DENVER | Transportation Thread

[The Dirt]

There are no plans for rail specifically, but there is a vision to have a downtown to Cherry Creek transit corridor. Most likely, this will be enhanced bus service or BRT.

Check out the proposed transit corridors from the latest Denver Moves Transit plan:

PDF: https://www.denvergov.org/content/da...rridor-map.pdf
URL: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/H...id=lPl0GIptYpI

[Launch 12]

Thought folks would be interested in the new RTD map that shows train lines and the Flatiron Flyer.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/img/map/rail-fare-map.pdf

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yeah. None.

There's been talk about upgrading the bus service between Cherry Creek and Downtown as part of the Denver Moves: Transit study. It wouldn't be a BRT corridor, but would see enhanced service (better bus stop amenities, frequency, and somewhat reduced travel time).

From a past discussion on this forum that shows the main urban transit routes as underground subway. I think that's a pipe dream except for possibly Union Station to Civic Center but I can't even fathom how much that would cost. Maybe it would be better to have a streetcar with dedicated lanes through downtown and on Broadway/Lincoln, BRT with dedicated lanes on Colfax and possibly streetcar to Cherry Creek as well.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BG918

From a past discussion on this forum that shows the main urban transit routes as underground subway.

They do it elsewhere so why not in Denver?


Image: Guangzhou Metro via NextCity

China Gets Nearly 100 New Miles of Urban Subway Lines
JANUARY 3, 2018 BY SANDY SMITH - NextCity

The largest metro opening took place on Dec. 28, when a total of 82 km (51 miles) of new lines and extensions opened in the city of Guangzhou. Three new metro lines entered service that day: the initial sections of Lines 9 and 14 and the entirety of Line 13.

Denver should be able to do at least a mile of subway; cost about $650 million I suspect.

[TakeFive]

Holy moly a BREXIT in Boulder?

That has left members of Boulder’s City Council questioning whether they should do a Brexit-style secession from the transit agency.

Growth, Declining Ridership And Individual City Plans Are Presenting Headwinds For RTD
JAN 4, 2018 BY ALLISON SHERRY - Colorado Public Radio

Two of the state’s largest city governments say their ambitious transportation plans to ease future congestion are likely beyond what the Regional Transportation District, the metro area’s current transit authority, can provide — and they are exploring other options to move people around.

Well we know about Denver Moves but just how big are Boulder's eyes?

Boulder officials hope to expand bus service to the point where residents don’t even need a schedule, they can just walk out the door and onto a bus within a few minutes. The city already buys up additional bus service from RTD, but city transportation chief Mike Gardner-Sweeney said they are looking at other options for the future.

You go, Boulder. To be fair their more limited size does give them more options and ability to execute.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Launch 12

Thought folks would be interested in the new RTD map that shows train lines and the Flatiron Flyer.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/img/map/rail-fare-map.pdf

Holy crap, that is fantastic!

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Holy crap, that is fantastic!

I had to look at the link about a dozen times to see if this was actually on RTD's site....because I figured it made way too much sense to be from RTD and kept assuming it was a forumer who made it...finally RTD, finally a good map!

[Cirrus]

Ouch.

Originally Posted by Nashville Business Journal

Nashville's mass-transit plan is strong precisely because it's not like Denver's

For years, the Mile High City has been touted by city leaders as the holy grail of what Nashville could be if it adopted a comprehensive mass-transit plan. However, Jon Orcutt, the former director of policy at the New York City Department of Transportation, said the reason Mayor Megan Barry's $5.4 billion proposal is strong is because it's not like Denver. Instead, Orcutt — who consulted on Metro's three-year transportation plan released in May — said he encouraged Nashville to take inspiration from another western city: Seattle.

"One of the things we really like about [Nashville's plan] is that it’s a city-focused plan," Orcutt said in a phone conversation with the Nashville Business Journal. "It doesn’t involve regional compromises, with cities demanding they get a line out to their county. … In Denver now, it’s easier to get from [an] external city to the central business district than it is neighborhood to neighborhood. The city market has been neglected."

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Ouch.

I hadn't seen that; I did read this: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/...ng-hired-guns/

Take Denver, which has built an extensive rail system that caters more to unwalkable suburbs than city neighborhoods where transit works best.

This is just the same ole, same ole "it's not a textbook system." We've discussed this ad nauseum already. BTW, I had said THIS when you first brought up Nashville's proposal... and I'm not a paid hack for Nashville.

Angie's article also said:

And the plan avoids political compromises that have weakened rail expansions in cities like Seattle and Los Angeles, which cater to distant suburbs. The Nashville plan is squarely about improving service in the city, where the need for good transit is greatest.

My own comment on Streetsblog USA since deleted went like this:

The criticism of Denver's light rail system is fair. That said, Denver has a 'regional' transit system and metro Denver got what the voters said they wanted and agreed to pay for. Those who judge based on the need for immediate gratification are not always the wisest. The system is visionary and intended to direct future TOD throughout the system and many metro cities. Stay tuned.

As much as I would commend Nashville I do have one question. As proposed the price tag is $5.2 billion and would be paid for by a half cent sales tax plus increases to the city’s hotel-motel tax, rental car tax and business and excise tax. I see where it has to be approved by Davidson County voters. According to Google Maps, Davidson County covers a sizable area anchored by Nashville. The key question is this plan 'politically' feasible meaning are the voters likely to approve it? It's great that the plan was not 'compromised by politics' but it's politics that will have to approve the plan.

[TakeFive]

I'll have to come back to 'suburban rail' later as I have some interesting thoughts and suggestions.
But it's time to turn the page.

That shattering sound you heard came from Denver International Airport.

DIA expects to shatter passenger record with 2017 traffic
Jan 3, 2018 by Ben Miller - DBJ

Denver International Airport officials say they expect 2017 passenger traffic to shatter previous records.

They're estimating 61 million passengers used the airport last year, shattering the previous record in 2016 of 58.3 million passengers. Final traffic numbers aren't expected until next month, they said.

The Governor on his recent CNBC appearance mentioned that DEN was the 5th busiest airport in the country. Did he have inside info or was he just aware of the likelihood that DEN jumped over JFK? Denver was only behind JFK by 600,000 passengers so it would be hardly a surprise if DEN retook the 5th place spot.

‘It’s Phenomenal’: I-25 Expansion Coming Sooner Than Expected
January 4, 2018 By Jeff Todd - CBS4 Denver

LOVELAND, Colo. (CBS4) – A badly-needed expansion to Interstate 25 is coming to a stretch between Johnstown and the northern edge of Fort Collins.

“It’s a huge deal. It’s phenomenal. When we first started as an I-25 coalition about four years ago, we were told we wouldn’t see improvements along this corridor until 2075,” said Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer.

The Colorado Department of Transportation announced on Thursday construction will start this summer with three lanes in each direction expected to be completed in 2021.

How did you pull this together?

Over the past few years many communities have come together to help raise the money necessary for the project.

Larimer and Weld Counties, Fort Collins, Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor, Loveland, Timnath, McWhinney and others came together to raise $55 million. A federal grant also brought money to the table to help CDOT reach the $248 million dollar price tag.

Yes, this will have an Express Lane but it's not a P3.

[TakeFive]

Updated nuts and bolts of RTD rail transit ridership

May 17th to Aug 17th station activity compared to the previous report dated Jan 17 to May 17

What caught me by surprise
Ridership at Colfax at Auraria station dropped from 11,324 to 6,006 while the Auraria West station dropped from 7,134 to 4,550. Anybody got a guess as to why? Took me a moment before the light came one.

One notable drop that didn't surprise me
Nine Mile station fell from 6,591 to 5,910. No longer an end of line station some riders have gravitated to other R Line stations. Not counting DUS or DIA, Nine Mile dropped from 5th busiest station to 7th. The only non-central Denver station that was busier is Lincoln station.

Notable increases

• Peoria station jumped from 4,998 to 6,095 an increase of 22%
• Central Park station rose from 4,116 to 4,601 an increase of 12%.
• Florida station increased from 1,780 to 2,162 and increase of 21.5% I should add I originally thought Florida would be a dog of a station but it now comes in 29th out of 59 stations so dead middle of the pack.
• A small H/T to Westminster station as its ridership of 1,464 comes in 41st which is still better than many W Line or R Line stations.
• With respect to the R Line, Iliff station ridership improved by 36% (no doubt many came from Nine Mile) and Aurora Metro Center improved by a modest 16%. Other than for Colfax which still surprises for its low ridership the rest are no-hopers until lots of TOD happens.

The only notable drop I happen to notice (not counting Auraria) was Southmoor station which dropped from 4,921 to 4,286.

The next report with school back in session should be more interesting.

[TakeFive]

Denver and Density

Anybody know why professional planners and our Streetsblog-type friends want light/commuter rail to run through dense neighborhoods?
It's because they're lazy. Eh, I'm only kidding (well sort of).
OTOH, I have the benefit of a mind uncluttered by textbooks.

First, it's important to recall what Denver looked like 15 to 20 years ago when RTD invented light rail. Outside of Capitol Hill, Denver had precious little density. Post-war development, neighborhoods like Virginia Vale, U-Hills, Wellshire etc were all car-centric and not dense. Other than a modest number of apartments like off Colorado Blvd where the CU Med Center was and east Denver/Aurora near Colfax most of the 1950's apartments were in the suburbs - Englewood and Littleton comes to mind.

The 1960's saw a continuation of the same except there were a lot of those 3-story outside walk-up apartments built. Jordan Perlmutter built a ton of them including along So Monaco but most were in the NW suburbs.

Obviously there is some density variance in older Denver neighborhoods but outside of Cap Hill (including north of Colfax), there just wasn't a lot of density. The best transit corridor - East Colfax - unsurprisingly runs through this area and benefits from a more transit-dependent demo.

According to the urbanist elites from back East (not Cirrus) Denver didn't deserve light and commuter rail. Too bad; suck it up buttercup; it's already done and at a cost that can only make others drool and weep.

At the risk of repeating myself let me repeat myself. https://news.usc.edu/126791/how-tran...he-difference/

The different ways riders leave and arrive at the stops closest to home and workplaces — what researchers term “first- and last-mile access” — can close this gap, even more effectively than more traditional and costly public transit measures like increasing transit frequency by adding buses and drivers.

Those distances that bookend a commute are crucial, according to the study’s lead author, Marlon Boarnet, a professor of public policy and chair of the department of urban planning and spatial analysis at the USC Price School of Public Policy.

The USC study which related to San Diego reflects most cities in Fly-over country including cities west of the Mississippi. Few cities have the ready-made density of NYC/DC, Chicago or San Francisco.

While Park N Rides help, more needs to be done with respect to suburban access to LRT stations. It's really not RTD's responsibility; that falls to the metro area in general and communities in particular. Only Lone Tree has taken this seriously although Golden has made some effort.

An updated D-Met Transport should include a strategy for easing and encouraging first and last mile access. It could include RTD offering matching funds for example.

Eventually TOD will happen. But to build a $6 billion rail transit network but neglect accessibility is just plain dumb... and lazy.

[TakeFive]

Here's an interesting question (1st NFL game was boring)

But first, let's take a look at the Top Nine stations for ridership that is over 5,500 from the most recent report.

1. Union Station - 31,300
2. Denver Airport - 12,201
3. 16th Street Stations - 11,731
4. I-25 & Broadway - 11,400
5. 18th Street Stations - 8,186
6. Peoria Station - 6,095
7. Colfax at Auraria - 6,006
8. Lincoln Station - 5,970
9. Nine Mile Station - 5,910

Note: Lincoln Station is currently an 'end of line' station but three new stations will be added in 2019 when the SE Extension opens.

Of the top nine stations for ridership '5' are in central Denver and '4' are in the suburbs. If we look at the next 11 stations or #'s 10-20, I count '5' stations in central Denver, '2' in the city but outside of the central city ie Colorado Blvd and DU stations with '4' stations located in the suburbs.

QUESTION: With respect to those stations within the central part of the city, how many of the riders or what percentage would represent Denver residents as opposed to suburban residents? I honestly have no idea. Any guesses?

[CastleScott]

But to build a $6 billion rail transit network but neglect accessibility is just plain dumb... and lazy.

Very true and a big reason that metro Denver should't be looked at as a transit model. As a former metro resident prior to FasTracks passing it was various communities all trying to get "my slice of the pie" after the first 5.3 mile line of light rail was built (I worked as a part-time consultant on the southwest corridor to Littleton plus on the Arvada transportation committee) so yes when will we get our corridor was as much a part of DRCOG planning as the plan itself.
RTD promised that once the rail lines were in place that the current bus service would be re-deployed to service inner neighborhoods with higher frequency service which did not seem to happen..

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Ridership at Colfax at Auraria station dropped from 11,324 to 6,006 while the Auraria West station dropped from 7,134 to 4,550. Anybody got a guess as to why?

School's out in the summer.

Ridership fluctuates over the year. Compare a particular month this year to that same month last year to see if it's really rising or falling.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

First, it's important to recall what Denver looked like 15 to 20 years ago when RTD invented light rail. Outside of Capitol Hill, Denver had precious little density.

The statistics have not changed that much. The boom has been great, but if you're going to say Denver wasn't dense 15 years ago then it's still not dense today. It takes LOT to move the needle on established neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

According to the urbanist elites from back East (not Cirrus) Denver didn't deserve light and commuter rail.

Unless you're reading different things than I'm reading, that is not what anybody is saying. Nashville today is way less dense than Denver was 15 or 20 years ago.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

School's out in the summer.

Yeah, I know as I also hinted at later. What happened is when 1st looking at that long chart I was just mentally registering names and numbers (with no context). I didn't, at first give any passing thought for why until I paused to think about it. Then the light went on... that's all.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The statistics have not changed that much. The boom has been great, but if you're going to say Denver wasn't dense 15 years ago then it's still not dense today. It takes LOT to move the needle on established neighborhoods.

Exactly, in fact that is my point although the boom does put a different face on things. But Denver didn't have any obvious light rail corridors other than maybe E. Colfax and the "district" taxpayers wouldn't have cared about E Colfax. You can now retroactively reimagine a different system but that's in hindsight 15-20 years later. Who knows what voters would have of thought of your ideas back then? Not much probably.

Originally Posted by CastleScott

Very true and a big reason that metro Denver should't be looked at as a transit model.

I couldn't care less what other places do; that's their business. You do a fair job of summarizing why we ended up with what we have but I have no idea what RTD supposedly promised.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Unless you're reading different things than I'm reading, that is not what anybody is saying. Nashville today is way less dense than Denver was 15 or 20 years ago.

I have no idea of Nashville's density and I'm not that interested. What I'm reading is a NYC 'expert's' diatribe judgment about Denver's light rail system. In fact, that's pretty much the standard talking point from the Streetsblog crowd ie city v suburbs, overlooking the fact that most of the lines pass through urban areas.

If RTD's light and commuter rail system is visionary and intended to direct and encourage future TOD then all these new lines need to season for a decade before we can even envision their ultimate value. The very average SW Line, for example, has seen ridership increase at stations other than the Mineral Station which carried it in the early years by itself.

Consider Seattle; they are now getting around to delivering light rail to their suburbs. The biggest difference? They will spend and average of $300 million per mile where Denver's system cost a measly $58 million per mile. Looked at differently RTD built over five times the miles for the same dime that Seattle is spending.

Ten years from now is when we should take a 2nd look and I'll guess it will be the 2nd decade that experiences the most suburban TOD. Compare Miami today with 30 years ago when they first opened their commuter rail line. Time makes a yuge difference.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

overlooking the fact that most of the lines pass through urban areas.

Nobody's overlooking. "Pass through" as opposed to "conveniently serve" is exactly the criticism.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Who knows what voters would have of thought of your ideas back then? Not much probably.

You never know, but I think our do-it-better-with-hindsight plan from a couple of months ago would've done just fine at the polls. I also think tacking on another billion dollars to FasTracks would not have made one iota of difference to voters (although it would've affected the debt cap).

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Nobody's overlooking. "Pass through" as opposed to "conveniently serve" is exactly the criticism.

Most of these 'talking point' critics have little specific knowledge of Denver's system. It's like reading political headlines as opposed to actually understanding a topic. All they know is that suburbs are 'bad' and the city center is 'good.'

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You never know, but I think our do-it-better-with-hindsight plan from a couple of months ago would've done just fine at the polls. I also think tacking on another billion dollars to FasTracks would not have made one iota of difference to voters (although it would've affected the debt cap).

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I said they should have used a different type of train on most of the same corridors, with only a couple of tweaks replacing 1 or 2 particularly low-performing existing ROWs with 1 or 2 better existing ROWs.

This was your original bullet point post

Essentially we agreed to add my Urban Signature Line (along Broadway/Speer/Leetsdale) and you wanted it to extend to Nine Mile and drop the rest of the R Line.

Yes, I'm sure that would have passed and with the inclusion of the one urban line would have been much better. I'm not sure RTD would have preferred DMU's but assuming they did the voters wouldn't have likely cared.

For brevity, CastleScott described well why FasTracks happened except it was really the SW Corridor's completion that catalyzed everything.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

All they know is that suburbs are 'bad' and the city center is 'good.'

I don't think so. If anything they may be reducing it to "park-and-ride-based systems are bad and walkable systems are good."

[TakeFive]

Nine Mile Station - is it a total anomaly or is it instructive?

Cirrus is ofc correct that Nine Mile benefited from being an end of line station initially. Same with the Lincoln Station - for now. But that hardly tells the whole story.

Draw say a 3/4 mile circle around Nine Mile Station and what do we find? First you notice that Parker Rd is the axis; then you see that fully half of that circle has virtually no density. To the south and west lies the Cherry Creek Reservoir, a large area of soccer fields (in Greenwood Village), I-225 and a large area of ball fields, a golf course and green space - in Denver. The Cherry Creek Trail does run through the area and 6/8-lane Parker Rd doesn't deter bike enthusiasts but Nine Mile Station could hardly be considered bike/ped friendly.

Even after bleeding riders to both the Iliff and Florida Stations on the R Line, Nine Mile continues to have elite numbers and better than 50 of the 59 stations. But why is the question?

Here's another irony. Looking at the station ridership numbers, DUS is in a tier by itself. The next 8 stations are then in a tier higher than the other 50 stations. Not counting DIA, of the 3 other suburban stations in this 2nd tier, two are in Aurora. Go figure.

So why is Nine Mile so successful? There's a couple of reasons but the primary reason is that it addresses the first and last mile access. Through logical deduction it would appear that roughly half of the ridership arrives by car as Nine Mile has a large parking garage. The other half (in round numbers) presumably arrives by bus.

The other reason goes to density; not high urban density but solid suburban density. Even with only half of a pie to draw from, Nine Mile draws mostly from neighborhoods within Cherry Creek School District. Aurora fortuitously provided higher density zoning for much of this area. At the time "all those condos etc" were derided. wong doesn't care for the demographics .

Admittedly not every station can create good ridership by following Nine Mile's formula precisely because every station is different. But what is clear (to me) is that when you provide good first and last mile accessibility then that's half the battle.