DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

You guys are funny.

Fun Fact: Broadway/Lincoln BAT lanes were installed in 1975. It only took 40 years to make them all-day.


Transit-only lanes on 15th/17th are inevitable. But that's not what Denver Moves: Downtown is trying to accomplish.

There are over 20 plans/studies related to downtown - Modal plans (Denver Moves suite), geographic plans (GT, Civic Center) and others (Outdoor Downtown). The issue is that most of those plans were done in a bit of isolation. Many times there were major overlaps/contradictions in aspirations for a street or area - a protected bike lane, transit improvements, maybe a linear park and WQ, wider sidewalks, etc. In these cases we need to figure out if they can all fit. If so, cool - how will that look. If not, what's the priority, who loses out.

The other issue is that Downtown (more than any other place in Denver) is an interconnected transportation network. If you tweak one street/area it affects other streets/areas.

To remedy these issues, we are going to develop one plan to rule them all. One mobility build-out alternative for downtown that identifies a preferred cross-section for every street downtown. That alternative will then be modeled (macro/micro) to make sure it meets our goals/objectives (mode-share, people comparing capacity, etc) and also functions (the system doesn't come to a grinding halt).

After which, a master project list (with costs) will be developed and a work program will be born.

It's ambitious, it's complicated, but we believe it's necessary.

Hope that helps.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

You guys are funny.

Fun Fact: Broadway/Lincoln BAT lanes were installed in 1975. It only took 40 years to make them all-day.


Transit-only lanes on 15th/17th are inevitable. But that's not what Denver Moves: Downtown is trying to accomplish.

There are over 20 plans/studies related to downtown - Modal plans (Denver Moves suite), geographic plans (GT, Civic Center) and others (Outdoor Downtown). The issue is that most of those plans were done in a bit of isolation. Many times there were major overlaps/contradictions in aspirations for a street or area - a protected bike lane, transit improvements, maybe a linear park and WQ, wider sidewalks, etc. In these cases we need to figure out if they can all fit. If so, cool - how will that look. If not, what's the priority, who loses out.

The other issue is that Downtown (more than any other place in Denver) is an interconnected transportation network. If you tweak one street/area it affects other streets/areas.

To remedy these issues, we are going to develop one plan to rule them all. One mobility build-out alternative for downtown that identifies a preferred cross-section for every street downtown. That alternative will then be modeled (macro/micro) to make sure it meets our goals/objectives (mode-share, people comparing capacity, etc) and also functions (the system doesn't come to a grinding halt).

After which, a master project list (with costs) will be developed and a work program will be born.

It's ambitious, it's complicated, but we believe it's necessary.

Hope that helps.

Hypothetically speaking, would the Denver Moves plan recommend bus improvements exclusively, or could there be a rail component? Will this simply be a more detailed version of the "fast bus" grid plan that's already been hinted at?

Also, what would the cost of a cut-and-cover bus tunnel between CC and US be? Seattle built one back in the 1980s when they were smaller than we are today. Or two perpendicular tunnels. I would be elated to see this plan from 1976 resurrected:


Source: RTD via Streetsblog

The above plan was actually for rail, but it's 2018 so not getting my hopes up.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Hypothetically speaking, would the Denver Moves plan recommend bus improvements exclusively, or could there be a rail component? Will this simply be a more detailed version of the "fast bus" grid plan that's already been hinted at?

Also, what would the cost of a cut-and-cover bus tunnel between CC and US be? Seattle built one back in the 1980s when they were smaller than we are today. Or two perpendicular tunnels. I would be elated to see this plan from 1976 resurrected:


Source: RTD via Streetsblog

The above plan was actually for rail, but it's 2018 so not getting my hopes up.

There's a task within the study to do some transit planning specific to downtown. We intentionally left downtown out of Denver Moves: Transit in order to have a more granular conversation about transit within DM. The DM transit work will look at near term operations and improvements (i.e. transit-only lanes, stops, queue jumps, TSP, etc.) and long-term opportunities (maybe transit tunnel, neighborhood circulator network, another transit mall, LRT capacity, autonomous bus routes, etc). We will be looking at previous visioning transit stuff (1986 Downtown Area plan, 1983 RTD study) for some inspiration.

Cut-n-cover is probably $300-$400 million+ (just a guess). Might be more. Don't know until you start digging.

[DenverDave]

Let me save you a year of study and some hefty consulting fees-

Every one way street downtown should have a protected bike lane.
Every bus corridor (15, 17, 18, 19) will have a 24/7 bus lane.
Every block downtown should have at least one on street bike and scooter corral.

This might piss off the SOV commuters but isn’t the point to make multimodal a viable choice?

PS, I am a wealthy white urban core streetsblog reading bike commuter, but I fully realize mass transit should take priority in serving the masses.

Plansit- why couldn’t dpw have waited another year or two to resurface downtown until this plan was complete? Are they really going to tear up and restripe again to make this plan a reality?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Plansit- why couldn’t dpw have waited another year or two to resurface downtown until this plan was complete? Are they really going to tear up and restripe again to make this plan a reality?

Restripping is pretty damn cheap, but it sounds as if the DenverMoves: Downtown plan is far for encompassing than just putting down some new paint. I understand the need to lay some asphalt while figuring out downtown's transit network (mind you it should have been done concurrently with DenverMoves:Transit).

Plus this plan sounds as if it's going to be one of those couple hundred million dollar ideas so it's going to take a moment to get going.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There are lots of cities with non-BRT bus lanes. Is that what you're asking?

First of all, tons and tons of cities have downtown trunk bus lanes, where a bunch of routes from all over the city come together in the center. Portland, Providence, New Haven, Chicago, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Columbus, Seattle... even Boulder has a small one next to the Walnut Street bus station. Except for Denver's 16th Street, this is what most downtown transit malls are for. Examples of that include Minneapolis, Honolulu, and Brooklyn.

But also there are a ton of cities with bus lanes on non-BRT major bus lines that aren't the downtown hub. Like Broadway in Denver. Among them, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, Virginia Beach, New York, Pittsburgh, Boston. Baltimore notably has a dense downtown network of crisscrossing bus lanes.

If there are more than 20 buses per hour on a street then a bus lane should be on the table. If there are more than 40 then it definitely should have a bus lane.

I think Denver has more transit-only lane mileage than DC. I think.

The 20/40 rule applies well to trunks (especially downtown), but we have current transit-only facilities that probably don't meet that (even 20). Ridership is the other metric that we use in determining need for transit lanes. For example Colfax only does 16 buses/hr in the peak, but it clearly needs transit-only lanes.

For downtown, here are some bus/hr numbers. 18th/19th will likely be first to have BAT lanes as part of the PBL/MetroRide improvement project. Generally, local buses on 15th/17th; regional/express on 18th/19th.

• 15th @ Stout is 57 per hour during the PM peak, 765 total all day
• 17th @ Lawrence is 60 per hour in the PM peak, 846 total all day
• 18th @ Stout is 45 per hour in the PM peak, 323 total all day
• 18th @ Larimer is 32 per hour in the AM and PM peak, 399 total all day
• 19th @ Stout is is 45 per hour in the AM peak, 223 total all day

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Every one way street downtown should have a protected bike lane.
Every bus corridor (15, 17, 18, 19) will have a 24/7 bus lane.
Every block downtown should have at least one on street bike and scooter corral.

This might piss off the SOV commuters but isn’t the point to make multimodal a viable choice?

I viable choice for whom? The rich people who can afford to live within a 2 mile radius of downtown? I kind of don't care if multimodal works for you.

Of downtown commuters, let's see, 39.3% use transit. So agree, transit lanes on every street.

44.9% drive alone, carpool, lyft/uber, vanpool, or motorbike - all using the same road infrastructure - so together with the transit users we have 84.2% of commuters covered.

With walkers (another 5.4%) we are up to 89.6% of all commuters. Plus we all use and need sidewalks, those are non-negotiable.

Add in those who don't commute at all (ah, the dream) (2.2%), and we have 91.8% of commuters covered. To the densest patch of earth for an 500-mile radius.

And yet, 2 of the 3 bullets on your priority list are not for those 91.8% of people. And actually probably diminish the commuting experience - taking up space unnecessarily - for those people. So very typical of the selfish wealthy white urban core streetsblog reading bike commuter class.

I have a counter-proposal - take back those lanes, widen every sidewalk by 5 feet, plant some trees, and ban bicycles.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

I think Denver has more transit-only lane mileage than DC. I think.

I'm sure the City & County of Denver beats the District of Columbia on bus lane mileage. DC is way behind the curve, honestly. If the Crystal City busway in Virginia counts for DC then it's probably close.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I have a counter-proposal - take back those lanes, widen every sidewalk by 5 feet, plant some trees, and ban bicycles.

I have a counter-counter-proposal. Upzone everything so there's enough housing in the core to meet demand, and keep the bike lanes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I have a counter-counter-proposal. Upzone everything so there's enough housing in the core to meet demand, and keep the bike lanes.

We have an accord. But you have to deliver on the land use changes first.

Given the complete and absolute control we have over land use in our cities, if we wanted to say “no more” to land uses that are incompatible with this transportation vision, we could have done so, a long time ago. Fact of the matter is, we haven’t. You can’t find me a city where 2/3+ of metropolitan growth isn’t still well outside the core; sprawl, even. It’s not a chicken an egg problem at all. Outside of our islands of urban paradise, which purposefully we keep unaffordable for the masses, building for car dependency is alive and well. And now want to also keep the masses out, by favoring transportation options with a 2-mile reach.

[Cirrus]

I'll never argue that NIMBY zoning in cities isn't absolutely our fault, ism't a gigantic failing of liberal policy, or isn't totally unacceptable and unsustainable. It is all of those things.

But don't overstate your case. I can instantly find you a city where 2/3 of the growth isn't sprawl. 32% urban infill, 42% suburban infill, 26% sprawl. 2/3 outside the core, yes, basically exactly.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

You guys are funny.

I know; I found myself 'giggling' at my own comments wondering why I thought 'this or that' was relevant.

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The other issue is that Downtown (more than any other place in Denver) is an interconnected transportation network. If you tweak one street/area it affects other streets/areas.

Yeah that... is the part I was wondering about.

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Hope that helps.

Helps a ton; much appreciated.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Also, what would the cost of a cut-and-cover bus tunnel between CC and US be? Seattle built one back in the 1980s when they were smaller than we are today. Or two perpendicular tunnels. I would be elated to see this plan from 1976 resurrected:

Ya think it's time for Denver to consider joining the 21st century?
I'd agree.

https://www.boringcompany.com/faq

To solve the problem of soul-destroying traffic, roads must go 3D, which means either flying cars or tunnels. Unlike flying cars, tunnels are weatherproof, out of sight and won't fall on your head.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/...g.cnn-business

Elon Musk tweeted a video of his Boring Company's 2-mile tunnel underneath Los Angeles.

Back to Seattle:
They also built a 3-mile tunnel, the University Link, which opened in 2016. More recently Seattle completed their East Link Bellevue light rail tunnel which used a newer, better process. The advantage of tunneling presumably is you avoid having to mess with all the utilities closer to the surface.

• Video Link

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Every one way street downtown should have a protected bike lane.
Every bus corridor (15, 17, 18, 19) will have a 24/7 bus lane.
Every block downtown should have at least one on street bike and scooter corral.

This might piss off the SOV commuters but isn’t the point to make multimodal a viable choice?

I had a somewhat similar reaction as bunt did.

I can appreciate the desire to pack all the commoners onto buses and quickly whoosh them away from downtown so that the latte-sipping, liberal elitists can enjoy their Euro-inspired village in peace.

Couple of decades ago, eh, even one decade the guys down at the cowboy bar were heard mumbling "that guy must be on meth."

But times do change and there is a practical side and need for better transit. Can Denver accomplish what much denser cities have not been able to do? Certainly Portland is going to give it the old college try. Denver though doesn't have the same geographical constraints that many coastal cities have.

With respect to bike lanes, the data shows it's primarily an under 35, guy thing. Everybody else loves their car much more than wearing their spandex. For many, especially on the feminine or business toting side, privacy and security is a thing, like really big thing. Who knows the extent of crime problems ahead; it's easy to take the placid past for granted.

Might be wise to keep your blood pressure in check while you're waiting.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Of downtown commuters, let's see, 39.3% use transit. So agree, transit lanes on every street.

44.9% drive alone, carpool, lyft/uber, vanpool, or motorbike - all using the same road infrastructure - so together with the transit users we have 84.2% of commuters covered.

Assuming my previous ridership math was reasonably close then one-third of those transit riders come via light rail (or half as much as by bus). With respect to the remaining 26 percent of commuters who come by bus, there's the busy E Colfax corridor plus let's assume that (only) 20% of the bus routes start/end at either DUS or Civic Center Station; that leaves ~20 percent of commuters actually coming into downtown streets on route buses. The other ~20 percent utilize either the 16th street mall buses, MetroRide buses or light rail - unless PLANSIT has some better data breakouts.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But don't overstate your case. I can instantly find you a city where 2/3 of the growth isn't sprawl. 32% urban infill, 42% suburban infill, 26% sprawl. 2/3 outside the core, yes, basically exactly.

And if THAT is the example of positive progress, it absolutely makes my point that over-investing in anti-auto solutions in the urban core is futile and works against what is necessary to support 2/3 of metropolitan growth.

And that is WASHINGTON for crying out loud. Where you all got a scratch-built federally-funded subway SYSTEM that will never be replicated anywhere in the U.S. Compare that to the half-assed transit being build in places like Denver, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc. etc... The rail systems we are building today will never be as effective as the DC Metro at expanding the walkable/bikeable radius because it is just too damn slow and unreliable.

I also love the hypocrisy of the bike-riding urban dreamers waging a battle against SOVs. Because they are also the biggest users of Uber and Lyft, which is really what is clogging up our city streets these days, not a new influx of big bad suburbanites commuting screaming to keep their lanes open. Hate to break it to yuo all, but if you're swapping out for Uber every time you decide it's too cold or you're in too much of a hurry to ride your bike, you're making the problem worse, not better.

[mhays]

Yes, but if you choosing not to own a car because of Uber, and riding more transit because of it, you're probably helping on multiple fronts.

[Cirrus]

It's not an example of anything except don't overstate your case that 2/3 of growth everywhere is sprawl. Of course I agree you have to find effective ways of getting suburbanites into downtown.

Uber & Lyft are clearly adding to VMT, which is bad. They are, however, reducing demand for parking, which is good. I think at the end of the day I'd rather have more car traffic and less parking in cities than more parking and less traffic, if that's my choice. We can bypass traffic with transit lanes (on key routes, the once-per-hour last-mile buses will be done for), but parking politics are more intractable. I think. Ask me again in 5 years.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's not an example of anything except don't overstate your case that 2/3 of growth everywhere is sprawl. Of course I agree you have to find effective ways of getting suburbanites into downtown.

Uber & Lyft are clearly adding to VMT, which is bad. They are, however, reducing demand for parking, which is good. I think at the end of the day I'd rather have more car traffic and less parking in cities than more parking and less traffic, if that's my choice. We can bypass traffic with transit lanes (on key routes, the once-per-hour last-mile buses will be done for), but parking politics are more intractable. I think. Ask me again in 5 years.

I agree with you on this. Traffic can be rerouted and/or reduced over time but a parking podium with low floor-ceiling heights is pretty baked into a building and may be difficult to repurpose in a few years when we are all purchasing mobility as a service rather than needing to store our own transport machines.

[Cirrus]

On-street parking too. So much of what we could do on streets is constrained by having to use 2 wide lanes on virtually every street to store empty cars.

I'm pretty convinced the most important but least sexy aspect of transportation planning is curbside management. Everything that happens on streets revolves around curbside lanes, and we mostly give them away.


Paul Supawanich

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Of course I agree you have to find effective ways of getting suburbanites into downtown.

Uber & Lyft are clearly adding to VMT, which is bad. They are, however, reducing demand for parking, which is good.

I gotta believe that most analysis done to date out of necessity is too simplistic and likely way overstates the miles. Afaik, the biggest noted impact that's real is at airports where parking income has flatlined. Suburban pickups might add 10 minutes of driving at most since the closest driver is likely no more than 5-10 minutes away. It is way more convenient and efficient than taxis (have been) in enabling suburbanites to leave the car at home.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I think at the end of the day I'd rather have more car traffic and less parking in cities than more parking and less traffic, if that's my choice.

If one Uber driver makes 30 pickups in a day then that's 30 less cars/trips substituted by one car. The only difference would be the amount of deadhead miles accumulated but since the 'system' pings the closest driver I'm skeptical of the estimated deadhead miles assumed in studies.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I agree with you on this. Traffic can be rerouted and/or reduced over time but a parking podium with low floor-ceiling heights is pretty baked into a building and may be difficult to repurpose in a few years when we are all purchasing mobility as a service rather than needing to store our own transport machines.

I like your "mobility as a service" description. There's never an issue in the suburbs with repurposing unneeded garage space; it quickly becomes great storage. I doubt podium parking space goes wanting.

I would assume the most noticeable difference might be that families/couples use ridesharing instead of buying that 2nd car.