DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I live in Central Park. I've taken the R line to work in the past (down to Lone Tree) and it's slow. But free would be an incentive since it would save me money. However, I'm on perm. WFH now.

I like to take the A line to downtown and DIA, but am now hesitant considering the CP Station park and ride is a common place to have your Cat. converter or entire vehicle stolen. It's probably a 25 min. walk from my house to the train, so now it's to the point where Uber/Lyft is the best option to get downtown. Until they can make the parking lot safe, I doubt any incentive would get me back on the train, unfortunately.

Also Central Park, and used to work in the DTC. Considered the R, but between the transfer and overall commute time, I chose to go with mental anguish sitting in traffic on 225 instead. Agreed that if it were free, I would reconsider.

My last job was downtown, and I took the A Line, which I'll admit was probably my most enjoyable work commute ever outside of working from home (my current state).

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I live in Central Park. I've taken the R line to work in the past (down to Lone Tree) and it's slow. But free would be an incentive since it would save me money. However, I'm on perm. WFH now.

I like to take the A line to downtown and DIA, but am now hesitant considering the CP Station park and ride is a common place to have your Cat. converter or entire vehicle stolen. It's probably a 25 min. walk from my house to the train, so now it's to the point where Uber/Lyft is the best option to get downtown. Until they can make the parking lot safe, I doubt any incentive would get me back on the train, unfortunately.

same shit i've been saying for years.
these trains are a debacle of the highest proportion. 1990s thinking.
but keep begging for more worthless trains. keep it up.

in the end, taking a car is still going to be a more attractive option for most.

but the roads are so busy! welp, except apparently they aren't so busy that people still avoid that unreliable money pit called the train.

i have an idea, let's build something that's so expensive that we'll never come close to paying for it. keep in mind, this train is set in place. as it stands now, virtually nobody in denver benefits from the train and since the stupid design is locked in, we're stuck. if you don't want to go through union station to get whereever your'e going, too bad. of all of the things about this train system, having union station being almost the only transfer point is nuts.

so here we are with our immovable train lines that cost 1000 billionity dollars that basically serves nobody in denver. i mean holy shit, what a disaster.

let's go back in time and take that money, build great bus lanes where the bus routes can actually be altered, affordable housing, sidewalks, parks, homeless shelters, and even dedicated bike roads. then we could take the leftovers and all retire.

but no, we have a train that that seems to exist so surbubanites can ride into the city for sports and concerts. sweet.

how's that cbd business class ridership working out these days? you mean it isn't great? but we spent a trillion dollars so conner could ride the train in from littleton! you mean he's working from home now?

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Does anybody know anybody who lives in Central Park?

https://www.cpr.org/2022/07/29/rtd-free-fare-august-tips/


---------------------------------------

I recall that timing


But when Papa dies then all the kids want their share of the inheritance.

lol, the trains are so shitty that they can't even get people to ride for FREE!

at what point to the urban planners who pushed this nonsense and still do apologize and realize their textbooks from 1996 are outdated?


https://www.dailycamera.com/2022/03/06/e...acks-in-the-past-and-funding-the-agency/

these guys want to raise taxes even more so we can throw even more money down the pit.


the greatest argument the author makes for doing this is greenhouse emissions. she seems to be stuck in 1996 as well. do the train fanboys just pretend electric cars don't exist now? at some point i'm gonna need more than "cars are bad" as a reason for even more investment in today's equivalent to the typewriter.

future generations will be amazed how we once broke free from the expense and shackles of train lines only to break ourselves because it seemed like the thing to do 30 years ago - based on not much more than a whim. - but they tell you that you aren't progressive if you aren't a train person...progressive shaming.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

at some point i'm gonna need more than "cars are bad" as a reason for even more investment in today's equivalent to the typewriter.

Unfortunately this thinking is now engrained at the very highest levels - state and federal. Anti-car "urbanists" (you know, urban, like Boulder) long ago won the ideological battle.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

same shit i've been saying for years.
these trains are a debacle of the highest proportion. 1990s thinking.
but keep begging for more worthless trains. keep it up.

in the end, taking a car is still going to be a more attractive option for most.

but the roads are so busy! welp, except apparently they aren't so busy that people still avoid that unreliable money pit called the train.

i have an idea, let's build something that's so expensive that we'll never come close to paying for it. keep in mind, this train is set in place. as it stands now, virtually nobody in denver benefits from the train and since the stupid design is locked in, we're stuck. if you don't want to go through union station to get whereever your'e going, too bad. of all of the things about this train system, having union station being almost the only transfer point is nuts.

so here we are with our immovable train lines that cost 1000 billionity dollars that basically serves nobody in denver. i mean holy shit, what a disaster.

let's go back in time and take that money, build great bus lanes where the bus routes can actually be altered, affordable housing, sidewalks, parks, homeless shelters, and even dedicated bike roads. then we could take the leftovers and all retire.

but no, we have a train that that seems to exist so surbubanites can ride into the city for sports and concerts. sweet.

how's that cbd business class ridership working out these days? you mean it isn't great? but we spent a trillion dollars so conner could ride the train in from littleton! you mean he's working from home now?

Yeah, I think the trains work for certain people, depending on where they live. I mean, the A line is perfect for me to get downtown or to the airport. But the R line.... don't get me started. I took it from the very north end down to Lincoln, and could easily walk from the station into my office. It's a failure through Aurora though... way too slow. Why it creeps around the Aurora mall is a big part of the failure. And the station over Colfax that is basically not walkable to anything. In heavy traffic, I could drive to work in 50 min. to an hour, door to door. Taking the train was an hour 15. And since I drive a hybrid, it cost me less than a gallon of gas round-trip driving, but the train was what... $9? So the only incentive for me was the convenience of not driving, but no time or money savings? I typically only used it when it snowed because then it saved me time, and risking wrecking my car.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Is anybody aware of a car-oriented sprawling city that was able to retrofit a viable public transit system with high ridership? I love trains and want to see them thrive in Denver but it seems to be a difficult task to connect a metro area that was built for the car. That's why I'm more interested in improving transit and other multimodal options in the city, rather than the suburbs. Denver's streets were largely designed around a streetcar network IIRC

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

...but no, we have a train that that seems to exist so surbubanites can ride into the city for sports and concerts. sweet...

Currently yes, you're spot on, but you have to remember this is an investment for a century. As Denver matures, more dense development will occur in those suburban locations at nodes. We're still probably 20-30 years away from that kind of cycle system wide but we have pockets of it already in places like DTC, Lone Tree and even Aurora to a lesser extent. What we should be doing now is authorizing bonds for RTD to purchase land for those future lines and transfer centers (Aurora/Colfax, Central Park, Leetsdale corridor, etc). Folks want everything perfect right now, it doesn't work that way! In time, our system will be fine. It may need a couple bailouts along the way, but it's a huge system (way too big for us currently) that can grow and become much better with further investment and reallocation in the urban bus network. I would vote for a Denver specific tax to augment RTD (because splitting off entirely is not economically attractive for Denver now, though that may change in the future).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

As Denver matures, more dense development will occur in those suburban locations at nodes. .

Bullshit. Never, ever, ever enough to justify the investment or move the needle on overall development patterns. Because, well, this:

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/06/orchard-station-subarea-plan-defeated/

[TakeFive]

We can agree to disagree

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

lol, the trains are so shitty that they can't even get people to ride for FREE!

at what point to the urban planners who pushed this nonsense and still do apologize and realize their textbooks from 1996 are outdated?

Your 1st comment above sounds like a right wing ie Independence Institute argument. The idea is to hate trains to save the investment $'s. They couldn't care less about buses except they're cheaper. They'd rather spend the $'s on better roads TBH.

At the time rail was planned and executed most downtown workers commuted from the suburbs. Fortunately, the timing was good in the sense that rail or FasTracks was built for a song; the bones are now done.

RE: the Boulder rant; I have no idea who Megan Schrader is but she offers a very 'urbanist' POV with a heavy Boulder bias. Afaik, the four-tenths FasTracks tax was to pay for the Capital costs but not the operating costs for the rail system.

BTW, the most recent RTD data from 4th quarter of 2021 indicates that the rail system carried 55% of transit ridership which was up from 45% pre-pandemic. So it seems to be more than holding its own.

It shouldn't be viewed as a zero sum game. Buses have as many issues if not more than rail transit.

[TakeFive]

That would be an Oxymoron

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Is anybody aware of a car-oriented sprawling city that was able to retrofit a viable public transit system with high ridership? I love trains and want to see them thrive in Denver but it seems to be a difficult task to connect a metro area that was built for the car. That's why I'm more interested in improving transit and other multimodal options in the city, rather than the suburbs. Denver's streets were largely designed around a streetcar network IIRC

Not only was the population dispersed but as we know "retail follows rooftops." So did Office space. But in recent years office space has tended to cluster.

Any streetcar network is totally dated and irrelevant. But the growth in downtown density is not.

Still, there is value in transit but it's also important to recognize that it can only serve those who can take advantage of it - if they're willing. The notion of adding frequency as a magical fix is a mirage. It may make great sense along Colfax or along other BRT-type routes like Federal Blvd but in a lot of cases RTD could save money by offering rideshare vouchers as apposed to a handful of extra riders along many routes.

I've already endorsed a plan to offer frequent 'shuttle' or circulator service in the denser urban neighborhoods.

[BrIced_Tea]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Is anybody aware of a car-oriented sprawling city that was able to retrofit a viable public transit system with high ridership? I love trains and want to see them thrive in Denver but it seems to be a difficult task to connect a metro area that was built for the car. That's why I'm more interested in improving transit and other multimodal options in the city, rather than the suburbs. Denver's streets were largely designed around a streetcar network IIRC

Arlington Virginia is a pretty good example. Used to be very suburban until the DC Metro was built through town.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BrIced_Tea

Arlington Virginia is a pretty good example. Used to be very suburban until the DC Metro was built through town.

Nice example.

In the beginning... For years, this forum's moderator was Cirrus who was a transportation planner for NoVA. I recall learning a lot about the Silver Line and Tyson's Corner as well as a ton of transit wisdom.

Cirrus also became 'famous' when he wrote this piece about "BRT Creep" at "Greater Greater Washington" back in 2011.

[TakeFive]

I almost overlooked this. Thought I'd take a second look. Amazingly clear day!

Originally Posted by rds70

RINO/Brighton corridor from yesterday:

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Currently yes, you're spot on, but you have to remember this is an investment for a century. As Denver matures, more dense development will occur in those suburban locations at nodes. We're still probably 20-30 years away from that kind of cycle system wide but we have pockets of it already in places like DTC, Lone Tree and even Aurora to a lesser extent.

Let's run a quick review. First is the closer to downtown TOD.

Broadway/I-25 Station

• Gates District at Broadway Station by Endeavor
• Santa Fe Yards at Broadway Station

41st and Fox Station

• FoxPark Denver

Note: The FoxPark development has started demolition and infrastructure work.

Then there's The River Mile awaiting Platte River improvements.

The Sun Valley Masterplan which is in progress.

The Stadium District Master Plan

Summary: If DUS neighborhood development was $2 billion then I'll guess a minimum $5 billion of investment in the above listed TOD areas.

[TakeFive]

Moving on out to the suburbs

Originally Posted by laniroj

Currently yes, you're spot on, but you have to remember this is an investment for a century. As Denver matures, more dense development will occur in those suburban locations at nodes. We're still probably 20-30 years away from that kind of cycle system wide but we have pockets of it already in places like DTC, Lone Tree and even Aurora to a lesser extent.

Comment: While downtown neighborhood development hasn't taken all of the oxygen out of the air it continues to take most of it. But that will eventually change, at least enough to encourage more suburban TOD.

I'll agree with bunt that Belleview Station is likely an outlier for what will more typically be built. But urban-suburban density is more than enough to make a huge difference. Here is one current example which broke ground in September of 2021.

The Point Crossing

The Point Crossing is a new affordable workforce housing project located adjacent to the Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) Nine Mile Station in Aurora, Colorado. The proposed project will be constructed within the 22-acre redevelopment known as The Point at Nine Mile located at the corner of Parker Road and Peoria Street.

This looks to be nice.
South Westminster Station TOD




Images courtesy VMWP Denver

From Low Density Industrial Site to Vibrant Neighborhood

South Westminster Transit Oriented Development [TOD] is a 100 acre redevelopment of an existing industrial neighborhood into a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood. The site program includes 1,100 units of housing; 334,000 sq. ft. of retail space; 240,000 sq. ft. of commercial office space; 67,000 sq. ft. of industrial space, and a series of pocket parks, a main street and a town green.

Orchard Station - Between Belleview and Orchard there's a lot of crappy office buildings. Some day Greenwood Village will look at the potential tax base from allowing redevelopment into reasonable residential density, say up to six stories.

[Ndj]

I know this is just concept are but that westminster development just looks like a suburban, car-oriented development in disguise to me. Made all the roads and parking lots white to hide how much of that land is actually reserved for cars. Not to mention 1100 units for 100 acres next to a train stop isn't even close to dense enough.

[Robert.hampton]

Not sure i I've seen anyone mention this proposal - converting the Capitol Center at 16th and Grant from office to apartments while also putting another 11 story tower up next door. Great to see more nibbling on the office-to-residential conversion idea and this in particular would help add activation and connectivity between CBD and Uptown.

Proposed conversion of an 11-story existing office tower on the southeast corner of the property into multi-family residential with apartment amenities and co-working spaces. 111 units proposed. In addition to the existing tower, the site consists of an existing 2-level parking garage on the north side of the property. The garage is anticipated to be demolished to make way for a new 11-story apartment building with parking garage and apartment amenities. 243 units, 319 total parking stalls proposed. The existing 2-story building on the southwest corner of the property will remain with no change in use.

[TakeFive]

Good catch; fair point

Originally Posted by Ndj

I know this is just concept are but that westminster development just looks like a suburban, car-oriented development in disguise to me. Made all the roads and parking lots white to hide how much of that land is actually reserved for cars. Not to mention 1100 units for 100 acres next to a train stop isn't even close to dense enough.

Yean, I didn't even notice the 'white' space; but this is where my contextual thinking comes in.

A) Most of the new apartment buildings in/near downtown Denver also have parking and also are along streets that may or may not have street parking. This development will not have the budget to include podiums for parking so they show more of a 'donut' or interior parking plan.

B) Good guess this TOD will be a mix of affordable and market rate projects and market rate in Westminster will not compare to market rate in Denver.

C) The Westminster Station, the one and only station along the B Line is six miles from downtown. It would be nice to extend the B Line at least to the new Downtown Westminster but don't hold your breath.

D) If we assume that 15%, maybe 20% of the residents work in downtown Denver, then the rest of the residents need access to wherever they're going.

E) Most of the older apartments in Westminster would be 2 to 3 stories while new projects may be 4 stories. The 5 stories shown is a nice bump up in density from the status quo.

F) The plan does say that:

• Reconnecting the existing urban fabric
• Replacing a dead mall with a vibrant transit oriented neighborhood

BTW, "transit oriented" is not the same as transit dependent.

[Ndj]

On the bright side, some of those central parking areas could be used for much larger developments in the future.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Moving on out to the suburbs


Comment: While downtown neighborhood development hasn't taken all of the oxygen out of the air it continues to take most of it. But that will eventually change, at least enough to encourage more suburban TOD.

I'll agree with bunt that Belleview Station is likely an outlier for what will more typically be built. But urban-suburban density is more than enough to make a huge difference. Here is one current example which broke ground in September of 2021.

The Point Crossing





This looks to be nice.
South Westminster Station TOD




Images courtesy VMWP Denver


Orchard Station - Between Belleview and Orchard there's a lot of crappy office buildings. Some day Greenwood Village will look at the potential tax base from allowing redevelopment into reasonable residential density, say up to six stories.

Orchard Station had fantastic development planned, but we wanted to "keep the character of the village". As an Eastern European who grew up in an actual village, I always found that laughable. Low-rise 1970s and 1980s office buildings, several miles of freeway, and strip malls does not village make.

Especially as the development would not stretch all the way to Yosemite and would strangle i25 between Orchard and Landmark. It's a missed opportunity and you are correct, it will eventually end up developed.