DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

RTOR isn't about vehicle crashes, it's about drivers blocking the crosswalks with their cars and/or generally being oblivious to pedestrians about to cross in front of them because the are so intently staring to their left in anticipation of that gap in cross traffic where they can zip out and save 8 seconds before the light would have turned green for them anyway.

The same exact thing happens at every two-way stop sign, or any time a vehicle exits an alley. That’s just normal. When a driver reaches an intersection, they usually have no way of knowing whether it’s safe to enter the cross street without encroaching onto the crosswalk and potentially inconveniencing any pedestrians that may arrive. Unfortunately, pedestrians will always have to deal with these annoying situations.

On a seemingly daily basis I also encounter the rogue driver that just plows through the intersection, only looking for cross traffic, completely oblivious of pedestrians. I always presume they’re visiting suburbanites who aren’t at all used to sharing the streets with pedestrians, and in such cases I make sure to use body language and a dirty look to remind them they’re not in Kansas anymore and they need to be aware of us pedestrians. (Pedestrians: Beware of “lifted” pickup trucks with big stupid tires!) Bad drivers are bad drivers and not much can be done about it.

A RTOR ban might make sense at downtown intersections with heavy foot traffic, but a citywide ban that includes parts of the city (the majority) where foot traffic is sparse or virtually nonexistent would be superfluous and disruptive.

I’m going to coin a new term: “extremist urbanism.”

[Sam Hill]

I have a question for all of you urban folk: Do you ever jaywalk? Yes, of course you do; we all do. I guess we’re all a bunch of lawbreakers!

(And to any of you who get up on your high horse and pontificate, “no, in fact I don’t, and it’s illegal, and unsafe, and blah blah blah,” I’m not talking about your suburban neighborhood; I’m talking about urban neighborhoods.)

Shouldn’t cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights? Hmmmmm

[midwestcowboy]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Shouldn’t cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights? Hmmmmm

No: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/20...aho-stop-nearly-law-bicycles/7244632001/

"The Colorado safety stop bill allows those age 15 and older who are riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter to slow to a speed of 10 mph or less at an intersection with a traffic sign and proceed without stopping only when safe to do so."

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by midwestcowboy

No: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/20...aho-stop-nearly-law-bicycles/7244632001/

"The Colorado safety stop bill allows those age 15 and older who are riding a bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle or electric scooter to slow to a speed of 10 mph or less at an intersection with a traffic sign and proceed without stopping only when safe to do so."

Oh. Well that sucks. Vehicle after vehicle has to precariously pass the bike, only to get stopped at a red light, where the bike zips past them and gets back out in front, so now all the vehicles have to precariously pass all over again.

This happens to me all the time, driving home from work, going down Washington St through Cap Hill. I don’t even bother to pass, because it’s just too tight. The cars behind can honk at me all they want.

Dear cyclists: I know it’s legal and all, but please don’t ride on one-way single-lane streets. It’s not worth the risk.

But anyway, that’s a different topic for a different day…

Okay, so forget the bike part. All my other mild trolling and devil’s advocacy still stands. Hmph! (crosses arms)

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I have a question for all of you urban folk: Do you ever jaywalk? Yes, of course you do; we all do. I guess we’re all a bunch of lawbreakers!

(And to any of you who get up on your high horse and pontificate, “no, in fact I don’t, and it’s illegal, and unsafe, and blah blah blah,” I’m not talking about your suburban neighborhood; I’m talking about urban neighborhoods.)

Shouldn’t cyclists stop at stop signs and red lights? Hmmmmm

Sure, pedestrians jaywalk, and that's OK.

https://denverite.com/2023/01/30/denver-jaywalking-decriminalized/

Pedestrians are at the top of the priority pyramid for use of the public ROW in Denver, followed by bikes/scooters. Motorists are at the bottom, so if anyone is to be inconvenienced, it is motorists. However, due to car-brain, most motorists think it is the other way around and demand to be catered to and/or express outrage when they are not given priority on any given street segment.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Dear cyclists: I know it’s legal and all, but please don’t ride on one-way single-lane streets. It’s not worth the risk.

Dear motorists: I know it's legal and all, but please don't drive on one-way single-lane streets. You're inconveniencing bicyclists.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Dear motorists: I know it's legal and all, but please don't drive on one-way single-lane streets. You're inconveniencing bicyclists.

No man. I’m dead serious. Bikes need to stay off those single-lane one-way’s. It’s fucking dangerous.

That comment you quoted was entirely about safety and had nothing whatsoever to do with inconveniencing drivers. Read it again.

Also, your car-hate-brain seems to forget there are 1000 cars for every bike (source: Sam Hill’s Made Up Statistics, by Sam Hill) so if a lone bike were to clog up an entire street on a regular basis, it actually would be an issue. (Another thing to consider is that emergency vehicles are cars too.)

Bikes need more of their own right of way, all over town. I just got back from a trip to Amsterdam and Rotterdam a few days ago. Bike infrastructure there is amazing as I’m sure you know. Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces, and that’s the way it should be.

[bunt_q]

I don't think the safety stop law allows bicycles to pass stopped traffic at an intersection (where there is not a separate bike facility provided), go through the intersection, and then have to be passed again. That's not the point. (And I agree, it is wildly annoying and very common.) Where bicycles are operating in mixed traffic, they are still supposed to act *as traffic* - stop and wait - at a red light with stopped vehicles. At least that is my read of it.

Perfectly legal trick - when stopping in a line of traffic on a narrow one way, stop as far to the right as you can so they can't squeeze through.

[Sam Hill]

Ah, I see.

And that is a good trick.

[i4isoar]

I think outright banning RTOR at a city-level is a misguided policy. Not only is it unrealistic to expect that everyone will follow it (especially those who just come to Denver for the day from other cities around the state), but I think that there are far more serious and pressing issues out there that our legislators should be expending their valuable time and political capital towards.

Moreover, banning RTOR in low-density areas, or rural areas, makes no sense since there’s very little pedestrian traffic in these places anyway.

I also fail to see how RTOR is that much of a significant threat to pedestrians, more so than, say, delivery trucks coming out of alleyways, or e-scooters zipping down the sidewalk. I can only speak from anecdotal evidence here, but I’m pretty sure I’ve nearly been hit by an e-scooter more times than by a car right-turning on red.

Far more practical, I think, is to simply put up “No RTOR” signs on every intersection in downtown, and maybe a handful of other high-density areas (RiNo or Cherry Creek, perhaps). Being tactical and tactful about where to apply a RTOR ban sounds like a much better and more pragmatic policy than an inflexible, useless, and completely unenforceable city-wide blanket ban.

Finally, I am very much against imposing any ban on RTOR without appropriate signage. Whether people like it or not, RTOR is something that is commonplace across the country, and banning it without giving people notice is just pure criminal entrapment. There’s a world of difference between a driver who willfully runs a red light, and one who turns right at on a red light because there was no RTOR sign.

[Sam Hill]

I re-read the last couple pages and based upon the way the conversation flows, I think Ken may have hastily made the “citywide” comment out of grievance (“rest of the city” were the actual words). In context, it feels like there could be a bit of facetiousness to it. But I can’t read minds.

Either way, I feel compelled to offer a more nuanced response to this particular comment:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Pedestrians are at the top of the priority pyramid for use of the public ROW in Denver, followed by bikes/scooters. Motorists are at the bottom, so if anyone is to be inconvenienced, it is motorists.

The above I agree with. For safety purposes, that’s the way it should be. But we have to be practical. In neighborhoods with sparse foot traffic, RTOR bans would be, as I said, disruptive and superfluous.

However, due to car-brain, most motorists think it is the other way around and demand to be catered to and/or express outrage when they are not given priority on any given street segment.

This, however, I don’t think is true. Suburbanites maybe. But not most of us city people who live in the core and account for most of the vehicle traffic within the core. As pedestrians, it can oftentimes feel like a car-brain danger zone, so I get it.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Bikes need more of their own right of way, all over town. I just got back from a trip to Amsterdam and Rotterdam a few days ago. Bike infrastructure there is amazing as I’m sure you know. Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces, and that’s the way it should be.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I came to the same conclusion after visting the Netherland 10 years ago and going back again in 2016. Even though I'm not a huge bicyler, the separated bike facilities are AMAZING. They make bicycling seem easy, fun, and convenient, and even make the pedestrian experience more pleasant by spacing the sidewalk out further from the cars and sometimes adding additional landscaping if the space allows.

I would point out that those fantasitc Dutch facilities include protected intersections that cannot, unless I'm mistaken, ever allow RTOR - not turning on red is built right in to the design and it is intuitive.


Now that we have protected bike lanes on many streets, especially downtown ones, this conversation about no RTOR (and whether is should be limited to selected intersections) can't help but raise the question for me of - is Denver considering any of these protected intersections? Boulder is about to open its first, and - to my knoweldge - Denver has none.

I would take good protected bike lanes and protected intersections over silly little roundabouts like the ones on 7th Ave anyway. I'd also point out that it isn't necessarily true that "Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces" using the Dutch Approach. In fact, on a street like 7th Ave, the Dutch would probably do something that looks like this. I think they tend to reserve the separated facilities for streets with higher traffic volumes. Notice they aren't using intersection rounadbouts at all - instead they have changed the street itself so everything moves slower (and I bet you can still get a fire truck through).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I would take good protected bike lanes and protected intersections over silly little roundabouts like the ones on 7th Ave anyway. I'd also point out that it isn't necessarily true that "Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces" using the Dutch Approach. In fact, on a street like 7th Ave, the Dutch would probably do something that looks like this. I think they tend to reserve the separated facilities for streets with higher traffic volumes. Notice they aren't using intersection rounadbouts at all - instead they have changed the street itself so everything moves slower (and I bet you can still get a fire truck through).

There are lots of good examples of how it could be done better than 7th Avenue. Our problems are (1) true incompetence amongst those responsible for the vision, and (2) money - we have very little. Which is why we get to cheap black bumpers that, I can only assume, are made from recycled tires that DOTI leadership grind down and glue together at home in their suburban backyards.

[mojiferous]

Is one of you Randall Munroe? Because today's XKCD is eerily similar to this conversation

xkcd.com https://xkcd.com/2832/

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There are lots of good examples of how it could be done better than 7th Avenue. Our problems are (1) true incompetence amongst those responsible for the vision, and (2) money - we have very little. Which is why we get to cheap black bumpers that, I can only assume, are made from recycled tires that DOTI leadership grind down and glue together at home in their suburban backyards.

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

Instead, I want CIP projects - I just want them rooted in 21st century urban design principles. We should be working with the NACTO playbook, not highway standards (and, to give credit where it is due, some cities in our region are really now moving more in that direction).

If it takes more time and we can only do a few projects at a time - that's fine. Let's do that and stop using resources on the made-in-your-basement solutions.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Is one of you Randall Munroe? Because today's XKCD is eerily similar to this conversationURL="https://xkcd.com/2832/"]https://xkcd.com/2832/[/URL]

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Originally Posted by mr1138

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

Instead, I want CIP projects - I just want them rooted in 21st century urban design principles. We should be working with the NACTO playbook, not highway standards (and, to give credit where it is due, some cities in our region are really now moving more in that direction).

If it takes more time and we can only do a few projects at a time - that's fine. Let's do that and stop using resources on the made-in-your-basement solutions.

Well said. Totally agree.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Buffs are 21 pt underdogs today. I watched Oregon play couple of weeks ago. They didn't look that special... but more just totally solid as apposed to flashy.

Originally Posted by mr1138

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

There's many interesting observations that could be made about life after COVID. One is that drivers became/are now more aggressive; there's more road rage. There's also the fast growth of juvenile gun violence; the explosion in addiction and homelessness, etc.

The elephant in the room is (all kinds) of diversity versus lack thereof. This could get way off into the weeds but this country is so diverse in so many ways that trying to copy the Netherlands with little diversity would be a fools errand.

It can be hard to fix stupid and this is stupid on steroids but it also goes to issues we face that make establishing an idyllic urban lifestyle nearly impossible.

On the positive side things do change.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Buckle up, because the development community despises lessons and some people would rather recreate the Skyline Urban Renewal Project than lose any margin! https://businessden.com/2023/09/18/veter...fice-buildings-likely-need-to-be-demoed/

If you think upper downtown is not great because of the junkies and crime, wait until those buildings are either a) empty lots waiting for something to be built or b) rotting and boarded up while the owner determines whether it can be demolished.

Reading some Bisnow articles while watching the ASU vs USC game fwiw. They had one article about office conversions in Dallas.

Dallas has either completed or in process to convert six buildings downtown to apartments or in one case converting upper floors of an office building to apartments.

In any case I found this interesting piece about what is going on in Texas, primarily Dallas. One (national) developer likes older buildings for their historical appeal but several tall boys are also being converted.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Either ASU is much better than I thought or USC is much worse than advertised. USC, when they weren't fumbling or getting penalties were pretty good on offense but their defense struggled with a very average offense of ASU. ASU has one 'bull' of a runner who's fun to watch but ASU's QB is average.

Next week could be an interesting game. USC looked nowhere near as good as Oregon.

[Fritzdude]

This is so beautiful in its simplicity. I’d rather we have our intersections look like this rather than get a new tallest. Imagine riding your bike without fearing for your life!

[bobg]

Single lane one way streets are perfectly safe to bike on if the cyclist takes the lane. Staying to the right opens you up to close passes and potential intersection right/left hook conflicts.

Most people are too timid to try that though even though giving Cars enough room to pass usually puts you squarely in the door zone.

As to why cyclists do it try getting to a place like Argonaut from bike routes on 16th/12th/11th without taking Washington/Clarkson or worse Colfax. People biking in urban areas are doing it for transportation, and need to get to the same destinations everyone else does.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Actually, there are plenty of maps available as to where these deaths are occuring. And I do not see a single auto-pedestrian accident in Congress Park. Not one. (See https://www.westword.com/news/denver-traffic-deaths-2022-map-update-13801191, https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Citywide-Programs-and-Initiatives/Vision-Zero, etc. etc.)...

Disagree. The definition of a safe pedestrian/bicyclist zone is not that there weren't any people who died or were maimed. There are plenty of vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist incidents in cap hill they just don't rise to the level of permanent bodily harm or death. Perhaps the smaller neighborhood street widths assist in slowing down cars. DOTI touts lower speed limits, which will do nothing. If the road lane width is there, cars will utilize it via speed. This is extensively DOCUMENTED across the globe.

The entirety of the rest of the world has a smaller truck size fleet across the board than the USA. Is it a requirement that we HAVE to accommodate 18 wheelers on collector streets and above? No, it's not. That's a decision that transportation engineers and fire departments make across this country and it has a profound effect on the built environment. Perhaps you disagree, but have you taken a project from beginning to end through planning in the past two decades? If so, and your opinion is different, I'd very much appreciate a referral to your civil and architectural consultants...