DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mhays]

The 16th Street Mall has name recognition. Not like Park Avenue or anything, but still pretty good. Renaming it might cause more confusion than any benefit.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Although not everybody likes the current FasTracks corridors I'm sure they wanted to avoid any prolonged fights against light rail routes so we get what we got.

I've never understood why the light rail layout in Denver gets so much hate. It's where it COULD go and it got there relatively affordably. The alternative would have been 10x the price. People think of subways when they look at light rail and its apples v oranges. The criticism of RTD should be they never connected the center city nor did they provide adequate routing/frequency to feed into the light rail. Instead, they built huge parking lots next to RTDs to make it the most convenient to the most successful amongst us - that should be the real rub.

I'm more and more pleased with the development happening along light rail each passing year. I remember when the bellview stop was nothing but land. It's an amazingly dense TOD now in roughly 20 years - that's incredible pace! Obviously that hasn't happened at all TODs and there is MUCH room for improvement, but the light rail is densifying far and wide and it will get better over time. I compare it to the retail follows rooftops equation. The light rail ridership will get better if/when density along the route reaches critical mass...we're not close to that yet. If we add 500,000 people within 1 mile of TODs over the next decade, we'll start to see some improvement in ridership.

[DenvertoLA]

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

I would rather have a more limited rail system that serves urban hubs of activity where people don’t need cars at all than an expansive system that might one day be useful if billions of dollars of development are built around the nowhereville stations.

I also question the quality of communities transit-oriented developments (TODs) create. It seems like the best aspect of them is the ability to leave... which doesn’t seem promising.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

I would rather have a more limited rail system that serves urban hubs of activity where people don’t need cars at all than an expansive system that might one day be useful if billions of dollars of development are built around the nowhereville stations.

I also question the quality of communities transit-oriented developments (TODs) create. It seems like the best aspect of them is the ability to leave... which doesn’t seem promising.

Huh? If we did what you wanted, the price of that system would be 10x what we paid for ours and more importantly, it NEVER would have happened. It's a good system that CAN one day serve a very useful purpose. It could serve a useful purpose now if RTD gave up some of the suburban bus service in favor of more dense/urban transit. Hell, Denver could step up to the plate with their own transit connections program if they'd stop wasting so much damn money on needless shite.

Government can afford to think generationally and fastracks will be a huge asset forever. It will take decades and that's ok because it's certainly better than having nothing. Light rail has changed development patterns which have now concentrated along the light rail - this is the same as how development patterns changed with the interstate highway system. Those urban hubs you rdesire and the density that comes with it is happening along light rail though not as fast a people want it to - here's a pro tip...show up to City Council hearings en masse and scream loud to change zoning around TODs and we'll make faster progress. Ridership will follow...one day...if all the cities and towns don't shut out density completely in favor of effing single family homes.

As to RTD's parking strategy, I like it. They built the system and have land banked many parcels which will be extraordinarily valuable one day. They need to get their shite together to allow for land sales for very dense projects (>20 stories). If cities won't accommodate zoning, Trump's GSA should take the land over and lease it to developers...federal government doesn't HAVE to abide by local zoning. Federal dollars made these projects happen and the federal government should demand change to how the land around those investments is being managed. I'm done with the local zoning - it's never going to sort itself out and these cities/town are wreaking havoc on housing affordability for generations of americans. It's not cool.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

The West Line is the only FasTracks line that was built along a pre-existing streetcar line route making it a poor example as it is pretty damn well integrated with the neighborhoods which is hardly being the middle of nowhere. Having a bus line along Colfax for local stops makes sense, but it was asinine when they also had the limited running along Colfax that did cannibalize ridership. Fortunately RTD killed that route, but that might also have been a cause of the increase in drug addicts riding the W-Line.

It's three block from Colfax to Sloan's Lake, which you don't hear people complain about to access, and it's three blocks from Colfax to the West Line. Distance wise it's not a big deal, though the West Line does go through the seedier, i.e south of, part of the Colfax corridor versus the gentrified area of Sloan's Lake. So I get that perception issue.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've never understood why the light rail layout in Denver gets so much hate. It's where it COULD go and it got there relatively affordably. The alternative would have been 10x the price. People think of subways when they look at light rail and its apples v oranges. The criticism of RTD should be they never connected the center city nor did they provide adequate routing/frequency to feed into the light rail. Instead, they built huge parking lots next to RTDs to make it the most convenient to the most successful amongst us - that should be the real rub.

I'm more and more pleased with the development happening along light rail each passing year. I remember when the bellview stop was nothing but land. It's an amazingly dense TOD now in roughly 20 years - that's incredible pace! Obviously that hasn't happened at all TODs and there is MUCH room for improvement, but the light rail is densifying far and wide and it will get better over time. I compare it to the retail follows rooftops equation. The light rail ridership will get better if/when density along the route reaches critical mass...we're not close to that yet. If we add 500,000 people within 1 mile of TODs over the next decade, we'll start to see some improvement in ridership.

I have always shared this same enthusiasm for the potential for TOD to make the system that Denver has built more and more useful over time - so much so that I moved to Olde Town Arvada because I believed in this possible future for our metro area.

Unfortunately, what I have since come to discover, is that suburban communities, their council members, and the planners that work for them simply do not share this sense of optimism about TOD.

CPR recently ran a story about this. Last month, I watched with dismay as the clear majority of Arvada City Council signaled at their study session that they do not intend to implement any land use reforms near transit, and they also do not feel the need to actually engage with the community about this. There has not been a single public meeting, no outreach page on speakuparvada.com (which the city hasn't used for a single project in months), and they are not widely publicizing City Council's discussions about the land use legislation ahead of their hearings.

Instead they say things like "Our [current parking] code definitely matches the character of our community." And claim that Arvada shouldn't have to build more density, because the G-Line currently only runs every 30 minutes (nevermind the fact that we actually GOT OUR TRAIN - subsidised by the entire metro area - when other FasTracks routes still have not been completed).

To make such sweeping policy decisions without doing ANY engagement with the community first sends a pretty clear message. When they say "home rule" and "local control," they mean THEIR personal control - they don't actually intend to have this policy discussion with the community. DOLA should definitely pay attention to the lack of actual public engagement going on in the communities that are being the most vocal about their "home rule."

Originally Posted by laniroj

I'm done with the local zoning - it's never going to sort itself out and these cities/town are wreaking havoc on housing affordability for generations of americans. It's not cool.

Yep - although, I feel compelled to point out that "Trumps GSA" is never going to be on our side on this matter. If anything, he has made it very clear that he supports the "suburban lifestyle," and would likely side with City Councils that wish to accept the regional investment in their community, then put up a wall around said community and say "we don't want any of 'those people' to be our neighbors."

[mhays]

A metro-wide transit agency will rarely support adequate in-city transit (repeating myself iirc). You need an additional Denver-specific funding source to augment RTD service. A separate city/county agency would also do the trick but with big up-front costs.

Focusing development near train stations is crucial. But also you have to serve the other neighborhoods. That means frequent nearby buses for most people.

And you really need state-level mandates that cities accommodate growth.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I have always shared this same enthusiasm for the potential for TOD to make the system that Denver has built more and more useful over time - so much so that I moved to Olde Town Arvada because I believed in this possible future for our metro area.

Unfortunately, what I have since come to discover, is that suburban communities, their council members, and the planners that work for them simply do not share this sense of optimism about TOD.

Outside of DougCo, Arvada may have the next most cranky conservatives. But beyond the Olde Town Station there's only two more stations and both have had some apartment development. More importantly you have to be impressed with what the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority accomplished at Olde Town, no?

Originally Posted by mr1138

CPR recently ran a story about this. Last month, I watched with dismay as the clear majority of Arvada City Council signaled at their study session that they do not intend to implement any land use reforms near transit, and they also do not feel the need to actually engage with the community about this.

Quoting from that CPR article:

Local governments in Colorado and across the U.S. have historically had domain over the rules that shape their growth. State legislators took a swipe at that last year, passing a suite of bills aimed at increasing the state’s housing supply and boosting transit...

It's fair to say that the Colorado Legislature had the liberal political muscle to pass those bills, but people in most cities weren't happy. People and cities don't like the Nanny State dictating what they should believe and want; it's condescending and arrogant.

With respect to your Trump link that was a similar reaction to the Obama Administration trying to dictate housing/zoning requirements at the Federal Level. Again it's arrogant and getting a negative reaction shouldn't surprise anybody. Of course Trump suffers from his own extreme arrogance but that's a different topic.

Case in Point

When the W Line was being built, Lakewood created a nice TOD plan for the Wadsworth Station (as one example). bunt and I had quite the debate as I thought that station would be attractive for TOD. bunt thought I was crazy. Fifteen years gone by and bunt was right and I was was wrong. The only TOD is one 'affordable housing' project.

Moral of the Story

Even if you have the needed zoning etc it doesn't mean any developers will be interested. That said, maybe one of these decades my dream will still come true?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

A metro-wide transit agency will rarely support adequate in-city transit (repeating myself iirc). You need an additional Denver-specific funding source to augment RTD service. A separate city/county agency would also do the trick but with big up-front costs.

Focusing development near train stations is crucial. But also you have to serve the other neighborhoods. That means frequent nearby buses for most people.

And you really need state-level mandates that cities accommodate growth.

Going back to the 1950's thru the say 1970's, Metro Denver grew outward but without much density. Because the city center area of Denver remained the cultural and sports hub, none of the surrounding cities ever built 'downtowns' worth discussing. But more and more people commuted to downtown Denver from the suburbs. For example Phoenix light rail benefits from going from downtown to Tempe so two dense destinations; that opportunity doesn't exist in Denver

If you go back to the late 1990's and early 2000's the suburb to city concept for transit seem to make a good sense. The 1st suburb to city light rail line was a smashing success with standing room only early and 20-year ridership projections achieved within months. That led to metro mayors whether Republican or Dem to want in on that light rail action. That resulted in an easily approved vote for FasTracks.

Additionally, Denver has never really had any good transit corridors outside of East Colfax and even Denver didn't care or push for light rail along that corridor. Outside of FasTracks, Denver never cared to invest any of its own money for more local service. But given that FasTracks was mostly suburb to city, Denver benefitted from that and Denver also benefitted the most from the bus system (even if they fail to understand/appreciate that).

[mhays]

Regardless of all that, it would be very helpful to have a dense spiderweb of bus lines, all with reasonable speed/frequency, throughout the core city. Getting closer to that would require another funding source. For electoral reasons it has to be the core city (or close to that) paying for itself.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Regardless of all that, it would be very helpful to have a dense spiderweb of bus lines, all with reasonable speed/frequency, throughout the core city. Getting closer to that would require another funding source. For electoral reasons it has to be the core city (or close to that) paying for itself.

If cities have any dry powder stored in a box they might want to hold onto that with change in the air.

One Quick Example

With Biden Bucks providing as much as 85% of Medicaid costs and as much as 70% of some favored non-profit charities all that is now on the chopping block. While the city of Denver is not directly responsible for any of this will they want to help out Denver Health (for example)?

With respect to transportation

Transportation for America estimates over $20 billion in grants is vulnerable. That wouldn't include Amtrak which is a whole other topic and pot. With the iija expiring next year the plan is to have its proposed replacement by the end of this year.

The odds for Stagflation seem to be growing which could make estimating future city revenues and expenses more difficult.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The West Line is the only FasTracks line that was built along a pre-existing streetcar line route making it a poor example as it is pretty damn well integrated with the neighborhoods which is hardly being the middle of nowhere.

Going off a CPR article, I think the streetcars were on colfax and the tracks in the gully it was built on were abandon rail. Idk from google maps a lot of the stations on the west line require awkward quarter mile walks though suburban neighborhoods or walking along side busy streets that have no development because oh yeah, it’s above a gully.

‘What seems bad is actually good, believe me!’ Yeah I don’t buy it. Total waste of potential imo. We can have nice things! And if the goal is to have people voluntarily change their transit habits, the options provided by RTD need to be more convenient than a car.

[AHS1983]

CDOT has put together a really nice GIS-driven website for Colorado's historical streetcar lines.

It sure would be nice to have some of those back in some fashion.

[BrIced_Tea]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Going off a CPR article, I think the streetcars were on colfax and the tracks in the gully it was built on were abandon rail. Idk from google maps a lot of the stations on the west line require awkward quarter mile walks though suburban neighborhoods or walking along side busy streets that have no development because oh yeah, it’s above a gully.

‘What seems bad is actually good, believe me!’ Yeah I don’t buy it. Total waste of potential imo. We can have nice things! And if the goal is to have people voluntarily change their transit habits, the options provided by RTD need to be more convenient than a car.

Purely anecdotal here but I live a few blocks away from the W line and take it down to Union Station for work everyday and I'll say it's actually quite nice to walk through essentially a park as part of my commute. Also there is quite a bit of infill development happening at Sheridan Station where I get on, as well as Knox and Perry Stations.

Honestly the thing that makes it the most inconvenient are the unnecessary stops in the Ball Arena parking lots that add 5 minutes to the commute. Don't know why they use these outside of when events are going on at the stadiums.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars.

Originally Posted by laniroj

If we did what you wanted, the price of that system would be 10x what we paid for ours and more importantly, it NEVER would have happened.

This is overstating it.

A lot of money--but less than FasTracks--is currently being spent correcting this exact deficiency with BRT on Colfax and CDOT's other corridors. That FasTracks never even considered similar projects wasn't an issue of cost, it was an issue of politics. Partly legitimate politics (the need to serve every corner of the region in order to pass a vote) and partly illegitimate (the belief among many at the time that rapid transit is for long distance commutes and not urban circulation).

There is of course much truth to the statement that FasTracks was born of practicalities needed for it to exist. But it's also true that FasTracks' leaders made errors that were avoidable, and had they been avoided a more hybrid system with a better balance of urban vs suburban service probably could have been achieved. Would we have 40 miles of subway? Probably not. But we probably could have had at least one of Colfax and Broadway.

[TakeFive]

Pretty well said for a D.C. guy

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is overstating it.

A lot of money--but less than FasTracks--is currently being spent correcting this exact deficiency with BRT on Colfax and CDOT's other corridors. That FasTracks never even considered similar projects wasn't an issue of cost, it was an issue of politics. Partly legitimate politics (the need to serve every corner of the region in order to pass a vote) and partly illegitimate (the belief among many at the time that rapid transit is for long distance commutes and not urban circulation).

There is of course much truth to the statement that FasTracks was born of practicalities needed for it to exist. But it's also true that FasTracks' leaders made errors that were avoidable, and had they been avoided a more hybrid system with a better balance of urban vs suburban service probably could have been achieved. Would we have 40 miles of subway? Probably not. But we probably could have had at least one of Colfax and Broadway.

What's truly amazing is the difference in context between the early 2000's and today especially with respect to density.

BRT gone sad?

Going all the way back to 2014 when the Cleveland Healthline BRT opened with great fanfare with first year ridership of 5.1 million to a post-COVID ridership in 2023 (most recent available) of 1.7 million. Talk about falling off a cliff.

While I don't necessarily think the East Colfax BRT will live up to the hype, it should do well enough and be a great addition.

[Cirrus]

Cleveland has allowed its service to degrade significantly both in frequency and quality, so [quelle surprise] riders have abandoned it.

Meanwhile, Richmond provides a convenient counterexample. They've improved their service, especially off-peak. Their Broad Street BRT (opened 2018) is currently setting all-time ridership records, and the agency as a whole is well above 2019 levels.

In both cases, it is not because they have a BRT line, but rather is because riders are responding to the changing usefulness of the service.

[Fritzdude]

Anyone going to Mayor Mike’s Transportation party?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is overstating it.

A lot of money--but less than FasTracks--is currently being spent correcting this exact deficiency with BRT on Colfax and CDOT's other corridors. That FasTracks never even considered similar projects wasn't an issue of cost, it was an issue of politics. Partly legitimate politics (the need to serve every corner of the region in order to pass a vote) and partly illegitimate (the belief among many at the time that rapid transit is for long distance commutes and not urban circulation).

There is of course much truth to the statement that FasTracks was born of practicalities needed for it to exist. But it's also true that FasTracks' leaders made errors that were avoidable, and had they been avoided a more hybrid system with a better balance of urban vs suburban service probably could have been achieved. Would we have 40 miles of subway? Probably not. But we probably could have had at least one of Colfax and Broadway.

A lot of money feels like a misnomer. Colfax BRT clocks in at $280M. FasTracks came in at $6.5B in nominal dollars. Assuming that Federal and Colorado Blvd are equally expensive that's still under $1B for three new transit lines that's significantly less then what one particular, unmentionable, unbuilt line up to Boulder will cost (heck, Broadway BRT could probably be squeezed in there as well given the work that's already been done). Feels like a good substitution, but could you imagine the political stink that would have been raised in the early 2000's?

[TakeFive]

Point

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Cleveland has allowed its service to degrade significantly both in frequency and quality, so [quelle surprise] riders have abandoned it.

Meanwhile, Richmond provides a convenient counterexample. They've improved their service, especially off-peak. Their Broad Street BRT (opened 2018) is currently setting all-time ridership records, and the agency as a whole is well above 2019 levels.

In both cases, it is not because they have a BRT line, but rather is because riders are responding to the changing usefulness of the service.

Counterpoint

Richmond Virginia

Best Places to Live in the U.S. 2024-2025

Richmond residents are no strangers to a high quality of life. Top-rated schools, a diverse economy with plenty of job opportunities, delicious dining options and history on every corner add to the charm of Virginia's capital city.

Richmond, the capital of Virginia, boasts a rich historical and cultural heritage accompanied by elegant architecture, cobblestone streets and charming neighborhoods. The city is home to a wealth of historic sites, landmarks and museums as well as galleries, theaters and live music venues. Richmond has a thriving job market with major employers that include several Fortune 500 companies. The city’s proximity to Washington, D.C., expands career opportunities. Richmond offers all this with a relatively lower cost of living compared to other major metros on the East Coast.

Cleveland Ohio

I picked up a couple who were in Scottsdale for a convention. We started talking about Denver, Scottsdale and Cleveland. (Lets say) prior to COVID, Cleveland had lots of nice buzz about their downtown area and all the improvements and activity. Very Cool. Nobody is quite sure what happened but the bloom went off the rose and now downtown is not so cool anymore.

There's a number of things than can impact transit ridership. There's routes in Denver where RTD would be wiser to hand out rideshare vouchers than add frequency. Then there are other routes that could benefit from more frequency. BTW, RTD tracks demand on their routes and has been adding frequency where warranted.

Some cities and states are still facing financial difficulties ahead. RTD is lucky to have a healthy dedicated revenue stream. They are better off than Philly and Pittsburgh; Chicago and San Francisco to name a few.