DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

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.

Did you just compare Stapleton to Globeville/Elyria Swansea?!

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Did you just compare Stapleton to Globeville/Elyria Swansea?!

Ha! I guess so... just slap me!

[CharlesCO]

I guess if you think that Larimer Square doesn't have any history or charm to it, then yeah, in that line of thinking, it was probably a great idea to tear down all of LoDo.

Originally Posted by RyanD

Let's rewind back to 1967 when something voter approved happened and we lost a lot of Denver's soul. With the support of Mayor Currigan, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority's Skyline Project received the okay to execute a plan: demolish 27 contiguous blocks of downtown. The reason for this project was exactly what 'Urban Renewal' meant and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time: push the poor and 'rundown' out of Downtown Denver, and grow it into a 'real city'. There was a time when Downtown Denver had a tight knit urban fabric full of historic buildings, and streetcars. Now most of that is gone, replaced by parking lots, and modern skyscrapers. It really is a beautiful sight to see, as much as it's a painful one. Without further ado, let's take a look at this beautiful massacre, shall we?

The 1950's. Pre-Skyline renewal when everything was still there:


[Source Unknown]

Here are some great aerial shots from 1976. Look at all that parking! It's sad to think every single one of those lots had a building standing on it.


reel #86 - aspen & newport, 1976 by Nick DeWolf, on Flickr


reel #86 - aspen & newport, 1976 by Nick DeWolf, on Flickr


reel #86 - aspen & newport, 1976 by Nick DeWolf, on Flickr


reel #86 - aspen & newport, 1976 by Nick DeWolf, on Flickr

(snip)

[FunctionForm]

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 didn't say I thought any of this was a good idea, I asked the question how would Denver have evolved differently if the Skyline freeway had been built. It seems the concensus here is that the city would have died, but I'm not that pessimistic. Detroit didn't die because of a freeway. It died because of economic factors that Denver doesn't have.

The speed at which a car can get through a city is relevant just as how quickly someone can get into a city is also relevant. They are both important. They are important to people who commute which most people do. Have you taken the train from Golden into Downtown? It's not good. Ask anyone on the train. One of the main reasons the southeast corridor has grown so much is because people don't want to commute to downtown.

Jane Jacobs was a great influence in NYC but there are still reasons why neighborhoods were torn down; blight, transients, and crime. And when people were fleeing to the suburbs, cities had to make decisions about what to do with decaying areas. Just like Detroit is doing today. It is a cryin' shame, but it is also a reality. What is Detroit supposed to do today? How is that any different than what most of these cities went through in the 60's?

I am not trying to argue, just have a rational discussion because I don't think we have done a good job of planning for a future metro area of 8M people. That issue reaches far beyond LoDo.

[Cirrus]

Not "died." There'd still be something here. It's just that the thing that would be here would just be a lot less historic, a lot less walkable, a lot less urban, and a lot more parking lots.

You can go to otherwise economically healthy cities today, like Dallas or Houston, and see exactly what downtown Denver would look like had we done this. Dallas and Houston have some nice skyscrapers but otherwise aren't nearly as nice places to live or spend time as downtown Denver. Would you rather have a lot of THIS than LoDo, Larimer Square, and the 16th Street Mall? Because that's what would have happened.

[COS]

After spending 4 days in downtown Houston and realizing the whole place is a ghost town after weekday work hours....Denver every time!

[mr1138]

Yeah, I'm simply not following the logic here. I mean truly "increasing mobility" is one thing, but we have absolutely no evidence that adding more freeways would even accomplish that.

What we're talking about is ripping out the very urban, historic heart of town. And for what exactly? So that suburban commuters can use a freeway exit 10 city blocks closer to the core of downtown? So that we can create redundant ways to get from the same point A to the same point B, while simultaneously destroying the city's history?

I think traffic studies typically show that these kinds of freeways DO NOT make it any easier to access the city. They just give you less of a city to access in the first place. I even heard once that an excess of freeways can sometimes make traffic worse, not better, by creating more places where people need to merge when they'd be better off just all staying on the same through route. I think Denver deserves great credit for not jumping on the Robert Moses freeway bandwagon, and is a MUCH better place for it today.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mr1138

"Increasing mobility" is one thing, but we have absolutely no evidence that adding more freeways would even accomplish that.

Because "mobility" and "access" are different things. Mobility means "moving around." Access means "arriving somewhere."

Destroying your downtown to build a highway increases mobility but decreases access, because although it's easier to move around, the places you hoped to arrive at are no longer there.

This is why increasing access is a much better goal than increasing mobility. It's the "getting somewhere" part that's important.

[mr1138]

^Good point. Important to separate those two things out. But that said, I guess I'm arguing that redundant freeways don't really increase "mobility" either. Certainly not a freeway running parallel to another freeway less than 15 blocks away.

PERHAPS an eastern extension of the 6th avenue freeway would increase mobility, but even that could be called into question.

[COS]

Geographically, yes 6th Ave going East is sensible if increasing mobility to 225/Anschutz was more important than all of the commerce and urban potential that currently exists along the corridor. However, I wouldn't advocate for that change for a list of reasons too long to note here. If you want to solve the gridlock that ensnares the huge area from 25 to 225, Streetcar/LRT helps provide mobility along with access and an increase to the urban potential of the corridor. Whether you choose 6th Ave or Speer/Leetsdale, don't solve one problem and kill potential to solve the other when you can solve both at the same time.

[mr1138]

Oh yeah, I'm not actually advocating for it - that's why I put "perhaps" in all caps. Just going along with Cirrus' argument of separating out the concepts of "mobility" vs "access." Tearing out what exists along 6th avenue to create a freeway would tear into the urban fabric, destroying many of the destinations people want to get to - which is what you're talking about when you mention the importance of all the "commerce and urban potential" that exists along the corridor. This seems to be analogous to the "access" piece of Cirrus' comment. And no, tearing down perfectly good urban fabric to put in a freeway is not worth it.

I was just trying to point out how silly and pointless the "skyline freeway" would have been. This being the "mobility" part. A 6th Ave Freeway would actually serve a new geographic route. The "skyline freeway" wouldn't even do this, it would only create more of a spaghetti bowl of freeways, and wouldn't actually help anyone reach their destination quicker. I don't buy for a second the argument that it would have somehow helped suburban commuters get into and out of Denver faster or easier.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by COS

Geographically, yes 6th Ave going East is sensible if increasing mobility to 225/Anschutz was more important than all of the commerce and urban potential that currently exists along the corridor. However, I wouldn't advocate for that change for a list of reasons too long to note here. If you want to solve the gridlock that ensnares the huge area from 25 to 225, Streetcar/LRT helps provide mobility along with access and an increase to the urban potential of the corridor. Whether you choose 6th Ave or Speer/Leetsdale, don't solve one problem and kill potential to solve the other when you can solve both at the same time.

I wonder if Parker Rd. from 225 to 470 was originally planned to be a freeway. Because it feels like a freeway that they decided to add stoplights to, as if some sort of compromise.

[COS]

^Just like Powers Blvd in the Springs, half the intersections are interchanges and the other half are stoplights.

Given the makeup of the Parker Rd corridor today, I would argue the ideal transit options are Streetcar/LRT combined with regular lanes from Downtown out to Nine Mile, then Freeway all the way to Powers (CO-21). Considering the population growth of the Parker/Franktown/Castle Rock area and the Powers/Falcon area in the Springs, a second North-South Freeway connecting those areas provides a lot of economic potential and would not be difficult or expensive for a majority of the route.

[The Dirt]

No thanks! Let's keep those shitty freeway expansion plans as far away from Denver as possible. We already have a lot "potential economic growth" within city limits. No need to convert any more greenfield land into low density suburban housing that costs more to maintain than it gives back in taxes.

[COS]

So let's keep funneling all the transit/traffic for that Eastern area into I-25, or wait for HSR to be built? My argument is that the economic potential that comes from embracing the population growth of those areas ends up in the cities (Denver/Springs). By keeping CO-83 and Parker Rd the way they are, you limit what the eventual workforce can grow to. The Freeway in this case simply provides better access to and from areas where growth is already happening and will inevitably continue to occur. HSR is obviously the most ideal application here, but as we've already discussed there's no telling when that will happen.

[CastleScott]

^ Just an interesting historical side note on Parker Rd/CO 83-the old Colorado and Southern mainline from Denver to the Springs once ran along CO 83-in fact it was taken out sometime back in the early 50s and ran along Buchtel Blvd in southeast Denver until even the 90s (the old C&S bridge over I-25 was taken out just a few yrs ago). Just imagine if that was still there...

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ Just an interesting historical side note on Parker Rd/CO 83-the old Colorado and Southern mainline from Denver to the Springs once ran along CO 83-in fact it was taken out sometime back in the early 50s and ran along Buchtel Blvd in southeast Denver until even the 90s (the old C&S bridge over I-25 was taken out just a few yrs ago). Just imagine if that was still there...

Very cool! This was actually fairly common. South Broadway in Boulder was also the main RR into town, and you can still see the embankment it used to be on if you take Marshall Road into town instead of US36 over Davidson Mesa - Presumably the RR took a left turn here and used that little pass since Davidson is too steep for a railroad. I'd guess most of Parker Road was already there, since the roads named for the towns they head toward (Morrison, Brighton, Santa Fe, Parker) tended to be the old pioneer trails connecting the cities together. They usually take a straight diagonal line defying the grid, because they predate the homestead act and the Jeffersonian Grid.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Very cool! This was actually fairly common. South Broadway in Boulder was also the main RR into town, and you can still see the embankment it used to be on if you take Marshall Road into town instead of US36 over Davidson Mesa - Presumably the RR took a left turn here and used that little pass since Davidson is too steep for a railroad. I'd guess most of Parker Road was already there, since the roads named for the towns they head toward (Morrison, Brighton, Santa Fe, Parker) tended to be the old pioneer trails connecting the cities together. They usually take a straight diagonal line defying the grid, because they predate the homestead act and the Jeffersonian Grid.

Smokey Hill road in Aurora and Ridge Road in Arvada are diagonal for the same reason.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Smokey Hill road in Aurora and Ridge Road in Arvada are diagonal for the same reason.

Ralston Rd too for that matter. Actually, Broadway in Boulder is both - it was the old pioneer trail where it separates CU from The Hill, and was the old RR south of Baseline up until the 1950s or so.

[CastleScott]

^ Thanks guys on sharing cool old RR right-of-ways, I just noticed that congressman Jared Polis of Boulder wants a down payment on the NW line-just an idea: how about going incremental on this with some surplus locomotive push-pull train sets-out this way once CalTran installs the electrification on the San Jose-SF commuter line this will free up a lot of double deck coaches, cabs and locomotives to be leased out else where-something that even the Colorado front range can use.