DENVER | Transportation Thread

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well here's what they recently installed on 15th St looks like; Click and scroll. They are fugly but at least in this case the bike lane is wide enough for passing. But I can also understand why many riders do not like "protected" lanes.

It's one thing to design something on paper and quite another to cope with the limitations and even hazards in real life. In the Denver7 video a rider comes along who goes outside of the bike lane on So Marion Pkwy. Given the narrower bike lane on that street I can see how curb-barriers could be very hazardous when trying to pass someone - or just in general. Those barriers could send a 'distracted' bike rider flying off their bike.

I feel a bit as though the fact that protected lanes prevent bikes from leaving their designated space is an argument in their favor, not against them. If the middle-aged-men-in-lycra crowd doesn't like this, maybe that's just too bad. I have ridden all around Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam and personally feel they are fantastic. Their bike networks feel far superior to the one I grew up riding in Boulder, which actually has a "platinum" level rating for bike friendliness.

Does it sometimes feel a bit tight to pass? Sure, but this also has the affect of regulating speed. And there is nothing "on paper" about the Dutch system - it is quite real and millions of people use it all the time.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I feel a bit as though the fact that protected lanes prevent bikes from leaving their designated space is an argument in their favor, not against them. If the middle-aged-men-in-lycra crowd doesn't like this, maybe that's just too bad. I have ridden all around Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam and personally feel they are fantastic. Their bike networks feel far superior to the one I grew up riding in Boulder, which actually has a "platinum" level rating for bike friendliness.

Does it sometimes feel a bit tight to pass? Sure, but this also has the affect of regulating speed. And there is nothing "on paper" about the Dutch system - it is quite real and millions of people use it all the time.

As someone who has commuted by bike and has also been the roadie in spanx, I think most road bikers will either slow down in the protected lanes, move out to the street itself, or take a different path. It's not really going to to just stop them from riding altogether.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

As someone who has commuted by bike and has also been the roadie in spanx, I think most road bikers will either slow down in the protected lanes, move out to the street itself, or take a different path. It's not really going to to just stop them from riding altogether.

Agreed - and on that point, it isn't the speed demons that we need to make happy. It's the "8 to 80," "interested but concerned" crowd that is currently not riding. The "fast and furious" cyclists are hardcore and are certainly not going to stop riding just because they aren't thrilled with these CRAZY new facilities.

That said, it is also my understanding that the law says that automobile lanes are legal to use as a bike facility only when no other bike facility is provided. In our current environment this doesn't seem to ever be enforced because there are SO many exceptions (including instances when a bike would like to merge across multiple lanes to share the left-hand turn lane with automobiles), and most cities that are trying to be "bike friendly" don't encourage their police to set up "traps" as they do for things like speeding or red-light-running for automobile drivers. In a system like the one in the Netherlands you rarely ever see cyclists riding in traffic, except on "shared streets" where that is the design intention.

[Cirrus]

I'm willing to believe more people use scooters than Uber. I just wouldn't have guessed it.

The ring of neighborhoods from which it makes sense to commute into downtown directly via Uber is probably pretty small. I can see how scooters make more sense for short peak-period trips. If you're only going two miles, then an Uber takes longer and costs twice as much. And if you're going more than two miles at rush hour then that's when transit is most competitive. You might take Uber to the closest transit station, but that would count as a transit trip for a survey like this.

But I'm not willing to declare it a widespread trend. It's one believable data point.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

If the middle-aged-men-in-lycra crowd doesn't like this, maybe that's just too bad.

I always get a chuckle out of people using ageism in their argument. Survey says: great majority of Denver bikers are millennial's or < 35 years old.

The world has changed since I used to ride but one thing that hasn't changed is people's biological clock. Just speaking for myself by the time I reached 40 years old I rode more for relaxation knowing I was getting good exercise at the same time. At this point I was the one being passed not doing the passing. So far as lycra goes I don't recall it even being a thing but that was over 30 years ago and I wouldn't have been one to bother with it in any case.

I never rode in the streets other than to get to a nice trail like riding around Cherry Creek Reservoir. I have observed however how nice Scottsdale's bike lane system and street calming practices on collector streets work. I can't recall any "hard protection" however there are many areas where the bike lane goes off-road. In any case I'm referring to neighborhood areas and not a busy commercial area or an arterial road.

Originally Posted by mr1138

I have ridden all around Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam and personally feel they are fantastic. Their bike networks feel far superior to the one I grew up riding in Boulder, which actually has a "platinum" level rating for bike friendliness.

Does it sometimes feel a bit tight to pass? Sure, but this also has the affect of regulating speed. And there is nothing "on paper" about the Dutch system - it is quite real and millions of people use it all the time.

Using the Dutch as an example is fine but Amsterdam is not anything like Denver.

I've done some research and conflicts between cars and bikes because they get too close to each other is not typical but would occur when the ROW's are rather narrow. Most crashes happen at intersections it seems or where driveways cross a bike lane at mid-block.

There's also a difference from being downtown and So Marian Pkwy. I'm unsure whether the same solution would work equally well in both locations. Btw, I'm not against protected bike lanes but I do see why others (much younger than I) wouldn't prefer them.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I always get a chuckle out of people using ageism in their argument. Survey says: great majority of Denver bikers are millennial's or < 35 years old.

I'm mostly joking here - I could have sworn I heard this term thrown out in the past several pages of this discussion. Needless to say, there is definitely a contingency of bike riders who want to assert their space in the auto travel lanes. I just don't think we need to design our system around then. I will be more careful about my word choice in the future - I don't see this as an age thing.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Most crashes happen at intersections it seems or where driveways cross a bike lane at mid-block.

I'll refer back to my original comment about protected intersections - the protected lanes are just one piece of a larger puzzle that absolutely includes intersection improvements.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Using the Dutch as an example is fine but Amsterdam is not anything like Denver.

I'll just refer to my favorite quote from a recent McSweeney's article here.

"Now that we’ve heard from all the members of the city council tonight, I think we as citizens need to make a few things clear. The first is, we aren’t Madison. We aren’t Boulder. We aren’t Terre Haute. So when I hear a member of the council saying, “Well, Waukesha made a few small but substantive changes in such-and-such an area and the results have been very promising empirically,” what that council member fails to understand is that we aren’t Waukesha. We aren’t Tacoma. We aren’t Amherst. We aren’t Portland, Maine. Are we Scottsdale? No, we are not. And so all this so-called “evidence” about how policies have worked in other towns simply does not apply to us. No evidence applies to us. Our town exists in a fog of mystery and enigmatic strangeness, and nothing that happens outside city boundaries should have any bearing on how we govern or exist."

[SnyderBock]

Could protected intersections at Broadway & Colfax, as well as Lincoln & Colfax, be a feasible option in the future?

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Could protected intersections at Broadway & Colfax, as well as Lincoln & Colfax, be a feasible option in the future?

Interesting question. Colfax doesn't have bike lanes, and I don't believe they are planned to be put in either - which, given the ROW restrictions, probably isn't the best battle to fight anyway since they are already making big changes to get the new BRT line in.

One of the main benefits of the protected intersection is that it cleans up bicycle turning movements, keeping right-turning bikes out of the way of vehicles altogether, and staging left-turning bikes into two segments the same way a pedestrian uses two crosswalks to get to the opposing corner (in the absence of a "pedestrian scramble" crossing). I'd want to talk to a traffic engineer about all this, but it seems that many of these benefits would fall away if some cyclists attempt to turn into the vehicle lanes on Colfax. I wonder how many cyclists try to ride on Colfax, or if increased bike use on Broadway would induce more of them to attempt to ride there? I always think its crazy, but I sometimes see bikes riding southbound in the traffic lanes on Boulder's Broadway in spite of a two-way protected facility on the campus (east) side of the road. These are the "fast and furious" folks, and it is technically legal to do since no southbound bike facility is provided on the west side of the road.

Alternately, it could be designed so as to ignore bicycle turning movements on and off of Colfax completely. Boulder is also planning to build an intersection kind of like this on the CU Campus next year, though it is only for a one-way bike lane, so I'm not sure how the design would change for a two-way facility like the Broadway Bikeway. This design in Boulder has brought up many questions by the Transportation Advisory Board and local cycling advocates, because it is not a true Dutch-style full protected intersection (and presents some interesting challenges to the east at 28th Street), but it is in a really good location to test the central idea that these intersections will help mitigate right-hook car-on-bike collisions.

[mrturbo]

Speaking of East Colfax BRT.. More delays. CDOT/RTD need to take over this process and get it done from downtown to I-225. Zero sense having it drop off at the Aurora border.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/0...-denver-delay/

To their credit, RTD is doing stop improvements for the 15L currently. I think they know the city actually building BRT is extremely unlikely.

[PLANSIT]

^ Yeah, they should take over the project they had no interest doing in the first place.

[mrturbo]

Doesn't make sense to spend money to have it dump off to status quo at Yosemite. CDOT owns the road, they're the only ones who could force it.
They're not interested in doing this project, but as Colfax is their road, they should be.

[PLANSIT]

Who’s going to force CDOT to take over a project to force Aurora to have dedicated transit lanes?

Aurora doesn’t want it (yet). CDOT doesn’t want it. You’re stuck with Denver building the biggest transportation project they have ever undertaken; on someone else’s road, in some else’s jurisdiction, with someone else’s service. It’s complicated, but doable.

[iNfill]

We need to focus more on bike/scooter infrastructure. I hear people shout "bring back street cars" but that's extremely expensive and probably less efficient.

Look how many bikes & scooters are out every day now with sub-par infrastructure for both. If you had dedicated lanes and parking all around downtown for both bikes and scooters, you'd reach a lot more people for a fraction of the cost. Plus, Denver could be the first in NA to have such an infrastructure for it's downtown.

[mrturbo]

Honestly, its my personal frustration with this whole process coming out. The lack of coordination/consensus between all the involved parties. I know the Governor/Legislature/CDOT don't have any interest in taking this project on, but it'd be nice if they did.

Denver seems to be stuck in the loop of "study, results, ballot measure, insufficient funds for project, study outdated, return to step one" The Colfax streetcar study will turn 10 next summer. The current announced delay looks to push construction beyond the mayor's and council's term. I won't be surprised if the mayor/council after this one hit reset and do another study.

I've seen the same thing with the Quebec bottleneck between Stapleton/Lowry. Known problem for 20+ years, still the same road it was before Stapleton and Lowry closed. I think Denver has two more years until lose the 2015 DRCOG matching funds for improvements. At least they finally put in the bike lanes on Syracuse.

Aurora doesn't seem to care about much of anything in Ward 1(excepting the Stanley Marketplace + Anschutz campus). City hall's larger focus is on annexing everything between them and Kansas and developing it. That and trying to prove the R line isn't a huge waste of money. Aurora won't be on board with changes to Colfax until someone says the word train or streetcar.

Sorry if this turned into a rant, but it is frustrating to watch projects like the I-25 "gap" go from study to construction in a couple of years, while East Colfax improvements are always "coming soon!"

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm mostly joking here...

Your Parents appreciate not being the butt of your jokes.

Btw, I had seen that quote before; it's funny tho true. It's all a part of the process.

Originally Posted by iNfill

We need to focus more on bike/scooter infrastructure. I hear people shout "bring back street cars" but that's extremely expensive and probably less efficient.

Look how many bikes & scooters are out every day now with sub-par infrastructure for both. If you had dedicated lanes and parking all around downtown for both bikes and scooters, you'd reach a lot more people for a fraction of the cost. Plus, Denver could be the first in NA to have such an infrastructure for it's downtown.

The growth in bike-share of commuting is impressive. I'm not really surprised given Denver's well known 'outdoor' personality. I would guess there's another 6% add-on to this which would bring the bike-share up to 15%, maybe even more given the increasing density near downtown.

twister244 does a nice job of exemplifying the utility of those "stupid" scooters and no reason to believe they won't stay and grow as well.

FYI, Portland is often considered the trend-setter when it comes to being bike friendly. They also recently completed a study of what bike lanes should look like under many different scenarios like road width etc etc. It can get very complicated especially when you start taking into account bike riders turning at intersections where conflicts will arise.

PLANSIT is involved in an even more complex analysis of looking specifically at all downtown streets and how to strategically accommodate all the different modes of transportation. Consider that what is done on one street can reverberate throughout downtown. Glad I'm not responsible for this; I get a headache just thinking about it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mrturbo

Honestly, its my personal frustration with this whole process coming out.

I hear you; I've never shied away from my own snarky comments about how long this has been taking. It's obvious now that Tempe AZ will have their streetcar project now under construction up and running before Denver even breaks ground.

If unfamiliar there is an official site to (sorta) follow the project including all the analysis. It's called the Colfax Corridor Connections.

I just found a copy of the DP piece (I had reached my limit on free articles) at Mass Transit Mag. I'll try reading between the lines a bit.

East Colfax has been the busiest bus corridor forever. Given that this will be the first ever 'urban' BRT-style project in Denver, it's critically important to get it right - and not be a half-assed attempt. It will, if done right, ease the path for similar future projects.

It was obvious that their original cost estimates were seriously outdated. They're now suggesting ~$200 million cost and that may soon be too low.

What I don't know is whether they have gotten feedback of a moratorium on submitting new projects from the FTA or if they're just anticipating that the steps still needed will take (more) time than originally thought. They do need to secure buy-in from much of the community.


With respect to Quebec there's push back against any widening from Urbanists; lacking consensus I think it's been tabled.

[TakeFive]

If it works in San Francisco and NYC could it work in Denver?

https://thebolditalic.com/the-uber-a...e-b32cefcac513

Outside a 24 Hour Fitness in San Mateo, side-saddling a commercial office space and a tiered parking structure, a swath of strategically tinted cars sit parked, veiled by thin layers of condensation coating their windshields. It’s obvious that people have spent the night inside them, presumably cocooned somewhere either in the back seat or the spacious hatch.

Most display a shared vocational decal: Lyft or Uber.

What does the city think about this?

While most don’t associate hailing a rideshare with the notion of stepping foot inside someone’s home, that’s exactly what some passengers are doing.

In response, city officials have recently announced plans to open the first “safe” parking lot near the Balboa Park BART station, where people can sleep in their cars without fear of repercussions and get access to showers, bathrooms, and social services.

Well written, very interesting article.

[plutonicpanda]

Just a couple notes. First time visiting Colorado and in Denver I rode a couple LRT lines just for shits and gigs and wow. what. a. joke.

If anyone follows my posting they will know I have a disdain for at grade train crossings and Denver takes the cake. The train moved soooooo slooooow. Denver should stop all expansions and focus on grade separation now!

I-70 also needs to be heavily expanded into the mountains and they need to work on light-rail through the mountains as well to Breckenridge. I used the tolls lanes but the amount of traffic on this corridor warrants 8 laning well past the Eisenhower tunnel. Colorado's roads were also horribly marked and woefully under-served in terms of capacity.

Other than Colorado had to be one of my favorite states and I reckon it isn't long until I get a place here. Denver is such a cool city and the skyline impressed me much more than I thought it would. Absolutely beautiful state!

[Cirrus]

Light rail to Breckenridge is a ter

Nevermind.

[LooksLikeForever]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I-70 also needs to be heavily expanded into the mountains and they need to work on light-rail through the mountains as well to Breckenridge. I used the tolls lanes but the amount of traffic on this corridor warrants 8 laning well past the Eisenhower tunnel. Colorado's roads were also horribly marked and woefully under-served in terms of capacity.

I agree that I-70 needs to be expanded drastically. One major problem is that almost every time Colorado taxpayers are asked for more money to fund infrastructure and highway improvements, they vote 'no'. Propositions 109 and 110 from the last election are perfect examples of this: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/0...ortation-fail/

In fact, per a prior Denver Post article, the following improvements to the Central Mountains would have been authorized as part of these propositions had they passed:

"Both include a westbound mountain express toll lane from Idaho Springs to Empire, mirroring the existing eastbound lane; the addition of a third lane on westbound I-70 on Floyd Hill (109 also includes reconstruction of bridge at the bottom of the hill while 110 calls for a new tunnel); safety improvements, including new auxiliary lanes, on I-70 on the west side of Vail Pass; a new eastbound auxiliary lane on I-70, between Frisco and Silverthorne; replacement of the I-70 Silverthorne interchange" - Source: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/3...ects-election/

Anyone who drives from Denver to Summit County regularly knows that there are two major choke points: Floyd Hill and the Eisenhower Tunnel. Floyd Hill would have been addressed if those propositions had passed, but now we're stuck with it as-is for the foreseeable future. The Eisenhower Tunnels will likely never be expanded in our lifetime, with a third lane costing an estimated $1.2 to $2.0 billion for a section of road less than two miles long (https://www.5280.com/2017/03/can-i-7...ever-be-fixed/).

Finally, the idea of a train to the mountains is always popular but I don't think it's realistic. Even if we disregard the cost (which would be in the billions), I think the vast majority of people who drive from Denver to the mountains wouldn't stay near the train stations. Let's pretend we had a train from Denver to Vail, roughly following I-70, that stopped in Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Loveland Ski Area/Eisenhower Tunnel area, Silverthorne, Frisco, Copper Mountain, and ended in Vail. In the summer most people want to head to remote trailheads and campsites far from these areas. Anyone who wants to go camping or hiking will probably still drive since there is almost no public transportation to these remote wilderness sites.

For those that want to ski in the summer this train could work, but it would require the resorts to pay for shuttles to run between the stations and their ski areas (or dramatically expand the Summit Stage and similar county bus systems). It could work to take a train to Silverthorne, for example, and then pick up a newly-created bus to Arapahoe Basin. As far as I'm aware, A-Basin is not currently accessible via transit in Summit County.

Plus when you consider the relatively few number of people that a train would move through the mountains it would seem to be better use of funds to expand I-70 to three, four or more lanes where possible and expand the Eisenhower Tunnel.

I'm all for transit, I would vote for just about any pro-transit ballot measure you can imagine. However, I think money for a train to the mountains would be better spent on a train from Cheyenne to Pueblo along the front range.