DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show....php?p=6063552

I didn't think it was that bad of an idea. The picture is maybe probably just not quite accurate. It's interesting to consider how the core might have developed differently if something like it had been built.

Wait. What?!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show....php?p=6063552

I didn't think it was that bad of an idea. The picture is maybe probably just not quite accurate. It's interesting to consider how the core might have developed differently if something like it had been built.

There wouldn't be a LoDo. How's that for a difference?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

But as I just pointed out in the main development thread, the transit system we have invested in IS slowly but surely attracting apartment and office development. Development that arguably would not have ended up there if we had chosen to funnel light-rail funds into more freeways instead. So Cirrus' point that these decisions can affect where and how development occurs would seem to be easily demonstrated by the development patterns we currently see.

Originally Posted by mr1138

In all honesty, I think it has always been the vision of the ones who masterminded Denver's transit network that we would see many of these kinds of neighborhoods, and perhaps all at once. Suburban development has never been well coordinated or master planned across the entire metro area. I'm pretty sure the idea was to put the backbone of a transit system in instead of massive investment in new freeways, and hope that developers would take an interest in the station areas.

I share your desire to see the Alameda and Broadway area built out though, and can't speak to what the hold up is.

I just happen to be fond of these comments.

On this thread I have been one of the more enthusiastic fans of Fastracks. We've previously had some interesting discussion bcuz many feel (and I agree) that FasTracks is NOT a textbook designed system. H0WEVER...

Fastracks reflects a vision and intent to take at least some drivers off the road and suburban commute AND to influence future growth and development density near transit stations. To date it's been modest and it's easily over-shadowed by all the action near downtown.

Not unlike the Alameda and Broadway areas, there's many "master plans" near various stations that are yet to be realized. That development which has or is occurring is generally one project-at-a-time and scattered around the metro area. It's easy to forget the more scattered development.

But in "our" defense (since I agree with you) there's two recent articles about the growing importance of TOD's in BOTH urban and suburban areas.

How transit-oriented developments are transforming US cities
Feb. 2, 2017 by Kim Slowey - Construction Dive

The trend toward walkability and the desire to live in an urban setting has been rising in popularity for years. Even the suburbs, once developed with maximum neighbor-to-neighbor buffers in mind, have started to play host to mini mixed-use, village-style complexes in an effort to give residents a community feel.

The article talks about the changing attitudes and preferences of large (and small) corporations.

These shifts are happening all over the country, but one of the most integral elements to each is its proximity to convenient and reliable transportation.

No better example than State Farm which built three new regional HQ's for more than 8,000 employees each in Tempe AZ, Richardson TX and Atlanta. All are along or close to rail transit stations.

Multifamily Developers Willing to Pay More to Build Near Mass Transit Stops
Jan 24, 2017 by Bendix Anderson - National Real Estate Investor

It may take a couple of decades to appreciate but I still have absolute confidence that density will sprout near most of the FasTracks stations and ridership will climb ever higher. Ultimately the vision of FasTracks will prove brilliant in hindsight.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I still have absolute confidence that density will sprout near most of the FasTracks stations and ridership will climb ever higher. Ultimately the vision of FasTracks will prove brilliant in hindsight.

Of course there will be development around the stations. Most suburbs have thousands of units of crap this like, which is the absolute worst of both worlds:



With that, you get neither the tranquility of detached house suburbia, nor the convenience of walkable urbanism. So it's dumb. Suburbs are realizing that if you're going to have apartment-level density anyway (which most do because the market demands it) you may as well make it walkable. And if you have transit stations, you may as well put apartments close by.

It's just common sense. The only question is how much NIMBY-influenced zoning will hold it back.

But that doesn't mean FasTracks couldn't have been better designed. Even if we assume that suburban TOD is FasTrack's highest priority (which it isn't, but for the sake of argument), the location of stations and every criticism leveled at Union Station still holds true. For example, we could've gotten soooo much more out of the SE Corridor if the light rail had left I-25 and gone elevated through the heart of DTC. Or, barring that expense, even if it had just been on the east side of I-25 rather than the west.

Of course having something good is better than wanting-but-not-having something perfect. Nobody here is sad that FasTracks happened. But there's no universe where its design didn't miss a lot of opportunities.

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There wouldn't be a LoDo. How's that for a difference?

But there would be something else in its place. And possibly years before, no wait, decades before what we are finally beginning to see today. I would argue that it has been our absolute inability to plan for the future that has created our problems. Not only was this not built, in 2017, Denver doesn't have an adequate freeway through the business core.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

But there would be something else in its place. And possibly years before, no wait, decades before what we are finally beginning to see today.

IIRC the contemporary plan for LoDo was to completely demolish it and replace it with DTC-style office parks. One office building per block, surrounded by surface parking and some grass. I don't think there's a human alive who'd call that better than what we have now.

We don't have to imagine what Denver would look like today had that highway been built, because lots of other American cities built their versions of it, and we can see the effects first hand. They did not get better.

[COS]

To help make Cirrus's point, the picture of the dumb apartments is from Colorado Springs (you can see Pike's Peak in the background). You want to see illogical suburban sprawl with zero urban foresight and the issues that plague it, come visit the Springs once every 10 years.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Of course there will be development around the stations. Most suburbs have thousands of units of crap this like, which is the absolute worst of both worlds:

The Vineyards are along Woodman Rd in Co Springs and across Rangewood Dr. from Woodman Plaza.

As much as I'm fascinated by Denver's growing urban profile there's little benefit to hating on suburbia. It might also be reasonable to acknowledge that:

Recent research suggests that urban dwellers are significantly less likely to be happy than their suburban or rural counterparts.

Jun 27, 2016 by Richard Florida - CityLab

If you're only referencing suburban apartments in general it's true that people who like living in Colorado tend to like some green space. It's also hard to criticize parents who appreciate a safe play area for their children.

But honestly I'm not aware of many apartments that have been built in the last dozen years anywhere that have a lot of green space. Some? Sure. Safe play areas? Sure.

Light rail stations, though, are a whole other topic. But I'll have to think about how important walkable urbanism is to suburban stations. My question would be how rigid does the definition box have to be? Presumably there is flexibility for how to skin the walkability cat?

[Cirrus]

Of course you want some park space. What in god's name makes you think parks are incompatible with walkable urbanism? That's not even remotely true.

And yes, of suburban-style walkable urbanism looks different. We have tons of examples of it all over the US, and all over suburban Denver. That's the main point of new urbanism developments like Bradburn in Westminster or Belmar in Lakewood (neither are anywhere near a rail station). They're not significantly denser than "normal" suburban apartment complexes; they're merely laid out a little differently, to take advantage of the density inherent to apartments.


Bradburn image from google maps


Belmar image from google maps


Here, this is a good visual explainer of the difference. This shows 2 different layouts for the exact same land uses. On the top is a walkable urbanism layout, and on the bottom is a suburban layout. The top is no denser than the bottom. There's the same amount of every land use, including open space and surface parking. But the top is walkable and the bottom is not. This is all I'm talking about. If you're going to have apartments and shops and office buildings anyway, make them look like the top. Not only do you end up with a nicer-looking walkable community, you also reduce traffic congestion since everyone doesn't have to use the collector road for every single trip.


USDOT

[EngiNerd]

Ha, I'm pretty sure that "traditional suburb" layout pic is from Superior, CO....good conversation.

[COS]

https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...t-futures/2017

I'm sure this was posted before during the previous discussions on expanding or moving I-70, but I thought the expansion plan was approved already? Is there still a chance of the re-route?

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by COS

https://www.cnu.org/highways-bouleva...t-futures/2017

I'm sure this was posted before during the previous discussions on expanding or moving I-70, but I thought the expansion plan was approved already? Is there still a chance of the re-route?

It's already been approved, mostly because the re-route movement wasn't able to back up their claims, like these:

Now, a group called Unite North Metro Denver has a better proposal: Reroute interstate traffic to the north, and redesign I-70 as a bike- and pedestrian-friendly boulevard. Such a plan would cut noise and air pollution while bringing new investment opportunity to neglected neighborhoods.

They didn't present a study or solid counter-proposal and wanted to rely on existing examples of highway replacement and broad statements they couldn't back up. To convince anyone in power you need a lot more than this. There are a few really great examples of urban highways being replaced by streets, but most were in the center or immediately adjacent to urban areas, and many were short distances. I-70 doesn't really match any of those criteria, but that didn't stop them from using them as examples. Unsurprisingly, that convinced literally no one that had a say in the matter.

They ignored any argument that replacing I-70 with a boulevard would not just create a mostly-industrial, equally-congested and annoying Colorado Blvd. No retail, little office...

And does a massive boulevard actually create less pollution? Cars idling at stop lights are still emitting and building a boulevard isn't going to make the extant industry go away. They kept repeating this mantra of less pollution over and over, but never backed it up with solid statistics.

And that slower-moving, still-polluted boulevard is going through an area that is still predominantly dirty industry... They claimed this would be an investment opportunity, but is that any more of an investment opportunity than a sunken highway? Either plan is going to struggle with the reality of the neighborhood and how the lack of investment is a symptom of more than just the highway. Their argument here, just like CDOT's, was essentially "trust us". The difference was that they didn't have any data to back up their assertion.

Finally, selling additional highway commute time to anyone in Aurora driving downtown or anyone from the south or west going to DIA wasn't going to be easy. The re-route groups never gathered the political capital necessary to sell this because they never addressed this issue and tried to mostly just appeal to ecological and economic inequality concerns.

In short, the re-route movement died because it wasn't organized enough to present a real working alternative. They had a neat video and a website full of good links, but not enough to convince the people that really mattered in the decision.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

It's already been approved, mostly because the re-route movement wasn't able to back up their claims, like these:



They didn't present a study or solid counter-proposal and wanted to rely on existing examples of highway replacement and broad statements they couldn't back up. To convince anyone in power you need a lot more than this. There are a few really great examples of urban highways being replaced by streets, but most were in the center or immediately adjacent to urban areas, and many were short distances. I-70 doesn't really match any of those criteria, but that didn't stop them from using them as examples. Unsurprisingly, that convinced literally no one that had a say in the matter.

They ignored any argument that replacing I-70 with a boulevard would not just create a mostly-industrial, equally-congested and annoying Colorado Blvd. No retail, little office...

And does a massive boulevard actually create less pollution? Cars idling at stop lights are still emitting and building a boulevard isn't going to make the extant industry go away. They kept repeating this mantra of less pollution over and over, but never backed it up with solid statistics.

And that slower-moving, still-polluted boulevard is going through an area that is still predominantly dirty industry... They claimed this would be an investment opportunity, but is that any more of an investment opportunity than a sunken highway? Either plan is going to struggle with the reality of the neighborhood and how the lack of investment is a symptom of more than just the highway. Their argument here, just like CDOT's, was essentially "trust us". The difference was that they didn't have any data to back up their assertion.

Finally, selling additional highway commute time to anyone in Aurora driving downtown or anyone from the south or west going to DIA wasn't going to be easy. The re-route groups never gathered the political capital necessary to sell this because they never addressed this issue and tried to mostly just appeal to ecological and economic inequality concerns.

In short, the re-route movement died because it wasn't organized enough to present a real working alternative. They had a neat video and a website full of good links, but not enough to convince the people that really mattered in the decision.

I think converting a freeway into a boulevard works very well at a freeway’s terminus, or where a freeway passes directly through a downtown area. It would be a terrible idea for I-70. Denver would lose its only east-west freeway that cuts all the way across the metro, dramatically extending the commute times for tens of thousands of commuters, reducing the metro area’s economic productivity, and increasing pollution. DIA, which, due to its remote location is already a long commute for most metro Denver residents, would become much less accessible, reducing its economic benefit to the Front Range. Also, having spent most of my career in supply chain management, I have no doubt it would have a palpable negative economic effect on the freight/logistics industry. I can’t help but think the opponents of the expansion project are being somewhat disingenuous when they cite economics or pollution as an argument against project. That’s quite a stretch.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Also, having spent most of my career in supply chain management, I have no doubt it would have a palpable negative economic effect on the freight/logistics industry.

Maybe they were hoping that those warehouses and factories would start sending products out by bike delivery.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I can’t help but think the opponents of the expansion project are being somewhat disingenuous when they cite economics or pollution as an argument against project. That’s quite a stretch.

Agreed.

I think they thought that the regular NIMBY tactics of "it'll destroy your neighborhood and your way of life" were going to work on a major transportation project. It kind of seems like the alternative proposal was an after thought. Probably because they didn't really think that, unlike stopping "high rises", you can't just not update/replace/re-route crumbling infrastructure.

I think it's also a pretty poor sign when a group promoting "new urbanism" wades into an argument like this and just defaults to "all highways are bad all the time" without checking their sources or asking for counter arguments...

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

IIRC the contemporary plan for LoDo was to completely demolish it and replace it with DTC-style office parks. One office building per block, surrounded by surface parking and some grass. I don't think there's a human alive who'd call that better than what we have now.

We don't have to imagine what Denver would look like today had that highway been built, because lots of other American cities built their versions of it, and we can see the effects first hand. They did not get better.

These are very interesting, but Detroit as an example, didn't die because of a freeway. The economic issues facing Detroit are what decimated that city. They are still tearing down buildings today. It is an absolute shame, but people have virtually left the city for the suburbs. Urban blight and suburban flight.

Each of the cities in this blog have their own factors. Denver never had neighborhoods like Detroit's to tear down in the first place. And Denver's approach still hasn't solved the problem of moving a large population into and through the city efficiently. In my view there has been a complete lack of planning, and especially with concerns for future growth, and that's a shame because it was virtually a blank slate to begin with.

Presentations like this are quick to point out what we think is wrong today, but this one doesn't discuss all of the factors that lead to those changes and why they were determined to be the best solutions at the time. The reality is that each of these cities is different and will require different solutions to keep them working.

[COS]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

Each of the cities in this blog have their own factors. Denver never had neighborhoods like Detroit's to tear down in the first place. And Denver's approach still hasn't solved the problem of moving a large population into and through the city efficiently. In my view there has been a complete lack of planning, and especially with concerns for future growth, and that's a shame because it was virtually a blank slate to begin with.

Didn't Denver tear down the majority of downtown in the 60s/70s and is still going through the process of repairing that urban fabric (hence DenverInfill)? I know it wasn't for a freeway, but the process has been similar with similar struggles as well. Did anyone really want to be the first to try an office building in an empty Arapahoe square?

As for lack of planning I would also disagree. Denver has been making a huge concerted effort since the 80s boom to develop multi-modal transportation, and the latest phase (Fastracks) has the potential to be very successful. You can pick apart the efforts from the beginning and find ways to have planned or implemented better, but I think "complete lack of planning...for future growth" is being unfair. Denver knows what's coming now, and the foundation for handling it was laid before this boom and provides the potential to thrive during the boom. If there's growing pains, I wouldn't blame a lack of planning, hindsight is always 20/20.

[mr1138]

I can't believe there is anybody still out there who actually thinks the "hangman's noose" of downtown freeways is a good thing. Here are a few more cities that didn't "die" (if that's even the standard we want to use): Kansas City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis.

Not one of these places was made better by tearing down dense historic buildings and replacing them with freeways. Nor, would I argue, do they do any better of a job of "moving a large population into and through the city efficiently" than Denver. The speed by which a car can move directly through the center of a major city without stopping is not the standard of good mobility, nor is it the mark of a good city. Sounds like somebody needs to familiarize themselves with Jane Jacobs.

Mind you, I'm not talking about I-70 here. I'm in full support of that plan at this point.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I can't believe there is anybody still out there who actually thinks the "hangman's noose" of downtown freeways is a good thing. Here are a few more cities that didn't "die" (if that's even the standard we want to use): Kansas City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis.

Not one of these places was made better by tearing down dense historic buildings and replacing them with freeways. Nor, would I argue, do they do any better of a job of "moving a large population into and through the city efficiently" than Denver. The speed by which a car can move directly through the center of a major city without stopping is not the standard of good mobility, nor is it the mark of a good city. Sounds like somebody needs to familiarize themselves with Jane Jacobs.

Mind you, I'm not talking about I-70 here. I'm in full support of that plan at this point.

I totally agree, and I'm glad Denver doesn't have freeways cutting through it (although the 25 sort of does). I think KC has discussed tearing out the north side of their downtown loop. It doesn't seem to even get much use.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I think converting a freeway into a boulevard works very well at a freeway’s terminus, or where a freeway passes directly through a downtown area. It would be a terrible idea for I-70. Denver would lose its only east-west freeway that cuts all the way across the metro, dramatically extending the commute times for tens of thousands of commuters, reducing the metro area’s economic productivity, and increasing pollution. DIA, which, due to its remote location is already a long commute for most metro Denver residents, would become much less accessible, reducing its economic benefit to the Front Range. Also, having spent most of my career in supply chain management, I have no doubt it would have a palpable negative economic effect on the freight/logistics industry. I can’t help but think the opponents of the expansion project are being somewhat disingenuous when they cite economics or pollution as an argument against project. That’s quite a stretch.

Yeah, I completely agree. And it's important to get people between DIA and downtown with relative ease. Granted, we have the A line which should be helping reduce traffic on I-70.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Maybe they were hoping that those warehouses and factories would start sending products out by bike delivery.



Agreed.

I think they thought that the regular NIMBY tactics of "it'll destroy your neighborhood and your way of life" were going to work on a major transportation project. It kind of seems like the alternative proposal was an after thought. Probably because they didn't really think that, unlike stopping "high rises", you can't just not update/replace/re-route crumbling infrastructure.

I think it's also a pretty poor sign when a group promoting "new urbanism" wades into an argument like this and just defaults to "all highways are bad all the time" without checking their sources or asking for counter arguments...

Agreed on all points. And I found it amusing that they claimed freeways destroy neighborhoods, yet I-70 runs through Statpleton (I live on the south side) and so far, no problems. I bike and drive back and forth all the time. And then Wash Park is another example. People still happily exist with I-25 running through.