Denver Area Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

Boulder got a federal grant for 10 additional bikesharing stations today.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/2012tcsp.cfm

[bobg]

And Denver used this opportunity to study sustainable transportation for something that is inherently unsustainable in the Aerotropolis.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bobg

And Denver used this opportunity to study sustainable transportation for something that is inherently unsustainable in the Aerotropolis.

Truth.

[texcolo]

Have you guys ever biked in Boulder?

Driving through Boulder is a bit irratating. I find that working class non-Boulderites are put off by Boulder.

I want to try biking there, it HAS to be more pleasant than trying to drive up there.

[sashyenka]

As someone who drives in Boulder every day (for class, no less!), it's really not THAT bad. The traffic is only terrible during predictable terrible times (ie, rush hour) and otherwise, anything that's worth seeing or doing is no more than ten to twenty minutes away. It is a nice place to bike though.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by texcolo

I find that working class non-Boulderites are put off by Boulder.

You only needed to say working class people. There's no such thing as a working class Boulderite.

[Launch 12]

I'll I have to see is the word "Boulder" in a post and automatically there's a series of negative posts following it.

[bunt_q]

And all I have to see is criticism of, well, anything (especially in an election year), and what follows is a chorus of Americans whining about the sour tone of the conversation; people talking about talking, rather than talking about content.

What matters is whether what is being said is true, not that people are criticizing. In Boulder's case, rather than complaining that people are being critical, I ask you: (a) is it true that the working class has been largely priced out of the city through land use policies, and (b) do you consider that to be a problem, especially in a city that is a known bastion of progressivism, which, as a political philosophy (in theory at least) espouses all-inclusiveness and sustainability?

[taylor23]

I came across this site about the South Westminster station on the NW line. I never gave this station much thought but I like what they are planning. The park with the overlook by the platforms looks really cool. This single station is likely to be the extent to the NW line for some time so I'm glad to see it will be more then just the standard generic RTD station.

http://www.westminstertod.com/

http://www.westminstertod.com/docume...rds_031412.pdf

[trubador]

Originally Posted by taylor23

I came across this site about the South Westminster station on the NW line. I never gave this station much thought but I like what they are planning. The park with the overlook by the platforms looks really cool. This single station is likely to be the extent to the NW line for some time so I'm glad to see it will be more then just the standard generic RTD station.

http://www.westminstertod.com/

http://www.westminstertod.com/docume...rds_031412.pdf

I think it is a bit strange to have a park completely around the station. Nowhere near to park your car near the station and when you get off the train, it increases the walk to get anywhere, unless the park is your destination. They need to remember people use this for transportation.

[mr1138]

If you look a little closer, there is a giant parking garage right across from the station to the north with pads for development on either side to "wrap" the garage. It can be clearly seen on page 10 of that PDF. Westminster is actively trying to get developers interested in this entire area from the station northwest to the original historic town site.

[Cirrus]

The park is probably all floodplain, which you can't develop. I don't see that as a problem.

This looks like a pretty good plan to me. I give it a B+.

The major problem I see is that the three park spaces on the north side don't appear to be well thought out.

I like the idea of the half-circle plaza in front of the station on the north side, and think it has a ton of potential to be a really cool space. But it should be programmed more heavily than they're showing. They should think of it as a central plaza, with lots of activities. Put some vendor kiosks there, and a transit store, and a fountain. Also, apparently there's a historic depot building and they're not using it (it's in the lower right-hand corner of the plan, between the circle park and the bus bays).

Meanwhile, the little squares at 71st/Hooker and 71st/Knox are open space overkill. It looks like they're talking about 3-4 story buildings. That's not enough density to support 3 big squares on the north side plus a giant park south of the tracks. I could see *maybe* keeping the one at Knox, if it's intended to be surrounded primarily by residential, but I'd just get rid of the one at Hooker and put a building there.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The park is probably all floodplain, which you can't develop. I don't see that as a problem.

According to the FEMA web site, much of the park is a Floodway which is virtually untouchable. You can modify a floodplain as long as you give back as much land as you take. Also, that park is along the Dry Creek trail which connects with the Clear Creek trail to the southeast and all the way back up through Westminster into Standley Lake and potentially Rocky Flats to the northwest.

I personally think this has the potential to be a very nice station with a pretty reasonable plan. The station might get good use once the Midtown by Carma development to the east gets built (very suburban by the way).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Meanwhile, the little squares at 71st/Hooker and 71st/Knox are open space overkill. It looks like they're talking about 3-4 story buildings. That's not enough density to support 3 big squares on the north side plus a giant park south of the tracks. I could see *maybe* keeping the one at Knox, if it's intended to be surrounded primarily by residential, but I'd just get of the one at Hooker and put a building there.

I think they're going to need that amenity overkill to attract a developer to this site. This one is going to be tougher to get out of the ground than a lot of other projects around town.

[Cirrus]

Maybe, if the city builds the parks. Is that the plan, or are they hoping the parks will be built by the developer as a community benefit?

If it's the former you may be right. If it's the latter, they're impediments.

[bunt_q]

A plan like this it's almost certain that there's a special district that will be financing the open space and infrastructure, could be city-controlled or developer-controlled. I'll check. (That's how everything outside of central Denver works...and even the CPV, the infrastructure is done by the districts. Cities don't build a lot of new infrastructure directly.) It would certainly be weird to do it a different way, unless there's just not a lot of dollar investment needed.

[mr1138]

Just for the record, this project is not going to be a single development. I actually just took a tour of the area a couple of days ago with somebody from the city planning dept. and he mentioned there being 90 different property owners and over 120 different parcels between Federal, Lowell, 72nd and the train tracks. The city will not be using condemnation or attempting to redevelop this whole area under a single master developer. Right off the bat, the only parcels that will be changing will be the ones needed for the bus bays and RTD parking garage. The pad sites adjacent the new parking garage may be developed sooner rather than later, but the rest of the site is entirely just a vision plan and is subject to substantial changes depending on what each property owner would like to do and when they would like to do it.

[Zmapper]

How do they plan on addressing the issue that the Westminster station vicinity is owned by numerous private owners, some of whom would not be interested in selling? While eminent domain is an option, such an attempt on a parcel of this size and scope would almost surely be worse than Kelo, and would easily invoke a legal challenge.

[mr1138]

I think they actually view that as a good thing as it allows for a more organic and piecemeal process of change, as opposed to having the entire thing be one developer's vision (which is what will happen at Westminster Mall, and they are no doubt dealing with many of the same issues that Lakewood did with Belmar). They are fully aware that some property owners may not be willing to sell, but the thought is that this may change over time as property owners begin to see the value in their land. If some individuals remain holdouts, then that's just the way that it goes, but that is really no different than what we see currently happening in many of the neighborhoods down in Denver. Eminent domain will only be used on the parcels that are necessary to allow for bus and auto access to the new RTD train station.

[bunt_q]

The differences are that (a) Denver's redevelopment has taken decades and (b) is only happening in areas with favorable demographics that can support high development costs. That's not Westy.

Kelo doesn't really apply in Colorado. Is this area designated blighted for urban renewal? Googling.