decided imminently and packaged with some stupid Boulder train, we're all screwed and this will just be another $7 billion grab bag for everyone around Denver but not Denver.

But if we could just sit on this, continue to grow into FasTracks and our own density levels stabilize as more neighborhoods such as Uptown or Five Points are fully built-out - things will look a lot different in 5-10 years, maybe even more different than today versus 10 years ago. I'd hate to let more than 10 years go with Colfax BRT as our only transit investment but I'm fairly confident that in 10 years the need for grade-separated mass transit in Denver neighborhoods will be obvious to more than just a few. I'd rather have that scenario play out than wasting more billions on transit we might regret.

I just hope that 10 more years of unbridled gentrification of Denver (as I once did back in 2016 to be fair) doesn't turn all the locals into uber drivers for Big Tech transplants. We really do need to reject decentralization and digitalization of our public realm and insist on a decent public realm for everyone regardless of what happens around gentrification. I also worry about blunders we will commit in the name of cars - slip lanes, road widening, parking everywhere, etc.

Cap Hill is already at a breaking point with cars everywhere, still yet no available parking, no visibility around corners, cars getting t-boned, parked cars blocking traffic lanes, buses unable to get through on 12th, and so on... it's not a pretty scene.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

On this, we agree. Boulder never "deserved" this train. Pre-Fastracks, they couldn't decide between a bus that wasn't sexy enough, or a mediocre train, (the correct train was deemed not affordable). So being the arrogant folks they are, they decided they deserved both.

But this is what happens when Denver voters put Boulder in charge of every single arm of state government.

This will paralyze RTD for decades. The reality is, no matter what Polis says, he can't create magic money.

On the plus side, with each passing year, Boulder becomes less relevant from a pure numbers standpoint. Heck, democrats can even get elected these days without Boulder. Once we get to the point that they can also afford to run campaign without Boulder, maybe we can move on and not be beholden to their toxic brand of limousine faux-green liberalism.

At least we all understand who put the Boulder elite in office - Denver voters. It's funny though because while Denver pols will be more populist and pragmatic, being from the big city will polarize the resort town Bloomberg/Biden voters and moderate Dems elsewhere in the state who still view Boulder as "in between" Denver and Colorado. Dumb optics getting people to vote against their self interests

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

After I posted those numbers I was thinking on it and realized this may be why time is actually our friend when it comes to mass transit. If this has to be decided imminently and packaged with some stupid Boulder train, we're all screwed and this will just be another $7 billion grab bag for everyone around Denver but not Denver.

Time is also your friend in regards to the debt servicing levels for FasTracks. 2035-40 is the magic time period because that's when the initial debt for FasTracks begins to drop off the books as RTD has new debt capacity to tackle additional projects. We had a discussion a number of years ago if it would be legal for RTD to infidelity extend the debt capacity and 4/10's tax to continue to develop more aspects of FasTracks and even new corridors, but I don't recall if it was a viable path forward. If it is, there's a funding opportunity right there.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Just riffing a few ways.....

1- 1926 self storage did not require housing to be demolished to be built
2- 1926 self storage was built in the modern day equivalent of stapleton, not downtown
3- 1926 self storage was not surrounded by buildings with historic designation (literally on three sides of the 16th and pearl property)
4- 1926 self storage was not built during a housing crisis
5- 1926 self storage was built when there was no shortage of vacant land in the city
6- 1926 self storage was not built in the middle of a traffic and public transit crisis
7- 1926 self storage was not built within a 5 minute walk of Denver's busiest public transit hub
7- That 1926 building really is a piece of shit and contributes to one of the deadest, least pedestrian friendly, and least activated stretches of Colfax. It is a great example of why NOT to do this. Saying 'look at this shitty building, it happened' is no good reason to do it again. And to be clear, the city agrees as current zoning on colfax prohibits another self storage from being built, because we have evolved since 1926. This lot is just outside of the mainstreet zoning on Colfax, but is still an utterly inappropriate location for a storage shed.

1 - yes it was, it was 3 separate lots that were joined as a single lot in 1924 (Denver public library maps). Since the neighborhood is filled with buildings developed from 1880-1890, it's more than likely that there were structures here - see map -> https://ducdn.denverurbanism.com/wp-cont...141317/2012-02-19-1890-neighborhoods.jpg
2 - I fail to see why this is relevant... so a storage facility in Stapleton is OK now, but not in 20+ years if it becomes more dense (and therefore needed more)?
3 - So should they build a historic building instead? How do you do that, Doctor Who?
4 - Yes it was - it was built because of the extremely booming neighborhood and lack of places to store things as new comers came into Denver and settled for tiny apartments while they house searched (You must not have read the article I posted)
5 - Plenty of surface parking lots all of the neighborhood and city... This is Denver, not Manhattan
6 - Your right. And by placing self storage in a dense neighborhood, people don't have to drive to a storage unit in Stapleton (where it seems you think they should be). So it removes traffic!
7 - You can walk 1.5 miles (union station) in 5 minutes? That's an 18mph walk. At that pace, the 1926 storage is only an additional 3 min away.
8 - it's needed for the residences. As other said - it's not shiny but required; just like utilities and other needs. It's almost 100 years later - people still have stuff to store; especially in dense growing neighborhood. If we want people to continue to live in the smaller old apartment buildings in Cap Hill (those that don't have on-site storage or gyms), then the community will provide them nearby. If not, the apartments will go empty and they'll be demolished. When my wife and I looked at apartments, an on-site storage unit was a must (just for winter tires and Christmas decorations alone) - and that wouldn't fit in any apartment we looked at.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

After I posted those numbers I was thinking on it and realized this may be why time is actually our friend when it comes to mass transit. If this has to be decided imminently and packaged with some stupid Boulder train, we're all screwed and this will just be another $7 billion grab bag for everyone around Denver but not Denver.

But if we could just sit on this, continue to grow into FasTracks and our own density levels stabilize as more neighborhoods such as Uptown or Five Points are fully built-out - things will look a lot different in 5-10 years, maybe even more different than today versus 10 years ago. I'd hate to let more than 10 years go with Colfax BRT as our only transit investment but I'm fairly confident that in 10 years the need for grade-separated mass transit in Denver neighborhoods will be obvious to more than just a few. I'd rather have that scenario play out than wasting more billions on transit we might regret.

Completely agree with this too. I'll wait it out. And will be at the sunset of my career in 2040, standing by, ready to help build something really cool when this time comes.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I like the discussion of rail in the abstract but I do not think that we will be in the position to make capital-intensive investments like that soon, especially when we already have a 100 mile rail system, despite being imperfectly designed. Like bunt_q said, we are not at European level density and won't be close unless virtually every planned unit in GT, AS, RiNo, and River Mile are constructed. I would just like to see neighborhoods like Golden Triangle, Arapahoe Square, LoDo, and River North maximize residential infill to make Denver's urban core much more vibrant. From a transit standpoint, I am really interested in projects like the 5280 loop and revitalization of the platte river. I went to law school in San Francisco. Much of SF is not very well served by either BART or Muni Rail. However, MUNI's bus system was great and I used multiple times every day for several years. It seemed like almost every stop had a real-time information monitor. It is so much more convenient walking to the end of the block in SF and knowing, based on real-time GPS data, how far away a bus is. I think RTD provides comparable functionality on their app but there is an appeal to having those features at the stops themselves. It makes transit much more visible and convenient. In addition, Denver can do a lot more with its bike system. If we had a bike system half as decent as Boulder or Ft. Collins, that would really add to the livability of the city.

Nice comment!

It's mostly city focused which is fine.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Time is also your friend in regards to the debt servicing levels for FasTracks. 2035-40 is the magic time period because that's when the initial debt for FasTracks begins to drop off the books as RTD has new debt capacity to tackle additional projects. We had a discussion a number of years ago if it would be legal for RTD to infidelity extend the debt capacity and 4/10's tax to continue to develop more aspects of FasTracks and even new corridors, but I don't recall if it was a viable path forward. If it is, there's a funding opportunity right there.

That must have been before I had any clue and you and bunt were more intimate with those doc's than I.

From what I've gathered my guess is that Fastracks' tax couldn't add new rail projects aside from additional extensions. Whether that would include extending the G Line into Golden I'm not sure.

I will assume that any freed-up bonding capacity within the FasTracks tax will be needed to fund refurbishment and replacement.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Yes, Gov Polis is going to make sure that every inch of Boulder County is served by mass transit before any Denver neighborhoods get mass transit. We all knew this would be coming.

I'm all for different strokes but our transit system is like spreading peanut butter thinly over bread. We've had multiple pages of this discussion already but it's a joke that Arapahoe County is better served by transit than Denver, but that's how politics works.

For me, Context is Everything

With respect to Polis I was merely stirring the pot for grins; as a citizen he has but one vote like everybody else. Those 'Stimulus' $'s afaik were for RTD's "General" fund. Any train to Boulder has to be funded within the FasTracks budget. Good luck with that and twister244's comment is especially relevant;[ B]bunt's[/B] comment also.

Back to DUS - neighborhood

That $2 billion in buildout is ~75% private sector capital. That's a Schnitt-load of taxes that did and will continue to flow into City of Denver's coffers. Afaik, The public sector costs are outside of FasTracks.

With respect to TOD -
within the (extended) city center, the projected TOD will be closer to 90% private sector investment to 10% public sector investment. That will be many Schnitt-loads of tax revenue for Denver. That's an amazing return on investment.

Fastracks and Beyond

Your $7 billion figure sounds reasonable for the total buildout of rail projects (plus BRT to Boulder). That's an averaged cost of $62 million per mile over all 113 miles. Of that $7 billion, ~$3 billion came via Federal Grants.

Austin's Project Connect light rail will cost closer to 4X as much per mile. That's like saying Denver built 75% of their 113-mile rail system FOR FREE compared to Austin.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

1 - yes it was, it was 3 separate lots that were joined as a single lot in 1924 (Denver public library maps). Since the neighborhood is filled with buildings developed from 1880-1890, it's more than likely that there were structures here - see map -> https://ducdn.denverurbanism.com/wp-cont...141317/2012-02-19-1890-neighborhoods.jpg
2 - I fail to see why this is relevant... so a storage facility in Stapleton is OK now, but not in 20+ years if it becomes more dense (and therefore needed more)?
3 - So should they build a historic building instead? How do you do that, Doctor Who?
4 - Yes it was - it was built because of the extremely booming neighborhood and lack of places to store things as new comers came into Denver and settled for tiny apartments while they house searched (You must not have read the article I posted)
5 - Plenty of surface parking lots all of the neighborhood and city... This is Denver, not Manhattan
6 - Your right. And by placing self storage in a dense neighborhood, people don't have to drive to a storage unit in Stapleton (where it seems you think they should be). So it removes traffic!
7 - You can walk 1.5 miles (union station) in 5 minutes? That's an 18mph walk. At that pace, the 1926 storage is only an additional 3 min away.
8 - it's needed for the residences. As other said - it's not shiny but required; just like utilities and other needs. It's almost 100 years later - people still have stuff to store; especially in dense growing neighborhood. If we want people to continue to live in the smaller old apartment buildings in Cap Hill (those that don't have on-site storage or gyms), then the community will provide them nearby. If not, the apartments will go empty and they'll be demolished. When my wife and I looked at apartments, an on-site storage unit was a must (just for winter tires and Christmas decorations alone) - and that wouldn't fit in any apartment we looked at.

This is just beyond dumb. You are saying walking to self storage is as important as hot water because you need to fill up a storage unit with Christmas ornaments (and be able to walk to it once a year, because driving to get your Christmas ornaments is a big hassle). Ugggghhhh

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Time is also your friend in regards to the debt servicing levels for FasTracks. 2035-40 is the magic time period because that's when the initial debt for FasTracks begins to drop off the books as RTD has new debt capacity to tackle additional projects. We had a discussion a number of years ago if it would be legal for RTD to infidelity extend the debt capacity and 4/10's tax to continue to develop more aspects of FasTracks and even new corridors, but I don't recall if it was a viable path forward. If it is, there's a funding opportunity right there.

The bonded debt on FasTracks won't be as big of an issue as it is now throughout the remaining term on it. Here in ten years we'll all be making 25% more and COL will be 50% more; simultaneously we'll have paid it down some and it could probably even be refinanced in some strategic way.

It's kind of like my townhouse that I bought in 2018 for what I thought was an insane amount of money (I wouldn't have approved the loan). Already most comps in Congress Park/greater Cap Hill sell for 25-50% more today. Also in 2018 my appraiser used townhome comps from north of City Park which I thought was insane - just 3 short years later, that might actually be to my benefit. Don't underestimate how seemingly concrete things can change.

I think the reason we're always behind the growth curve here in Denver is just that we're not thinking big enough. We accomplish big ideas that keep attracting more growth than we expect, and despite every prediction to the contrary - Denver's growth has proven more elastic than diametric. We keep growing faster, not slower.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Back to DUS - neighborhood

That $2 billion in buildout is ~75% private sector capital. That's a Schnitt-load of taxes that did and will continue to flow into City of Denver's coffers. Afaik, The public sector costs are outside of FasTracks.

Fastracks and Beyond

Your $7 billion figure sounds reasonable for the total buildout of rail projects (plus BRT to Boulder). That's an averaged cost of $62 million per mile over all 113 miles. Of that $7 billion, ~$3 billion came via Federal Grants.

Austin's Project Connect light rail will cost closer to 4X as much per mile. That's like saying Denver built 75% of their 113-mile rail system FOR FREE compared to Austin.

I think what matters more than the costs or any efficiencies is what we actually get for our investment. We've spent an amazing amount of money; $2 billion later the Union Station neighborhood is basically the City of Oz, and we have mass transit serving the entire region but not Denver neighborhoods. Money is not our problem.

Going forward, we know FasTracks can't be the end of transit projects in Denver. It's going to be very challenging to effectively serve the quickly densifying neighborhoods across Denver, because streetcars will be stuck in traffic and the sprawl of urban Denver is too extensive to serve at small-scale.

Grade-separated corridors will be very expensive but the land value increase from an effective mass transit system (meaning more convenient than driving) yields significant value capture potential, which would be combined by FTA grants, hopefully state funding, meaning that the actual local match doesn't have to be prohibitive.

[TakeFive]

Denver Urban Activism Revisited

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I think the reason we're always behind the growth curve here in Denver is just that we're not thinking big enough. We accomplish big ideas that keep attracting more growth than we expect, and despite every prediction to the contrary - Denver's growth has proven more elastic than diametric. We keep growing faster, not slower.

For many years Denver has had an active group of Urban Activists. It probably started bubbling up in 2012. It appears as though organization started by the Spring of 2014. The group was anointed the name "Denveright." Their primary motivation was improved "mobility" starting with sidewalks to bike lanes on up. But Denveright also covered the various interests and city districts. The city, itself also had many must-do priorities.

Denveright website

Every nine years or so Denver floats a REALLY BIG bond issue for investing in and improving existing city assets and infrastructure. This time around the process was significantly a grass roots planning effort. In the end they ended up with $937 million list of over 500 projects in what is now called "Elevate Denver" bond program.

They spent an intense year determining priorities and making final decisions. Transportation & Mobility projects approved for the bond program totaled $431,042,500 (46%). The voters approved the effort in November of 2017.

You may be particularly interested in Districts 9 & 10 although Baker is in District 7.

Happy Hunting:

• Map of Denver Districts
• Elevate Denver website
• Program Overview
• COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 PROJECTS
• COUNCIL DISTRICT 9 PROJECTS

When they started the envisioning 'wish list' phase, when asked about transit everybody wanted to ride a train; buses not so much - but it was a wish list so that's to be expected. The $55 million for the East Colfax BRT was actually quite a leap for Denver-only voters.

[gopokes21]

Yes, $55 million is a pretty significant local match (especially compared to Aurora's $0) for a mass transit project that won't offer anything that isn't already on East Colfax (and get stuck in traffic). We already have a pretty good tandem of local and express service, some nicer stations, streetscape elements, signal priority, and extended traffic cycles. I guess we'll see what $300 million for branding does to change all of that, because that was clearly the problem.

Elevate Denver is a great example of lagging behind the growth curve. Most large cities, particularly those with good debt ratings (well-managed, growing cities), use general obligation bonds to finance most routine infrastructure and maintenance (repavings, new trails/bike lanes, police stations, parks, etc). Everything this side of "megaprojects" which are financed differently.

$937 million is a very aspirational 10-year GO bond for a city of 600,000 people, which Denver was when that planning initiative began. It is not a very impressive issuance for a city of 800,000 people, which Denver is close to now if not already. It's downright paltry for a city of 900,000 people, which Denver will be once Elevate Denver is complete. Meanwhile the state isn't helping with their fair share because they projected Denver's growth to flatten and non-Richard Florida (more conservative) demographers all think El Paso County is the future of Colorado.

Denver is simultaneously rolling in dough and under resourced. Someone could do a lot of good by realizing that and connecting potential resources to solutions that confront Denver's biggest problems head-on instead of incrementally tinkering around the edges.

The other cities I've lived in, Dallas, Austin, and OKC, all issue larger GO bonds than that, and none of those cities are consolidated city/counties (which effectively doubles the scope of local govt). I don't know any other cities that have transformed themselves as much as those three. Denver has a stronger headwind but it hasn't harnessed the wind in its sails. All this is just to say that Denver should take a more active role in its own transformation, but that's just me - I keep "provoking" discussion with this viewpoint lol.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Denver is simultaneously rolling in dough and under resourced.

You keep saying this, but I am not sure what reality you are living in. I have seen an awful lot of City projects get cancelled this year because there isn't enough money.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

The other cities I've lived in, Dallas, Austin, and OKC, all issue larger GO bonds than that, and none of those cities are consolidated city/counties (which effectively doubles the scope of local govt). I don't know any other cities that have transformed themselves as much as those three. Denver has a stronger headwind but it hasn't harnessed the wind in its sails. All this is just to say that Denver should take a more active role in its own transformation, but that's just me - I keep "provoking" discussion with this viewpoint lol.

What you seem to forget is that most cities can issue bonds/debt without going to the voters to authorize every penny. Denver cannot.

Remember, before any of your subway dreams come true - let's say even one starter line from Lower Highland to Alameda/Colorado via Cherry Creek and Downtown, so ~7 miles, call it - the voters of Denver would have to approve a ballot measure that say something along the lines of:

SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED $146,000,000 ANNUALLY FOR A THIRTY-FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND $42,000,000 PER YEAR THEREAFTER IN PERPETUITY, AND SHALL CITY DEBT BE INCREASED $2,000,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $3,200,000,000, TO PAY FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL THE CITY SALES AND USE TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY 1.00% FOR A THIRTY-FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND 0.30% THEREAFTER...

That's a heavy lift politically for anything - there is a reason TABOR requires the horribly scary and aggressive ballot language. Even more of a lift for a single subway line that would only serve a small portion of the city. By my back of the napkin (rough, but it's probably not terribly far off, unless a lot of new federal dollars appear), for initial capital costs and then ongoing operating costs, you'd need to increase the City sales tax by about 20%, or a full percent (as much as RTD gets)... for one 7-mile line. (I could do property taxes too, but those are much smaller; you'd have to double the City's take of those.)

You've mentioned value capture a couple times. While that would help defray some of the hit to the City longer term (maybe you could reduce the long term tax to cover O&M somewhat), there's really no good way to capture that upfront to cover initial capital costs of the project. Certainly not at this quantum. Some folks get paid a lot of money to go around the country bursting the dreams of people who think value capture will solve their problems. It's tricky, and even in the best case requires substantial credit support. (Best recent example is probably Chicago and their use of TIF.) Moynihan Station in New York didn't even pencil on value capture alone - and that was with 1,000,000 square feet of facebook office space sitting on top - it still needed state support.

When you say confront Denver's biggest problems head-on... who has the political capital to take something like that to the voters? Nobody I know of in City politics today.