Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5 - Page 100

bunt_q · #**1981** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sagehen47

I was just stirring debate.

This however, I think is applicable to Denver:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/wo....html?emc=eta1

I've always thought 16th Ave between Denver and East would be a good place to have enhanced bike infrastructure.

That article seems to be focused on "suburban" commuters with infrastructure that isn't all too different from the Cherry Creek bike path. I'd be interested to see how you would eliminate intersections from 16th Avenue.

DownhomeDenver · #**1982** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 9:32 PM**

There's a construction fence up at 28th-29th and Zuni. Looks like the last remaining house at the corner of 29th and Zuni will also be bulldozed for this project.

EngiNerd · #**1983** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 9:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And not just any park, but the BIG DIG. The poster child for out-of-control cost escalation in infrastructure projects. Now I LOVE that Boston had the cojones to do that project, and the results are spectacular. But Denver neither has a spare $10 billion laying around (if we did, we'd be building mag-lev trains to Delta by now, or triple-decking I-70 through Idaho Springs), nor is I-25 through Highland in any way, shape, or form comparable to the monstrosity that the Central Artery in Boston was.

$14.5 billion actually all said.

bcp · #**1984** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 9:56 PM**

from Zuni east down to Central street...north to 38th...going nutso with new projects and improvements.

balugajames · #**1985** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 10:16 PM**

Yeah and isn't there supposed to be a new project on Clay and also on Speer and Zuni where that old gray brick building is. I believe those should be breaking ground soon too!

Its fun to watch all the development!

bobg · #**1986** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sagehen47

I was just stirring debate.

This however, I think is applicable to Denver:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/wo....html?emc=eta1

I've always thought 16th Ave between Denver and East would be a good place to have enhanced bike infrastructure.

I am assuming you mean 16th Street and IMO crossing I25 on 16th is not the problem. In my experience when crossing from the highlands to get to DUS the problems start to occur with the wide plaza's between the I25 bridge and the Platte not having a designated bike area so bikes and pedestrians meander and get in each others way. Then the pedestrians and bikes bottleneck across the S Platte bridge and stay bottlenecked around around an indirect route through commons park all to end up at the base of a bridge that forces cyclists to dismount in order to cross the CML. I find all of that infinitely more problematic than crossing I25.

bunt_q · #**1987** Posted: **Jul 18, 2012, 11:50 PM**

I thought he meant between Denver (Downtown) and East (High School).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobg

Then the pedestrians and bikes bottleneck across the S Platte bridge

If by "bottleneck" you mean the cyclists bear down and charge through like a police horse in a riot, while the pedestrians duck out of the way and hope not to get pushed into the river, then yes, it bottlenecks.

rds70 · #**1988** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 1:50 AM**

1350 16th Street - Version 3:

For details: www.denver-cityscape.com

BG918 · #**1989** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

That 135 million could be used to install curb and gutter on Brighton Blvd.

That is a corridor that really needs a better streetscape as the north gateway to downtown. Especially with all the future development around the Denargo Market and the 38th & Blake rail station.

bobg · #**1990** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 6:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I thought he meant between Denver (Downtown) and East (High School).

If by "bottleneck" you mean the cyclists bear down and charge through like a police horse in a riot, while the pedestrians duck out of the way and hope not to get pushed into the river, then yes, it bottlenecks.

You are probably right that he meant the actual 16th ave. I just thought it somehow tied into the previous post about going over I-25.

As far as 16th ave is concerned I agree I just do not see how we will build a bicycle 'superhighway' in the middle of the grid to help suburbanites get into town (I also agree the creek and river trails kind of already serve that purpose). I just cannot see how something similar on the grid could be done without grade separation.

What we could do to improve the cycling experience on 16th ave is remove those stop signs and replace with mini-roundabouts, and time the street lights so that someone going at bike speed will not have to stop twice on those few back to back intersections with lights. Of course that's only an improvement for cyclists dumb enough to pay attention to the laws on that stretch (IE me).

bunt_q · #**1991** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 1:29 PM**

I think that's one reason (of many) why old railroad right-of-ways are so popular for bike trails, they already cut out as many grade crossings as possible. As we are learning trying to shoehorn transit into an existing built out urban environment, it's tough to affordably duplicate what the railroads already have.

But bicycles are much more nimble than most other modes. There is a lot we could do to improve the existing E. 16th Ave. bicycle infrastructure - turn it into a real cycle track - without having to remove the intersections. If we have to grade separate at some point, it had better be for transit first!

Bicycles are just lucky they nabbed Cherry Creek before Denver got serious about transit. If the Speer corridor was just the road and the creek, we would be talking about the Speer light rail corridor today!

bobg · #**1992** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think that's one reason (of many) why old railroad right-of-ways are so popular for bike trails, they already cut out as many grade crossings as possible. As we are learning trying to shoehorn transit into an existing built out urban environment, it's tough to affordably duplicate what the railroads already have.

But bicycles are much more nimble than most other modes. There is a lot we could do to improve the existing E. 16th Ave. bicycle infrastructure - turn it into a real cycle track - without having to remove the intersections. If we have to grade separate at some point, it had better be for transit first!

Bicycles are just lucky they nabbed Cherry Creek before Denver got serious about transit. If the Speer corridor was just the road and the creek, we would be talking about the Speer light rail corridor today!

I remember biking on plenty of rails to trails conversions in WI and that's kind of what first got me hooked on cycling. Urban areas sometimes have competing demands for that land so it doesn't always happen that way in the cities (nor should it).

Not sure on the cycle track on 16th ave. I think segregated bicycle facilities are really only needed for high volume roads and 16th ave is not one. Would much rather see them do cycle tracks on 15th st, Broadway, Champa etc. If they want to explore turning 16th ave into a bike boulevard I would be for that.

I do not blame the bike path for why Speer is not being considered for an LRT corridor. I blame the obscenely large roads, it doesn't go right through downtown, and that it only fronts the creek between Downing and Larimer.

sagehen47 · #**1993** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobg

You are probably right that he meant the actual 16th ave. I just thought it somehow tied into the previous post about going over I-25.

As far as 16th ave is concerned I agree I just do not see how we will build a bicycle 'superhighway' in the middle of the grid to help suburbanites get into town (I also agree the creek and river trails kind of already serve that purpose). I just cannot see how something similar on the grid could be done without grade separation.

What we could do to improve the cycling experience on 16th ave is remove those stop signs and replace with mini-roundabouts, and time the street lights so that someone going at bike speed will not have to stop twice on those few back to back intersections with lights. Of course that's only an improvement for cyclists dumb enough to pay attention to the laws on that stretch (IE me).

Its not about building a "superhighway" exactly in the mold of what cophenhagen does, but rather intentionally selecting certain corridors for more substantial upgrades than simply striping a bike line. For one, 16th av has pretty poor pavement and it would be great to have a nice smooth ribbon from downtown to city park. As for how to do it on 16th, how bout implementing some sort of visual scheme, like colored pavement, to indicate its the main bike corridor in that area. Perhaps lower the speedlimit, or even build bike lanes on one half of the street that are separated from a narrow local access road for cars. Thats what they're doing all over Europe, New York (where I moved a few days ago) and now SF and other places. I don't think Denver has a very visionary plan for bike infrastructure.

RyanD · #**1994** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 4:09 PM**

So I finally got to the rooftop of my building.. It might be a 70's ugly modernist building but holy views...

Enjoy!

bobg · #**1995** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sagehen47

Its not about building a "superhighway" exactly in the mold of what cophenhagen does, but rather intentionally selecting certain corridors for more substantial upgrades than simply striping a bike line. For one, 16th av has pretty poor pavement and it would be great to have a nice smooth ribbon from downtown to city park. As for how to do it on 16th, how bout implementing some sort of visual scheme, like colored pavement, to indicate its the main bike corridor in that area. Perhaps lower the speedlimit, or even build bike lanes on one half of the street that are separated from a narrow local access road for cars. Thats what they're doing all over Europe, New York (where I moved a few days ago) and now SF and other places. I don't think Denver has a very visionary plan for bike infrastructure.

They just repaved the 'bad' part of 16th ave from park ave to Lincoln, and IMO none of it is a choppy ride at this point. It gets choppy when you transition over to the mall and Cleveland Pl, but you should be going slow on the transition part anyway due to mall traffic.

What aspects of the Denver moves plan is lacking in your opinion?

In my opinon it's that it needs more cycle tracks (bike lanes physically separated from road lanes), but based on my interaction with those involved cycle tracks are what most of those corridors marked as 'under further study' are intended to be. 15th street should get a seperated bike facility soon once the kinks are all worked out.

I think we have plenty of bike boulevards (slowing cars down) in the Denver Moves plan.

Personally, I am not sold on the painting the pavement green that Portland, Chicago and other cities have been doing. The painting the pavement different colors may help the cyclist in confusing places where it changes alignment at intersections or at bike boxes, but beyond that I think it's a waste of money.

Cirrus · #**1996** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 6:42 PM**

Painting bike lanes green isn't to help cyclists know where the bike lane is. It's to remind car drivers that it's there, so they don't turn into it without checking first to see if there's a cyclist.

bobg · #**1997** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Painting bike lanes green isn't to help cyclists know where the bike lane is. It's to remind car drivers that it's there, so they don't turn into it without checking first to see if there's a cyclist.

So far hasn't the research shown that it's led to more yielding but they are not sure if it prevents conflicts?

Cirrus · #**1998** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 8:57 PM**

I'm not sure what you mean. Movement conflicts are inherent to bike lanes' existence. Cars have to cross them when turning (the famous "hook" movement). The only way to eliminate them is to completely separate bike traffic from car traffic, which is cost-prohibitive. The whole point of visibility-increasing tools such as green-painted bike lanes is to increase yielding.

Is that not what you're asking?

Cirrus · #**1999** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 9:00 PM**

BTW, Madison uses bright red:

flickr user bennet2006

bobg · #**2000** Posted: **Jul 19, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm not sure what you mean. Movement conflicts are inherent to bike lanes' existence. Cars have to cross them when turning (the famous "hook" movement). The only way to eliminate them is to completely separate bike traffic from car traffic, which is cost-prohibitive. The whole point of visibility-increasing tools such as green-painted bike lanes is to increase yielding.

Is that not what you're asking?

I was referring to the Portland and St Petersburg studies. Just re-googled them those studies did not show a statistically significant difference (mainly due to the size of the sample) between conflicts before and after. Conflicts being defined in both studies as sudden changes in speed or direction in order to avoid an accident.

On the other hand yielding is slowing down and yielding the right of way to another vehicle. The distinction in my mind is important because it is possible (and happens to me daily) for an automobile or bicycle to yield unnecessarily.

If this is to prevent accidents or near accidents (conflicts) that's great but I just haven't seen anything that shows that to a level of statistical significance.