DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Weird. I've never had a problem crossing those streets. The cars are bunched together due to the light timing. You wait for the bunch to go by, then you cross. You're being overly dramatic. You seem to forget we both live in the same city so I know what those streets are actually like. (I used to live in City Park West.)

Also, on those rare occasions when one must frogger it, a one-way street is much easier than a two-way. No? Colfax. Now that's a difficult street to cross. I hate crossing that damn street.

I used to be a part of the cult. I used to be an anti-car urbanist. I'm still all for as much density as possible. I would still love to see a robust transit system that's convenient, clean, comfortable and civilized, (not a patchwork that's overrun with homeless people). I would love to see it replace cars. I would ditch my car and use it every day if it existed. I'm still the kind of person for whom, living in a neighborhood that isn't walkable is absolutely not an option. But the fact is, I live in a town that is difficult to get around in without a motor vehicle. People still need their cars. They need a way to get them in and out of the city. They need a place to store them.

The east side of town doesn't have a freeway like 6th Ave to get people in and out. The closest thing we have are those one-way's with the timed lights. If you get rid of those, there will be gridlock. I can't even imagine it. The traffic is already horrible as it is. We'd all be less mobile, and we'd be breathing in a hell of a lot more pollution.

I'm going to say this one last time: If you want a better public transit system, then build a better public transit system. I'm all in! Raise my taxes! But actively disincentivizing the use of motor vehicles and intentionally making it more difficult for people to use and store them, in the hopes that it will eventually force people to use alternative modes of transportation, DEGRADES OUR OVERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT, IN GENERAL, FOR EVERYONE TO GET AROUND. It hurts our economy. It increases pollution.

And one last thing (that I'm keenly aware of because I'm a truck driver, but seemingly every person on the planet that doesn't work in transportation is completely oblivious to): Every goddamn physical object you have ever owned/consumed/purchased in your life - whether it be a pair of shoes or a banana - came to you on a truck. Perhaps it made part of it's journey via rail, or air, or steamship, but at some point it was on a truck. Next time you're sitting in traffic on I-70, look around at how many trucks there are.

What is weird actually is that you think it's easy to cross 17th avenue. I work in the Cash Register building as does my wife. It sucks to cross 17th. Actually crossing 2 way "streets" is much easier. Colfax is a bad example because it's a road, and avenue, an urban freeway. In fact I literally was driving colfax this morning, posted speed limit of 35, was being passed at 60+ by numerous people, every light is green for as long as the eye can see. Same on 13th, 14th, 17th. 4 different stroads within a 5 block area that all function as high speed roads.

It's not a motorist vs. pedestrian issue. I drive cars, but I like to walk and bike too. It's more for bettering the pedestrian experience so more people will feel comfortable walking, which inherently means slowing cars down.

Trucks and heavy equipment are critical for civilization. They are useful tools and serve a purpose. Single occupancy car commuting is pretty stupid.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by spr8364

I worked there for a while as a nobody in a big firm. I know numerous people who work(ed) there. None of them are lawyers or accountants. They were database programmers, architects, drafters, engineers, secretaries. Pretty much the exact same people who work in all the non-skyscrapers.

My point was that you'd have to have some sort of white-collar job to work there. I have always assumed blue-collar jobs outnumber white-collar jobs, because that's just the way our economy has always felt to me. But now that I think about it, I could be completely wrong. Shit, I probably am wrong. I should have left that comment out. It wasn't well thought out.

Anyway, my larger point was that most people don't work there. I've always heard a little over 100,000 people work downtown but I'm guessing that figure has shot way up during this boom, so maybe it's 150,000 now? 200,000? Most of us -- millions of us -- don't work there. We work in a distribution center in Aurora, or a strip mall in Westminster, or an office building in DTC, etc., etc., and yet we might still want to live in a walkable neighborhood. Or, we might want to live on a big, cheap, suburban lot and commute to our downtown job.

If it isn't right, because it isn't sustainable or whatever, to live far from where you work, then I'm screwed. That means I have spend a big chunk of my life in Commerce City or Henderson or Aurora or something. Yikes.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

It was more about this notion urbanists try to impose on others that instead of living far from where you work and thinking you're entitled to an easy commute via personal automobile, you should live closer to where you work and figure out how to get there without a car.

....

Also, we can't forget, even today with all the increased desire for urban living, most people still prefer the suburbs. They have a right to live there and they have a right to take a job downtown if they want to. And let's not also forget that many of them can't even afford to live near downtown. It's expensive.

But you see - you can't have both sides in this argument.

Do you want streets that are safer for the people that live near them or that are easier to drive down? More people are hit on Denver's one-ways and huge multi-lane streets than on the tighter, slower two-ways.

You can't have density and walkable neighborhoods AND still have fast one-way through streets cutting through. They form natural barriers. It's why Auraria and the Pepsi Center are like separate islands apart from downtown. They're also more dangerous. People speed along expecting to get out of or into downtown fast. A good example is 19th before it was calmed. It was rough trying to cross Grant coming from downtown in the evening - the lights were timed so that you could make it from Broadway to Grant without getting stopped, but only by going about 35, and if you turned on Grant ASAP you would hit the end of the southbound cycle on Grant - but this also meant that there were a bunch of people desperately trying to do exactly this while pedestrians from all the apartments around uptown were walking home. I almost got hit on a regular basis, to the point where I started walking up the opposite side of 19th just to avoid that intersection.

You can't tell people they have a right to move to the suburbs or in single-family homes wherever they want AND have a nice, quick commute into downtown.You can't encourage density and think that more people in an area won't mean more, slower traffic, Our population is growing and downtown is getting denser, which means more cars on the road, and you think that means that it will still be easy to get places? And no, this isn't "Euro Utopianism", it's a simple reality that people in cities across the world have to face - more people in an area means more pedestrians, more cars, more traffic. The other option would be what - "American Dystopianism"? Where people expect to always own a single family house and be able to only drive 15 minutes to and from work and find ample parking? Unfortunately it isn't really a workable model, at least not at scale.

So - unfortunately if you want to enjoy living downtown and working in Commerce City, you have to weigh that the advantages that density brings against the ease of getting into and out of downtown. Your commute may be slower, but the density and walkable neighborhoods will be so much better for your real estate prices if you own, and I'm sure your neighborhood is much more interesting than anything you can get near work.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

What is weird actually is that you think it's easy to cross 17th avenue. I work in the Cash Register building as does my wife. It sucks to cross 17th. Actually crossing 2 way "streets" is much easier. Colfax is a bad example because it's a road, and avenue, an urban freeway. In fact I literally was driving colfax this morning, posted speed limit of 35, was being passed at 60+ by numerous people, every light is green for as long as the eye can see. Same on 13th, 14th, 17th. 4 different stroads within a 5 block area that all function as high speed roads.

It's not a motorist vs. pedestrian issue. I drive cars, but I like to walk and bike too. It's more for bettering the pedestrian experience so more people will feel comfortable walking, which inherently means slowing cars down.

Trucks and heavy equipment are critical for civilization. They are useful tools and serve a purpose. Single occupancy car commuting is pretty stupid.

Chances are pretty good that 17th Ave in Uptown at Pearl and Washington streets is a wee bit different than in front of the Cash Register building.

Given the variance of different people's perception acuity it should be easier to cross a one-way street for the simple reason you only have to look one direction.

Ashley Dean/Denevrite writes eloquently of the "street harassment" experienced by women (and the LGBTQ community); the same extends to the bus. For some people driving or Ubering isn't stupid at all.

Let's see I could call for an Uber/Lyft ride and get to work in 25 minutes OR I could take the bus and get to work in an hour and fifteen minutes. A lot of smart people value their time.

I live a half-mile (or more) from the nearest bus stop which doesn't even take me in the direction I need to go? I prefer putting my makeup on at home and I'm not interested in getting all sweaty on the way to work.

After lunch I have several appointments outside of downtown so I'll need my car.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Anyway, my larger point was that most people don't work there. I've always heard a little over 100,000 people work downtown but I'm guessing that figure has shot way up during this boom, so maybe it's 150,000 now? 200,000? Most of us -- millions of us -- don't work there.

Last numbers I'm aware of is that downtown employment was 125K on it's way towards 130K

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

But you see - you can't have both sides in this argument.

It's not a black and white question/answer. It's more like 50 shades of gray.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

You can't tell people they have a right to move to the suburbs or in single-family homes wherever they want AND have a nice, quick commute into downtown.

Perhaps not the best choice of words. 90% of the metro's 3 million people already live in the suburbs. Just a guess that 90% of those people would not describe their commute as "quick."

I recognize the puzzle is not easy; it's also why easy answers are not the best solution for the majority of Denverites let alone (god forbid) people have to live outside of the city.

Many families choose to live in suburbs for their good schools. Many two-income earning families work in different places in different directions - so where should they choose to live? Or is the school district more important?

If downtown business don't want to hire people who live in the suburbs that's up to them. For those businesses that want to enlarge their labor pool beyond downtown then accommodating their need to get to and from work is a thing.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Last numbers I'm aware of is that downtown employment was 125K on it's way towards 130K

139,000 per the DDP.

https://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-co...Employment.pdf

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

What is weird actually is that you think it's easy to cross 17th avenue. I work in the Cash Register building as does my wife. It sucks to cross 17th. Actually crossing 2 way "streets" is much easier. Colfax is a bad example because it's a road, and avenue, an urban freeway. In fact I literally was driving colfax this morning, posted speed limit of 35, was being passed at 60+ by numerous people, every light is green for as long as the eye can see. Same on 13th, 14th, 17th. 4 different stroads within a 5 block area that all function as high speed roads.

It's not a motorist vs. pedestrian issue. I drive cars, but I like to walk and bike too. It's more for bettering the pedestrian experience so more people will feel comfortable walking, which inherently means slowing cars down.

Trucks and heavy equipment are critical for civilization. They are useful tools and serve a purpose. Single occupancy car commuting is pretty stupid.

Oh wow. Yeah, right downtown near the cash register building? You're right. Not easy to cross. It's because of that crazy intersection down at the bottom of the hill. As soon as the light turns red for one pack of cars coming through, it turns green for another pack of cars coming through. All the while, two lanes packed full of cars are waiting to make a left turn onto 17th as soon as the lights are done letting the other packs through. It's madness right there. I'm totally comfortable jay-walking all over the city's busy streets, but even I get on edge on that part of 17th. Just press the light and wait. And watch out for people making turns without looking for pedestrians. Man!

It would be more difficult to cross if it were a two-way though. 17th and 18th are big fat streets that move a lot of cars. They would be more like Colfax if they were two-ways.

I live on Pennsylvania in Cap Hill. It's a two-way and it's practically the easiest street to cross in the world. But now we're not comparing apples to apples. Turn 17th and 18th into streets that function like Pennsylvania? Gridlock.

It's interesting that you point out the speeding (although I have to think you're exaggerating with the "60+" remark -- that would be insane). I commute out of downtown every morning on Speer. I hate that stretch. Everyone is racing along at about 45 mph, (the speed limit is 35), and battling for position, in order to keep up with the light timing and not get caught at a red. At first I thought it wasn't worth trying to keep up, but now that it has become a mundane part of my daily get-to-work-on-time ritual, I find myself speeding along with all the other speed-racer yahoos. I'm even able to gauge how well I'm keeping up by noting the seconds left on the cross-walk count-downs at certain intersections. Every time I look, the number is smaller than the one I saw at the last intersection. I'm falling behind even though I'm going 45.

Why? Why on earth would they time the lights like that? I don't understand it. I thought they didn't want us to speed? Imagine if every one of these major thoroughfares were timed more like 17th St in the CBD. You can't go any faster than about 20 mph on 17th St. Some yahoo might try to go 30, but he'll only end up wearing out his brakes. The pack rolls along at 20 because they don't want to get ahead of the timing. It's a nice slow roll. Easy (and safe!) for pedestrians to deal with. Why aren't 13th and 14th, 17th and 18th (Avenues) timed more like that? That might be part of the answer right there.

Finally (man, I'm sorry for being so long winded people) as for your last point... Single occupancy car commuting is stupid. But we live in a town where, for most of us, it's the best option. Chicken/egg. If we had a robust mass transit system in place -- including the last mile -- I think people would use it. I know I would. I hate having this damn car and dealing with the nightmare of trying to find a place to put it every night.

How do we get there? Do we degrade the overall transportation system of the metropolis by making it more difficult for people to commute via car in the hopes that it will cause more people to live closer to where they work or force more people into using RTD? Do we spend billions building out the whole thing and hope that enough TOD will eventually come along to make it all worthwhile?

It's complicated. I think we actually do that last thing. But I think we also have to allow the city to become far more dense than it currently is so the last mile problem can get resolved organically. The denser we are, the less we need cars, and the more cost effective it is to build out that last mile. When all is said and done, there will still be some streets left that are hard to cross because they move a lot of cars. Even NYC has plenty of those. They're an integral part of a complete transportation system.

[TakeFive]

Correction

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Last numbers I'm aware of is that downtown employment was 125K on it's way towards 130K

According to the 2018 State of Downtown Denver Report by the Downtown Denver Partnership:

Employment in Downtown Denver is at an all-time high of 133,478, with much of this growth being fueled by the tech industry. Tech industry employment is up 74% since 2010.

Originally Posted by rds70

139,000 per the DDP.

https://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-co...Employment.pdf

Guess I was checking while you were typing.

Oh, I see your link is a bit newer - BUT I'm calling for a RECOUNT.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

But you see - you can't have both sides in this argument.

Do you want streets that are safer for the people that live near them or that are easier to drive down? More people are hit on Denver's one-ways and huge multi-lane streets than on the tighter, slower two-ways.

You can't have density and walkable neighborhoods AND still have fast one-way through streets cutting through. They form natural barriers. It's why Auraria and the Pepsi Center are like separate islands apart from downtown. They're also more dangerous. People speed along expecting to get out of or into downtown fast. A good example is 19th before it was calmed. It was rough trying to cross Grant coming from downtown in the evening - the lights were timed so that you could make it from Broadway to Grant without getting stopped, but only by going about 35, and if you turned on Grant ASAP you would hit the end of the southbound cycle on Grant - but this also meant that there were a bunch of people desperately trying to do exactly this while pedestrians from all the apartments around uptown were walking home. I almost got hit on a regular basis, to the point where I started walking up the opposite side of 19th just to avoid that intersection.

You can't tell people they have a right to move to the suburbs or in single-family homes wherever they want AND have a nice, quick commute into downtown.You can't encourage density and think that more people in an area won't mean more, slower traffic, Our population is growing and downtown is getting denser, which means more cars on the road, and you think that means that it will still be easy to get places? And no, this isn't "Euro Utopianism", it's a simple reality that people in cities across the world have to face - more people in an area means more pedestrians, more cars, more traffic. The other option would be what - "American Dystopianism"? Where people expect to always own a single family house and be able to only drive 15 minutes to and from work and find ample parking? Unfortunately it isn't really a workable model, at least not at scale.

So - unfortunately if you want to enjoy living downtown and working in Commerce City, you have to weigh that the advantages that density brings against the ease of getting into and out of downtown. Your commute may be slower, but the density and walkable neighborhoods will be so much better for your real estate prices if you own, and I'm sure your neighborhood is much more interesting than anything you can get near work.

Speer is a massive two-way that is like 10-lanes across and has a damn creek in the middle of it. It's practically a freeway. One-ways are easy to cross because the cars are all bunched together due to the light timing and you don't have to look out for cars coming from every direction. (Of course those big insane intersections right downtown are an exception, but just remember, they would be even worse if they were two-ways.)

Yes I can tell you people can live in the burbs and commute downtown because that's a fact. They might not happen to be able to afford to live downtown, but it just might happen to be where their job is. Their commute is already slow as we all well know, but intentionally slowing down their commute to a crawl to punish them for driving cars, even though driving cars is their only practical option, is stupid. It increases pollution and hurts the economy. It makes it more difficult for people to live and work in Denver Metro.

One ways (unlike Colfax) are generally easy to cross. My neighborhood is pretty damn walkable even though it has plenty of one-ways, so I guess I'm having it both ways.

Also, I hope you're wrong about real estate prices. It would be nice not to get forced out of my neighborhood just because it's walkable. (I rent.)

[Sam Hill]

I guess what this argument boils down to is some of you seem to think crossing one-ways is difficult, and that's just not my experience. Every day I walk all over Cap Hill. 13th, 14th, 17th, and 18th are always a breeze. Grant, Logan, Corona and Downing are always a breeze. I never sweat it. Colfax OTOH is a huge annoying barrier.

I don't know what else to say.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

You can't encourage density and think that more people in an area won't mean more, slower traffic, Our population is growing and downtown is getting denser, which means more cars on the road, and you think that means that it will still be easy to get places?

Damnit, I have to address this point. ^

No, I don't think more people crammed in won't mean slower traffic. It will mean slower traffic and that will be a good thing -- a nice organic shift into a town that is more walkable and transit-oriented. That's what I want. There's a big difference between that and intentionally making the traffic worse by removing thoroughfares.

I keep coming back to my slower light-timing idea. The traffic would be slowed to a safer speed, but you could still move a lot of cars through. People don't seem to mind taking a little longer to get places as long as they can keep moving, so I don't even think commuters would mind.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Their commute is already slow as we all well know, but intentionally slowing down their commute to a crawl to punish them for driving cars, even though driving cars is their only practical option, is stupid. It increases pollution and hurts the economy. It makes it more difficult for people to live and work in Denver Metro.

I'm not sure extending 'rush hour' (of grumpy commuters) by adding two more hours of gridlock will make a neighborhood more pedestrian friendly?

Perhaps 'be careful what you wish for' and 'unintended consequences' is also worth considering for those who want to gum up the works.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm not sure extending 'rush hour' (of grumpy commuters) by adding two more hours of gridlock will make a neighborhood more pedestrian friendly?

Perhaps 'be careful what you wish for' and 'unintended consequences' is also worth considering for those who want to gum up the works.

You don't think that slowing traffic down through measures like reduced capacity, speed limits, and increasing things like lights, sequencing of lights, crosswalks, would make a neighborhood more pedestrian friendly? I know you're in Arizona, but, Walk much? :-)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

You don't think that slowing traffic down through measures like reduced capacity, speed limits, and increasing things like lights, sequencing of lights, crosswalks, would make a neighborhood more pedestrian friendly? I know you're in Arizona, but, Walk much? :-)

When it's not so hot, I walk every day. Actually I now do my walking between 5:00 and 5:30 a.m.

I assumed and maybe I'm wrong depending on location that "rush hour" by definition was anything but, meaning it crawls along without needing any encouragement? Certainly reduced capacity would extend the gridlock hours; it's beyond me why that's seen as a plus. Give me two more hours of gridlock with cars emitting whatever they emit. Suit yourself I guess.

[TakeFive]

Rockies Win

Originally Posted by rds70

139,000 per the DDP.

https://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-co...Employment.pdf

I was thinking that the increasing number of residents in and around downtown should lessen the demand from commuters, at least coming from the suburbs. But it appears (and you can correct me) that about 15,000 new employees have been added to downtown in the last couple of years. In other words the number of jobs is growing faster than the number of new residents living downtown.

It may be that a call-to-arms is needed to take drastic measures. In the interest of preserving the sanctity of downtown, the city should adopt a 15-year moratorium on all new development that would increase the number of jobs - basically anything but new residential construction. No new jobs means no new commuters. (I apologize to anyone who doesn't enjoy my gallows humor as much as I do)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well yes, there is admittedly this growing group who have a very elitist vision of Denver as some Euro-Utopian Village. Anyone who doesn't fit the mold is unwelcome. Sadly, I've always viewed Denver/downtown as a very welcoming place; perhaps that's now an antiquated notion.

Eh, we're not all AOC-incarnate.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

With the added benefit (I'm being serious here) of slowing down the commute of people who insist on living further out and driving into downtown. AND force them to pay for parking. Hopefully encouraging them to take transit and definitely to demand better transit from their neighborhoods instead of relying on the 1960s ideal of "I live in Aurora and expect to get downtown in 10 minutes on surface streets".

<- This is why I like the electoral college, the senate, and gerrymandering. It keeps the rich white liberal city folk in check and gives voice to those horrible people who "insist on living further out." :eyeroll:

Ever heard of "drive til you qualify?" Of course you have. You just don't want "those people" in your city.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It may be that a call-to-arms is needed to take drastic measures. In the interest of preserving the sanctity of downtown, the city should adopt a 15-year moratorium on all new development that would increase the number of jobs - basically anything but new residential construction. No new jobs means no new commuters. (I apologize to anyone who doesn't enjoy my gallows humor as much as I do)

Agree on the jobs moratorium. But maybe just a moratorium on jobs that pay less than $100,000? We still like rich people, as long as they're not too rich.

[SnyderBock]

J-walking is illegal and a lot of people who get hit by cars, get hit while j-walking. Pedestrians need to follow the laws, just as motorists need to. A safe pedestrian streetscape is a combination of safe motorists and safe pedestrians. Even though the pedestrian has the right-of-way and liability always falls into the motorist, it doesn't mean the pedestrian doesn't ever cause the collision. I would never step in front of a moving vehicle without first making direct eye contact with the driver to confirm they see me, then waiting to determine that they are in fact going to stop. I drive downtown 5 times a week and am amazed everyday at all the people that walk out into the street to cross, without ever even glancing over to make sure all cars are stopping. If you do this, odds are that sooner or later, you'll get hit. And yes it will be the drivers fault, but it was set in motion by a mental error from the pedestrian walking in front of a moving vehicle.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Damnit, I have to address this point. ^

No, I don't think more people crammed in won't mean slower traffic. It will mean slower traffic and that will be a good thing -- a nice organic shift into a town that is more walkable and transit-oriented. That's what I want. There's a big difference between that and intentionally making the traffic worse by removing thoroughfares.

I keep coming back to my slower light-timing idea. The traffic would be slowed to a safer speed, but you could still move a lot of cars through. People don't seem to mind taking a little longer to get places as long as they can keep moving, so I don't even think commuters would mind.

I totally agree with that - I only fear that all the newbies and people from states that make all their income from speeding tickets (I'm looking at you Texans who insist on driving 10 under everywhere you go) will foil that idea.

And I realize that people need efficient ways to get into and out of the city - it's just frustrating that RTD caters to the exburbs and our ever-more-inequal center neighborhoods fight growth and change tooth and nail.

[The Dirt]

Great, so turning one ways into two ways with the SAME CAPACITY, creating bulbouts and safer pedestrian crossings, and removing private vehicle storage in the public right of way is liberal elitism. Good to know we can't have a reasonable discussion here without pointless name calling. God forbid someone's 20 minute commute turned into a 22 minute commute because some pedestrians didn't want to be injured, paralyzed, or killed. You can live wherever you want to live and drive wherever you need to drive, and we should be giving all of us better transit options that at least give you the option not to have you drive, but I think convenience shouldn't trump safety.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

God forbid someone's 20 minute commute turned into a 22 minute commute because some pedestrians didn't want to be injured, paralyzed, or killed.

This is by far the most important point. These kind of changes aren't going to add 2 hours to anybody's commute. They would certainly not paralyze the movements of trucks and goods, which we should all remember are not time sensitive. This is the kind of rhetoric that quickly pulls us to the extremes and is not helpful. Slowing down traffic would, at worst, add a few minutes to the average automobile commute. A few extra minutes is never going to stop anybody from getting from their point A to their point B. There is an ocean of space between this reality, and the notion of creating a "total gridlock" distopia where suburbanites can see downtown but cannot get there.