DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Denver]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Also, looks like Zeppelin just sold 1150 Bannock St to Urban Villages, where they plan to build 30 story towers.

A demolition permit was submitted for the old RMPBS building in the Golden Triangle as well. Hopefully that means we will see the start of a new project soon.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Until rail plays by the same rules as highways, it's going to be the worst option. For highways, we throw money at lane additions, bridges, and major re-grading all day long. For rail, we don't grade separate and then waste the next 2 years with the crossing software. Highways get swaths of dedicated ROW with smooth turn radii so that cars can continue to go 75 mph. Meanwhile, trains get tight ROW, so that they have to take turns at 20 mph and single track swaths of rail. Highways cut through (poor) residential neighborhoods to get the suburbanites to work. Trains go through industrial areas because homeowners don't want to hear any choo-choo noises.

This is all true. But to be fair, I am not sure we could build today's highways today any more easily than we can build quality rail infrastructure. We actually don't build any infrastructure well anymore. We happen to have 70 years of legacy highway infrastructure to expand/improve/build off of, which makes it relatively much much easier and much much cheaper, versus building from-scratch brand new trains. (Even where it should be relatively easy - take California HSR - we still can't do it these days.) If we had built elevated urban railways for 20 years in every U.S. city starting after WWII, I am sure we'd be building on that infrastructure today too. (Sort of like how DC can find a way to expand the Metro.) But in nearly all places, we didn't. And I am not sure we can ever catch up - not now, not in the 21st century, with empowered neighborhoods, empowered interest groups, empowered individuals through social media, etc. All good things, for sure. But the days of affordable infrastructure of ANY MODE are long gone. No amount of money that is remotely realistic will ever fix that. No amount of money will ever allow rail to "play by the same rules" as you put it, because highways have such a massive head start. (There's a reason our freight rail system works very well, though, and a lot of that is also due to a massive head start. The reason freight railroads are so fiercely protected is exactly because it would be impossible to re-create their rights-of-way today.)

[twister244]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is all true. But to be fair, I am not sure we could build today's highways today any more easily than we can build quality rail infrastructure. We actually don't build any infrastructure well anymore. We happen to have 70 years of legacy highway infrastructure to expand/improve/build off of, which makes it relatively much much easier and much much cheaper, versus building from-scratch brand new trains. (Even where it should be relatively easy - take California HSR - we still can't do it these days.) If we had built elevated urban railways for 20 years in every U.S. city starting after WWII, I am sure we'd be building on that infrastructure today too. (Sort of like how DC can find a way to expand the Metro.) But in nearly all places, we didn't. And I am not sure we can ever catch up - not now, not in the 21st century, with empowered neighborhoods, empowered interest groups, empowered individuals through social media, etc. All good things, for sure. But the days of affordable infrastructure of ANY MODE are long gone. No amount of money that is remotely realistic will ever fix that. No amount of money will ever allow rail to "play by the same rules" as you put it, because highways have such a massive head start. (There's a reason our freight rail system works very well, though, and a lot of that is also due to a massive head start. The reason freight railroads are so fiercely protected is exactly because it would be impossible to re-create their rights-of-way today.)

Really good points.....

On that note, I think one easy step is to introduce express routes on existing lines.

How long does it take to get from Union Station to DIA? Somewhere around 38-45 minutes. I took a train directly from central Paris to Reims last weekend, which is 90 miles away, and it took 45 minutes. Yes, the train peaked at 190 mph, but.... If it had to stop multiple times, those peak speeds wouldn't have been realized, and the trip would have taken much longer.

So, why not start there with the A Line? Introduce a handful of express routes that don't make any stops, and I bet you would see WAY more people shelling out $10 to take the train. You can probably assume you would get to DIA in around 20 min or less.

Start doing the same with some of the light rail lines. Connect points where people live densely. I think this is one reason the FF2 was popular. Every 10 minutes, an express bus from downtown Denver to Boulder.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by twister244

Really good points.....

On that note, I think one easy step is to introduce express routes on existing lines.

How long does it take to get from Union Station to DIA? Somewhere around 38-45 minutes. I took a train directly from central Paris to Reims last weekend, which is 90 miles away, and it took 45 minutes. Yes, the train peaked at 190 mph, but.... If it had to stop multiple times, those peak speeds wouldn't have been realized, and the trip would have taken much longer.

So, why not start there with the A Line? Introduce a handful of express routes that don't make any stops, and I bet you would see WAY more people shelling out $10 to take the train. You can probably assume you would get to DIA in around 20 min or less.

Start doing the same with some of the light rail lines. Connect points where people live densely. I think this is one reason the FF2 was popular. Every 10 minutes, an express bus from downtown Denver to Boulder.

I disagree. For most transit systems (not inter-city like your trip in France), frequency is far more important a driver of ridership than speed. Express lines don’t make sense on our commuter rail - they already run about as fast as you can run an RER/S-Bahn type train and we would have to triple or quad track the line to make an express service work. Instead we should focus on full grade separation (build a new bridge every three years!), fully double tracking the commuter rail lines, improve the double curve at York Street, and improving to a 10-minute or better frequency on the A-line and 15-minute frequencies on the other lines.

That said, somehow we built a light rail system that does have a speed problem instead of a frequency problem, mostly north of 13th street. There are too many stations on the Union Station spur and the street running segment downtown is pretty awfully slow. Unfortunately neither problem is really solvable without a tunnel, though we could start by closing the stupid Mile High station except for 2 hours before a football game. It’s 900’ from the Auraria West station!

[TakeFive]

Benson Hotel and Faculty Club
Anschutz Medical Campus, Colorado

I don't normally like to do this, post oversized pics but the renderings are sooo nice. (To view, I put the bar in the middle and then scroll down)

Credits and compliments to Tryba Architects









Benson Hotel and Faculty Club Under Construction on Anschutz Medical Campus
October 25, 2021 - Mile High CRE

A new boutique hotel is under construction at the Fitzsimons Innovation Community on the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. Named in honor of former
University of Colorado President Bruce Benson, the 106-room Benson Hotel and Faculty Club is being developed by Aimco and is part of a collective vision for the future of the campus.
The architect for the project is Tryba Architects and the GC is Hyder Construction.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

One quick comment on the transit issue. I went to law school in San Francisco. I used a bus three times a day everyday for three years and it was the most convenient transit experience that I've ever had because you could walk one to two blocks in any direction almost anywhere in the city, see a bus stop with real time arrival estimates based on GPS, and know that you would generally only need to wait less than 5 minutes for a bus. Also, everyone in SF used the bus so it felt reasonably safe.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

One quick comment on the transit issue. I went to law school in San Francisco. I used a bus three times a day everyday for three years and it was the most convenient transit experience that I've ever had because you could walk one to two blocks in any direction almost anywhere in the city, see a bus stop with real time arrival estimates based on GPS, and know that you would generally only need to wait less than 5 minutes for a bus. Also, everyone in SF used the bus so it felt reasonably safe.

When I lived in SF I didn’t own a car and liked it that way. My first couple apartments were near the Financial District so I used the subway a lot. When I lived in The Haight I used the N a lot, and of course, buses. I have to say, the N was unreliable. Sometimes I’d wait forever and then finally two or three trains would show up all bunched together, back to back. Regular riders could sense when this was happening and would line up to enter where the 2nd train is going to be. Nevertheless, I used the N a lot and I liked it.

Denver is different. The buses are disgusting and filled with belligerent riffraff. The last time I took the bus, it was a couple months ago. I took the 0 to Union Station so I could hop on the A-line and get to the airport. It was extremely uncomfortable. The whole time I was waiting at the bus stop, this lady was pacing in circles around the bus stop, getting in peoples faces and yelling, “I don’t give a FUCK! MUTHERFUCKING FUCK! I don’t give a FUCK!”

The guy who sat across from me on the bus had a blood-soaked sock because he was bleeding from somewhere above his sock. He wore no mask and stared constantly at me. I’d give him a dirty look, and shrug my shoulders like, “what!” So he’d look away, but then as soon as I looked away, he’d start staring again. I wanted to threaten him and warn him that he needs to stop starting but I feared it might provoke some kind of tussle and then I’d have to touch his gross ass and who knows what kind of diseases he might have.

At the first stop some girl trying to get on the bus for free got in a big ol’ shouting match with the bus driver. She was apparently under the impression that, by law, as long as one is wearing a wristband from a hospital, all public transportation is free. The bus driver finally gave up and just let her on the bus.

I could go on. That 15-minute ride was quite the adventure.

EVERY TIME I ride the bus I promise myself I’ll never do that again, but a year or so goes by and I forget, and I make the same stupid mistake again.

The only affordable way for a civilized person to get across this town is by car. This sprawling, low-density metropolis isn’t likely to densify enough to make public transportation viable for the majority, in any of our lifetimes. In the meantime, our freeways are overcrowded and tiny compared to other cities of this size so they obviously need to be expanded.

I hope we build more rail. I hope much TOD gets built around that rail so public transit can become more viable for more people. I hope one day I can get a white collar job so I can live near where I work. Bring on the electric car!(?) The burbs are hopeless but… Bring on more density and pedestrian-friendly development to our hoods that were originally built around a streetcar system! Bring on inner-city, “last mile” transit so Cap Hill can have its own version of SF’s N line! In the meantime, our freeways need to be expanded so our lack of mobility doesn’t continue to hurt our economy.

Only within our esoteric little urbanist club does it make sense to commute via bus when you can afford not to. Out in the real world they need more lanes.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The only affordable way for a civilized person to get across this town is by car. This sprawling, low-density metropolis isn’t likely to densify enough to make public transportation viable for the majority, in any of our lifetimes.

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better? I think I recently mentioned that Olde Town Arvada has better access to the city center than many urban Denver neighborhoods do. I feel like this actually shouldn't be the case. My best personal example is that about two years ago I decided to catch a bus on 15th street around 4pm to meet my husband for dinner at 32nd and Lowell where we could then drive home to Arvada together afterward. The route I had to take - I believe it was the 32 - felt PAINFULLY slow. Between the wait and the slow route, I think it took almost 40 minutes to get to West Highland. I can't help but think that it shouldn't take that long to get to an "up and coming" urban neighborhood that is only 2 miles from Downtown. Again - I could have gotten home to Olde Town Arvada faster than that, and it is almost twice as far away. There are no doubt countless other examples of this just within 2-4 miles of downtown.

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better?

…

…

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin.

To be clear, I’m arguing against stopping freeway expansion for the sake of preventing “induced demand” or forcing people onto our inadequate transit system.

We should be focusing on good transit where it’s viable, but unfortunately it does feel like a pipe dream right now because of how our transit agencies and their revenue streams are set up.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

We do have a pretty large rail system. I think adding BRT as a compliment will be nice but I think it is more important that we develop around the stations that we have than invest in much more rail infrastructure. Alameda Station is being heavily developed, 38th and Blake is being heavily developed, Belleview Station is being heavily developed, and the Ball Arena and Empower Field stations will be heavily developed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

Different pot of money for the roadway versus additional transit question which makes it a hard comparison. But what you mention with Boulder is what Denver should be looking at "buying up" additional service because, despite my rant, Denver would be a net loser should RTD be broken up. I would like to see Denver put down some serious money (~$75M/annually( via a mill levy to do two things: 1) upgrade the service levels of probably the 10-15 of the busiest intra-city routes and 2) establish a fund for capital improvements on bus routes such as shelters, real time information, bus bulbs, and traffic signal priority (basically the 15L project that RTD took forever to get done). By doing this we could have a dozen or more routes that have at least 10 minute frequency (preferably 5 minute), real-time bus status information, and the built environment that makes bus movements easier and the transit use experience better.

Ideally it would be great to have a transit pass for every single Denver resident, but that would be way outside of the revenues for the above idea.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Different pot of money for the roadway versus additional transit question which makes it a hard comparison. But what you mention with Boulder is what Denver should be looking at "buying up" additional service because, despite my rant, Denver would be a net loser should RTD be broken up. I would like to see Denver put down some serious money (~$75M/annually( via a mill levy to do two things: 1) upgrade the service levels of probably the 10-15 of the busiest intra-city routes and 2) establish a fund for capital improvements on bus routes such as shelters, real time information, bus bulbs, and traffic signal priority (basically the 15L project that RTD took forever to get done). By doing this we could have a dozen or more routes that have at least 10 minute frequency (preferably 5 minute), real-time bus status information, and the built environment that makes bus movements easier and the transit use experience better.

Ideally it would be great to have a transit pass for every single Denver resident, but that would be way outside of the revenues for the above idea.

Agreed on all counts. I realized as I was typing that I'm opening a whole can of worms by suggesting that highway money be re-routed towards transit. All of your suggestions for improvements are absolutely good ones, and these kinds of things can't necessarily come out of highway budgets. But they are all things that they city should theoretically be able to afford if it puts its mind to it, and if there isn't some expectation that the fringes of the metro area all need the same level of investment as the center of town.

Sometimes though, I think there are examples of where roadway projects could factor in a transit component. CDOT's upcoming I-25 project that is looking at re-building railroad infrastructure is an obvious example. My pet project for that one would be to close the "Mile High" station and replace it with a new station in the Baker gap between Alameda and 10th and Osage stations (since the south end of Santa Fe is another example of where Denver's transit system falls short within less than 2 miles of downtown). In other cases, maybe roadway projects (like Brighton) should cast a wider net and consider transit improvements for the whole area. I mean sure, 38th and Blake is great, but how is an Arvada resident like myself supposed to get to somewhere like 29th and Larimer on transit? Trying to transfer to the 44 from Union Station doesn't exactly make sense when I could just drive my car and be there in 15 minutes. And could a small portion of something like the I-70 project be used to double-track or grade-separate portions of the A-line to allow for express service or faster travel times? Just a few examples I can think of.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

To be clear, I’m arguing against stopping freeway expansion for the sake of preventing “induced demand” or forcing people onto our inadequate transit system.

We should be focusing on good transit where it’s viable, but unfortunately it does feel like a pipe dream right now because of how our transit agencies and their revenue streams are set up.

I hear ya. It's easy to get caught up in dogmatic arguments when it isn't always that easy. Something like replacing the I-70 viaduct obviously needed to happen. I actually think CDOT's approach of adding managed lanes, making safety improvements, and fixing things like drainage is perfectly reasonable without massively widening highways. I-25 between Alameda and Speer, for example, often feels like you're taking your life in your hands when you drive on it. It absolutely makes sense to continue to fix our freeways while also acknowledging that induced demand is real and there are things we could be doing to make our transit system viable for more people - particularly in the city center.

Edit: I'll add that what doesn't seem to make sense is to continue the practice of massively over-sized city streets. It absolutely makes sense to remove lanes of travel, or to shrink their dimensions, in order to make BRT projects viable. Colfax and Speer both seem like really low-hanging fruit to me. The timeline on Colfax is frustrating enough, much less seeing streets like Speer on the Denver Moves: Transit vision map with no real commitment to such a project ever happening.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I think this is the key point here. But I have to pose the question - isn't there some kind of middle ground between providing amazing public transportation to the entire metro area vs. throwing up our hands and saying "f-it!"?

COtoOC mentions that you cannot easily take the train from Central Park to Lone Tree. Is this kind of suburb-to-suburb service really the goal though? I live in Arvada, and while I think the G-line is actually pretty great, and I like to dream about a day when I could easily travel on good BRT on Wadsworth to places like Belmar or to Broomfield where I could transfer to the FF to Boulder, I have come to accept your point that this isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

But in the shorter term, is it really so much of a pipe dream to make public transit within the center of Denver work better? I think I recently mentioned that Olde Town Arvada has better access to the city center than many urban Denver neighborhoods do. I feel like this actually shouldn't be the case. My best personal example is that about two years ago I decided to catch a bus on 15th street around 4pm to meet my husband for dinner at 32nd and Lowell where we could then drive home to Arvada together afterward. The route I had to take - I believe it was the 32 - felt PAINFULLY slow. Between the wait and the slow route, I think it took almost 40 minutes to get to West Highland. I can't help but think that it shouldn't take that long to get to an "up and coming" urban neighborhood that is only 2 miles from Downtown. Again - I could have gotten home to Olde Town Arvada faster than that, and it is almost twice as far away. There are no doubt countless other examples of this just within 2-4 miles of downtown.

I think wong and others are circling around the right point - Denver needs a transit agency that can effectively serve the dense parts of the city without being spread so thin. Boulder manages to have a bus system that effectively serves people of all walks of life, like what has been described in San Francisco. But Boulder also "buys up" service above and beyond what RTD is able to provide. There has to be some kind of lesson there. Admittedly, this is more a matter of ongoing O&M as opposed to new infrastructure, but there are also some big roadway projects near the city center where it seems that some portion of the project budget could go towards tangible improvements to the transit system.

The entire problem with the ride from Central Park to Lone Tree is the A line, specifically, the north end of it. I drive over to the station at the north end of the A line and then it takes over a half hour to get to about the Florida station, south of the mall. From there on south, it goes fast and works as expected. I just don't know what they were thinking when they routed the train around the mall with all those stops. I assume to get Aurora gov't workers over to the civic building, but there is rarely anyone at the stop since it's still not near the building.

OTOH, taking the A line downtown or to the airport is actually a faster, cheaper way to go for me. The A line works great!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

The entire problem with the ride from Central Park to Lone Tree is the A line, specifically, the north end of it. I drive over to the station at the north end of the A line and then it takes over a half hour to get to about the Florida station, south of the mall. From there on south, it goes fast and works as expected. I just don't know what they were thinking when they routed the train around the mall with all those stops. I assume to get Aurora gov't workers over to the civic building, but there is rarely anyone at the stop since it's still not near the building.

OTOH, taking the A line downtown or to the airport is actually a faster, cheaper way to go for me. The A line works great!

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions and also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

Yes, sorry. R Line sucks!

[mr1138]

Yep - you're absolutely right wong. That's pretty much what I would have said (and more concisely). I don't think anyone on this forum will argue that the R-line isn't deeply flawed!

To return to the San Francisco example - I bet if one needed to travel from Palo Alto to Berkeley on transit they'd find themselves equally frustrated. That doesn't mean that SF proper can't provide decent bus service.

[TakeFive]

You are too, too much

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You mean the R Line, right? Which is an example of everything that's wrong with RTD's political pandering to local interests that affects route decisions also how the Denver Metro isn't dense enough to support large suburb-to-suburb transit, i.e rail instead of bus.

But if you keep complaining, I'll keep explaining.

There was nothing wrong when the second largest number of taxpayers in the RTD district wants their share of the action, especially since Aurora is much bigger than Denver and will eventually surpass Denver in population.

I'll concede the route design was flawed

The I-225 light rail from Florida down and around through the tech center but especially into downtown Denver has some of the best ridership numbers outside of downtown - often by a country mile.

Had they kept the route along I-225 it would have been much better. It's the ~5 miles through the Aurora City Center that was a mistake. Aurora should have been responsible for 50% of the cost for what should have been a spur route.

[TakeFive]

That was one fun read; great comment

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

When I lived in SF I didn’t own a car and liked it that way. My first couple apartments were near the Financial District so I used the subway a lot. When I lived in The Haight I used the N a lot, and of course, buses. I have to say, the N was unreliable.

Denver is different.

You're my 'bellwether' dude.

You're not some stuffed shirt; you're not generally a crusader but you do like the urban environment and you're just living out your life like all of us.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You are too, too much

But if you keep complaining, I'll keep explaining.

There was nothing wrong when the second largest number of taxpayers in the RTD district wants their share of the action, especially since Aurora is much bigger than Denver and will eventually surpass Denver in population.

I'll concede the route design was flawed

The I-225 light rail from Florida down and around through the tech center but especially into downtown Denver has some of the best ridership numbers outside of downtown - often by a country mile.

Had they kept the route along I-225 it would have been much better. It's the ~5 miles through the Aurora City Center that was a mistake. Aurora should have been responsible for 50% of the cost for what should have been a spur route.

The H Line goes into the Auraria Campus and downtown (your mention of the Tech Center is laughable, you might want to check Google Maps), so I fail to see how your subtle assertion that it's an example of a suburb-to-suburb connection that works is valid. If the R Line was an extension of the H Line it would probably be different in ridership terms, but than it's not a suburb-to-suburb connection, is it?

I never once said that Aurora shouldn't get a choo-choo, but that how the choo-choo was laid out due to political interference (going through the Aurora "City Center", not going through the middle of Anschutz) is what is wrong with RTD. They screwed up a line that was already going to be a middling performer not due to value engineering (which RTD tends to be good at), but because they feel too much pressure to cow to special interests whether that be the City of Aurora or disability advocates that force parents to pull their kids out of strollers and fold them up before boarding RTD vehicles.

But please, keep on pontificating from Phoenix using your extensive knowledge of Google and Google Maps.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But please, keep on pontificating from Phoenix using your extensive knowledge of Google and Google Maps.

I miss Eeyore. At least his nonsense was entertaining and funny.