DENVER - I-70 Relocation

[SnyderBock]

I could see this resulting in an increase of Valley Highway (I-25) traffic. Currently, I-70 traffic bound for downtown is able to exit directly off I-70 into downtown. With this plan, this I-70 traffic may opt to first exit onto I-25, then take I-25 south and exit into downtown off it. The Valley Highway segment of I-25 is obviously a bottleneck portion of the highway and if this results in a significant traffic increase, it would be a valid argument against such a plan.

Also, I was assuming the Grand Boulevard taking I-70's place would be developed with a "main street" density, since it is so near the inner core. If this was not a guarantee prior to this plan being adopted, I would not support it. Also, the main arteries between this new boulevard and the relocated I-70 to the north would need to be upgraded considerably as part of this plan. Also with main street zoning. Sorry Glowrock, you had some valid points.

[Strange Meat]

Originally Posted by docroc

Check out nearly every major city in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The U.S. stands out as a nation that opted to "evolve" what was to be an "interstate" system - to serve urban commuting into and out of the core.

Yeah, I was referring to the US. I've been pretty much all over the globe, you just can't compare the way cities develop anywhere but here with here.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I could see this resulting in an increase of Valley Highway (I-25) traffic. Currently, I-70 traffic bound for downtown is able to exit directly off I-70 into downtown. With this plan, this I-70 traffic may opt to first exit onto I-25, then take I-25 south and exit into downtown off it. The Valley Highway segment of I-25 is obviously a bottleneck portion of the highway and if this results in a significant traffic increase, it would be a valid argument against such a plan.

Also, I was assuming the Grand Boulevard taking I-70's place would be developed with a "main street" density, since it is so near the inner core. If this was not a guarantee prior to this plan being adopted, I would not support it. Also, the main arteries between this new boulevard and the relocated I-70 to the north would need to be upgraded considerably as part of this plan. Also with main street zoning. Sorry Glowrock, you had some valid points.

Obviously, some traffic analysis would have to be done on where more localized traffic - such as that headed for downtown - would go, with both a relocated I-70 and surface boulevard option. No doubt a major a portion of downtown bound traffic from North Denver districts would no longer use I-70 and would opt instead for travel on the Grand Boulevard.

Westbound traffic on the Grand Boulevard could use the proposed improved Brighton Boulevard for access into downtown, and avoid I-25 altogether. (I assume you're talking about I-70 traffic that goes through the mousetrap and then can exit at Park Avenue - among other options along I-25 where it skirts downtown.)

So it could well be that I-25 traffic would also be improved.

Again, with the opportunity for the Grand Boulevard also serving as a transit corridor - this creates another travel alternative for the current vehicle demand on I-70.

Think beyond facilities as they are today and the current highway paradigm. I-70 would function differently, and therefore the impacts on I-25 would be different - the Grand Boulevard would provide for different travel patterns.

PLUS, the major benefit of re-invigorating close in neighborhoods as walkable, transit-oriented communities. Increasing population and activity in these four or five north Denver neighborhoods - where people aren't traveling great distances for work or errands also is a "transportation" strategy for improving mobility. It's more than vehicles on highways.

PLUS, PLUS - just imagine this - coordinating the construction of the I-70 relocation segment between Pecos and Federal with the develop of the FasTracks rail alignment in that area. And even with the restoration of the Clear Creek waterway through that area. Just think . . . a more context-sensitive interstate highway, with improved greenways along the creek - and coordinated with FasTracks rail facilities - what a concept!

Imaging also the opportunities for a very underutilized, underdeveloped part of unincorporated Adams County - pretty much in the center of the Denver-Boulder metro area.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I could see this resulting in an increase of Valley Highway (I-25) traffic. Currently, I-70 traffic bound for downtown is able to exit directly off I-70 into downtown. With this plan, this I-70 traffic may opt to first exit onto I-25, then take I-25 south and exit into downtown off it. The Valley Highway segment of I-25 is obviously a bottleneck portion of the highway and if this results in a significant traffic increase, it would be a valid argument against such a plan.

Also, I was assuming the Grand Boulevard taking I-70's place would be developed with a "main street" density, since it is so near the inner core. If this was not a guarantee prior to this plan being adopted, I would not support it. Also, the main arteries between this new boulevard and the relocated I-70 to the north would need to be upgraded considerably as part of this plan. Also with main street zoning. Sorry Glowrock, you had some valid points.

While we're all loopy excited about main street zoning for this so-called grand boulevard that would be where I-70 currently resides, would this be what the RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS want? I'm sure Globeville residents would love to eliminate the monster of I-70, but would they want a really dense surface street instead? I don't know, just asking. As for the west side of I-25, I really don't see residents of some of those neighborhoods wanting something super-dense, either... I-70 is really only a complete eyesore on the east side of I-25. West of I-25 it's nowhere near as big of a problem, quite frankly.

Again, I have no problem at all with a slight realignment or simply a trenching of I-70 in its current alignment. God knows that viaduct has got to go! That being said, I think many of the possibilities being mentioned here are so pie in the sky, so expensive, so time-consuming that they simply aren't realistic.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[The Dirt]

The only thing is that a trenching of I-70 has been ruled out due to the Platte's water table. I would prefer the full northern realignment, but a realignment up to Brighton Blvd. would be a close second.

[Eliyah78]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

This will be a huge asset in reconnecting those neighborhoods destroyed by its original construction.

As a lifelong resident of Globeville/Sunnyside/Argo, I can appriciate your take on this. Globeville was at one time a world class neighborhood- farmer canals, a street car line, multiple main streets (Fox Street, 45th Avenue, Washington), etc. And then the National Highway Act came along.

Just a recently as 10 years ago, many houses, families, and properties were still being displaced by the expansion of the mousetrap interchange. Even one mentally disabled man (Stephen) and his elderly mother were forced out of their home by CDOT to make way for the Park Avenue exit.

Honestly, like most other residents in Gloveville, Swansea, Sunnyside, and Berkely, I am more than ready for the relocation of I-70.

BTW, the Elyria Neighborhood Association is having a meeting on 04/22 to present their action plan for the removal of I-70:

Elyria Neighborhood Association meets tomorrow night at Pilgrim Church for those interested in attending. As you may know the following are underway which greatly impact the neighborhood:

1) I-70 DEIS and how it affects Elyria (Comment period ended March 31st)
2) Commuter Rail Maintenance facility (meeting April 23rd, Stapleton Rec Center at 5090 Broadway, 6-8 pm)
3) North Metro FasTracks DEIS (due out in June)
4) East Corridor FasTracks DEIS (now in final draft)
5) Elyria Swansea plan
6) Globeville plan
7) VB-I70 OU 3 and OU2 plans
8) National Western plans and Purina expansion
9) Recreation Center plans and EPA Listening Session news
10) ASARCO bankruptcy
11) Cherokee Coal Plant lawsuit
12) Metro Wastewate violations
13) Riverside Cemetery plans
14) North River Greenway plans
15) New 3 million gallon per week fuel loading operation in Elyria
16) Biodiesel refinery on the Platte River Greenway, court case with BofA
17) New push by Neighborhood inspection services
18) New City wide Zoning document, meeting April 29th
19) Global Greenfields Campus
20) New business

It's also time to plant your garden.
Hope to see you at Pilgrim Church tomorrow,
Tom Anthony, President
Elyria Neighborhood Association
303-299-0202

[bcp]

thanks for the info eliyah...by chance, do you have any pictures of 45th avenue when it WAS a mainstreet?

[KidKonza]

I'm all for the parkway. Would we be able to turn the interchanges into something like Dallas' High Five? You'd get some pretty nice views of downtown from the ramps.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by glowrock

While we're all loopy excited about main street zoning for this so-called grand boulevard that would be where I-70 currently resides, would this be what the RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS want? I'm sure Globeville residents would love to eliminate the monster of I-70, but would they want a really dense surface street instead? I don't know, just asking. As for the west side of I-25, I really don't see residents of some of those neighborhoods wanting something super-dense, either... I-70 is really only a complete eyesore on the east side of I-25. West of I-25 it's nowhere near as big of a problem, quite frankly.
Aaron (Glowrock)

Obviously, the main street zoning along the Grand Boulevard would have to be in character with the adjacent neighborhoods and communities. I would offer the options would range from (1) on the one end, having more residential development along the Boulevard, with TOD type development just at key nodes - York Street, Pecos, Tejon Street - to (2) on the other end, a more intense zoning scheme along the entire Boulevard.

So picture if you will that one scenario would be something like Alameda Parkway east of Colorado Boulevard that is primarily residential (that would be the lower density type of approach, with some TOD at a limited number of points) - to something that is more like Colorado Boulevard south of Colfax (i.e., midrise residential and mixed use buildings).

Those are the "bookends" - what likely gets implemented as main street zoning along the Grand Boulevard would no doubt be something in between. For example, I could see that the stretch between Irving Street and Tennyson Street (i.e., between Rocky Mountain Lake Park and Berkeley Park)
perhaps having "parkway type housing," such as the paired homes and other boulevard housing at Stapleton or Lowry. In other words, new construction that blends with the neighborhoods - with only nodes of mixed use structures with neighborhood commercial perhaps only at Perry Street or Irving. From Irving to Federal may be more of a continuous mixed use district, with ground floor commercial and residential above. Again from Elliott to Vallejo would perhaps again be more residential type infill - with perhaps some small mixed use commercial at Clay and Zuni. Again, Tejon to Pecos would again be an opportunity for a more continuous mixed use district.
And very similar opportunities in Globeville, Swansea, and Elyria.

I might point out that prior to the building of I-70 - there was a commercial node at Tejon & 48th with a grocery, several restaurants, and other shops. You can see remnants in that area . . . but a neighborhood retail and business center was decimated by the highway. There was also a garden shop and nursery at Zuni & 48th - and a neighborhood grocery at Beach Court & 48th.

Regarding the comment whether I-70 doesn't look so bad west of I-25 . . . please think beyond your experience on the highway and at the neighborhoods and residences in those areas. It is documented that the decibel levels from the highway-noise is beyond acceptable health standards - and that exposure to pollutants from major roadways within 500 feet of the facility results in pronounced increases asthma and respiratory illnesses.

Again, this proposal to relocate I-70 has many facets to it - quality of life, community cohesion, vibrant close-in neighborhoods, as well as traffic.

Were we just now considering where to place I-70, the current 46th Avenue and 48th Avenue routes would no doubt be wholesale rejected because of considerations of environmental justice, health and well-being, and community integrity. It was simply a bad decision and a big mistake by the city fathers (and no doubt they were all guys back in the 60's) to pick the alignment that they did. (I have anecdotally heard that Lakeside Shopping Center was a key proponent for the route along 48th Avenue - versus one north of 52nd Avenue that was also being considered. The other factor was the "view-from-the-road" mentality and that it would be a "nice drive" to go past Berkeley Lake and Rocky Mountain Lake.)

I encourage folks interested in this issue to check it out - BUT get off the darn highway and spend time on the neighborhood streets - especially within a block of the highway. Listen to the noise - notice how one side of the neighborhood has been cut off from the other - check out what it's like to walk in the adjacent parks with all the traffic.

[bcp]

but one of the points of MS zoning is NOT to match the neighborhood...its to give the neighborhoods walking retail / work / entertainment options along a corridor so that those uses are concentrated along a boulevard that can be accessed by the quiet neighborhoods.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by bcp

but one of the points of MS zoning is NOT to match the neighborhood...its to give the neighborhoods walking retail / work / entertainment options along a corridor so that those uses are concentrated along a boulevard that can be accessed by the quiet neighborhoods.

True, BCP - and I would offer that would indeed be within the bookends . . .

. . . my point is that maybe there may be segments along the 5 miles or so (between Vazquez and Sheridan) where the MS zoning is the pattern, but that's a long strip and a lot of diverse districts along the way . . . so you may seem some variation . . . such as the 1/2 mile or so segment between Berkeley Lake and Rocky Mountain Lake where it is more of a modified MS character there and more of residential parkway.

. . . so not necessarily disagreeing with you - but suggesting there may be some flexibility at points or segments along the way.

I agree that MS zoning (by and large) is the way to go along the much of the Grand Boulevard . . . but I also appreciate some of the concerns expressed by some of the comments on this thread . . . and would say that it is also legitimate that there may be good reasons for some variations in subareas along the Grand Boulevard where blending with existing neighborhood character is also good, and will offer some distinctiveness and interest.

I could see a lot of main street opportunities along 46th and 48th very similar to what the city wants to accomplish along Colfax and similar boulevards where MS zoning is initially being advanced - I could also see some segments (along 48th in particular), where it might be nice to have a bit of the Monaco Parkway type of treatment as well. That's all . . . so "yes" to MS zoning and "yes" to some reduced use of it too, if that's ultimately appropriate.

When all is said an then, whether the entire stretch is revitalized with MS zoning - or whether MS zoning happens along significant strategic segments with some breaks in-between that are more residential in character - it's got to be better than the tragic mistake that is there now - courtesy of the Dept of Highways. I see this whole proposal as a win-win solution for the neighborhoods, the city, for mobility.

[bcp]

i see what you're saying...it could 'undulate' along the boulevard with 5 or 6 main nodes of intense activity that steps down and then back up as you approach the next node...kinda like...cities!

[docroc]

Originally Posted by bcp

i see what you're saying...it could 'undulate' along the boulevard with 5 or 6 main nodes of intense activity that steps down and then back up as you approach the next node...kinda like...cities!

very well said - and concise! I'll have to add "undulate" to my parlance when describing the pattern along the Boulevard! (Do I owe you a royalty when I use the term?)

And point well taken - just think - focal points along the way for Elyria, Swansea, Globeville, Chaffee Park and Berkeley . . . each with a main street feel, but yet somewhat distinct and interesting in their own right.

(Well, hopefully "more than a feeling" and actually functioning as vibrant main streets in that string of neighborhoods!)

[Eliyah78]

Originally Posted by bcp

thanks for the info eliyah...by chance, do you have any pictures of 45th avenue when it WAS a mainstreet?

No prob. Sorry but I dont have any photos of old E 45th Ave. I checked last year with the Globeville Civic Association and even they dont have any early pictures. One of these day I do plan though to revisit the historic Denver photo archives at the central branch library. If I find any clear picts of 45th Ave I will keep your request in mind.

[The Dirt]

You should check out this site: http://history.denverlibrary.org/images/index.html

I tried a couple of searches, but I don't know the area well enough to see what's relevant.

[docroc]

I recall in just the last couple of years seeing an article or piece with some photos of 46th Avenue before I-70 was build on top of it . . . I'm thinking that may have been in Westword but not a 100% sure.

Regarding 48th Avenue west of Pecos - it was 2-lane street that terminated at Federal Boulevard. There was a segment again between Lowell Blvd and Tennyson - again terminating at Berkeley Park. The Pecos to Federal segment was only partially improved - in some sections there were no curbs and gutters. But a decent right-of-way on either side.

That was partially because that was an interim treatment and 48th Avenue basically was an unimproved parkway in Denver's parkway master plan - and was originally intended to have a landscaped median at some point in the future. (46th Avenue through Elyria and Swansea was also initially to be part of Denver's surface parkway system.)

(Some of you who aren't too, too old may remember that that had also been the state of E. Alameda Avenue between Colorado Blvd and Havana Street for decades - i.e., an interim two-way street, that then finally was developed to the intended parkway standards at some point in the 80s.)

[Eliyah78]

Originally Posted by bcp

thanks for the info eliyah...by chance, do you have any pictures of 45th avenue when it WAS a mainstreet?

I did some searching on the Denver Library webpage and found a few interesting photos of Globeville. Here are some links to the photographs (I didnt want to deal with the copyright restrictions):

46th Ave and Washington Street before I-70:
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?11000404+Z-404

Denver Public Library's Globeville branch along 45th Avenue Main Street (notice the streetcar tracks in the foreground):
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?10028082+X-28082

Gerspach Avenue (now Fox Street) once a main street and about to become one again thanks to the 41st Avenue and Fox Street commuter rail station!
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?10022414+X-22414

Sadly, the only old photo of 45th Avenue on the DPL website is the one with the Globeville branch library.

E

[docroc]

See article titled "Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City)" in Infrastructurists
(link provided below)

Relevant to I-70 replacement discussion. Cheers! docroc

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...p-save-a-city/

[ski82]

Originally Posted by docroc

See article titled "Huh?! 4 Cases Of How Tearing Down A Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams (And Save Your City)" in Infrastructurists
(link provided below)

Relevant to I-70 replacement discussion. Cheers! docroc

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...p-save-a-city/

Definitely worth consideration. I am very familiar with all three of those highways turned public space. All are hugely popular. Cheonggyecheon is packed all the time.

One problem is the lack of a natural feature, like the other cities feature. The space could, at least in part, be used as something bigger. Maybe an Olympic Park or something like that.

Perhaps a bigger problem is the use surrounding the area. All three examples in the article are in downtown. The potential is/was obvious. With the exception of Globeville, the viaduct passes through an industrial area and will probably remain so even if there was no freeway. The biggest benefit would probably be the savings of have just one east/west corridor through the area (270/76).

[docroc]

from New Orleans . . .
Again - some parallel with the I-70 situation through North Denver. docroc

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2..._for_iten.html