DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sometimes you just mystify me. Do you think warehouses only get built in unlimited-sprawl areas?

Residing dead of center in my politics and going issue by issue it will be hard to pigeon hole me.

Where do you come up with this "unlimited-sprawl areas" notion? Today's development even if sprawl by your definition is not your father's development. But given the growth of liberal elitists urban centers, I will speak up for those whose dreams in life revolve around family and affordability.

Additionally there's more than one way to skin a cat. Dallas, Phoenix and other SW cities are happy with what they're doing and doing very well. I don't believe that one set of values should be imposed on others. I do understand that if everybody was just like you what wonderful world it would be.

[mhays]

Maybe they decided to go for more events rather than bigger ones.

That's a core strategy in Seattle. We just started a second convention center a block from the first. They'll be roughly the same size. When one is setting up, the other can have an active convention.

In Phoenix's case, a lack of downtown hotel rooms is an issue...4,000 rooms within walking distance of their convention center. Denver must be around 10,000 by now.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Residing dead of center in my politics and going issue by issue it will be hard to pigeon hole me.

Where do you come up with this "unlimited-sprawl areas" notion? Today's development even if sprawl by your definition is not your father's development. But given the growth of liberal elitists urban centers, I will speak up for those whose dreams in life revolve around family and affordability.

Additionally there's more than one way to skin a cat. Dallas, Phoenix and other SW cities are happy with what they're doing and doing very well. I don't believe that one set of values should be imposed on others. I do understand that if everybody was just like you what wonderful world it would be.

Again, mystified. But what the heck:

Pigeonholed you? Did I do this?

You seemed to suggest that warehouses don't get built in places with limits on outward growth. Yes there's a large gray area between unlimited sprawl and growth controls. Maybe I should have said "lots of sprawl," not unlimited sprawl. The point is that warehouses get built even here, so your suggestion wasn't logical.

Yes there's more than one way to skin a cat. So now you're ok with sprawl, got it. In many regions we consider it a problem, and the voters have pushed back on it. Denver has made progress on this too.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's because Phoenix's convention center is 2M sq ft. (300K sq ft of contiguous exhibit space) and can only accommodate these smaller conventions. Denver's is 2.2M sq ft (584K sq ft of contiguous exhibit space). Denver's ceiling of the kind of convention that can be accommodated is far higher than Phoenix's. They overlap, but don't really compete.

Why in the hell would Phoenix spend money building a new convention center and separate it into two buildings and two totally separate exhibit halls? Getting any kind of major exhibition outside of an NRA lovefest would be extremely difficult.

Actually according to Cvent it's 900,000 SF with Largest Exhibit Space being 612,500 Sq. Ft.

IIRC, they got caught up in the wave of cities expanding their convention facilities about the same time as Denver. The main expansion spans a street and roughly doubled their exhibition footprint. The third building is more of an 'Executive' meeting place. It is what it is; I don't concern myself with it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes there's more than one way to skin a cat. So now you're ok with sprawl, got it. In many regions we consider it a problem, and the voters have pushed back on it. Denver has made progress on this too.

Here is how I've compared Denver to Phoenix. They're very different places and each city/metro needs to determine for itself what is best for them but what works well for Phoenix wouldn't work well for Denver for sure and vice-versa. I have no powers beyond my one vote.

Phoenix metro voters have approved roughly $50 billion for transportation going forward so they're well-funded like Seattle. Their multi-nodal approach as a result of natural growth works well for them. I've discussed this before; no need to rehash other than to remind that metro Phoenix was rated 47th for congestion even though it's the 11th largest MSA.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

In Phoenix's case, a lack of downtown hotel rooms is an issue...4,000 rooms within walking distance of their convention center. Denver must be around 10,000 by now.

Downtown Phoenix is not much of a business place so they do lack for hotel rooms. There's plenty in the general area but they won't be walking, that's true. They do a lot of local business and some larger conventions. The money, as I've stated is in their luxurious resort-meeting hotels. I'm not sure there's another city/metro that can match their offerings in this category.

[TakeFive]

Step by step, inch by inch


Source

In January Denver released it's Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative. 2019 is for Design and Environmental work; begin process to seek federal funding.
2020's purpose will be Final design and implementation planning.

With the overall scope of this project along busy E Colfax, the planning and design work does become intensely complex.

PLANSIT is more familiar with the process than I am but I assume Denver/RTD is hoping for an FTA Letter of No Prejudice by the end of this year?
Are they hoping for $55 million in matching funds? I would think this project would score well with ratings of Med-High and High which should be a winner.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sea-Tac did 49.9 million last year with 2,500 acres, barely cramming in dual runway operations, and probably 500-1000 of those acres are an addition a decade ago. DIA did 61.3 in 33,500 acres. Stapleton had 4,700 acres.

Obviously the specific issues with Stapleton went beyond its acreage, and I don't know them all. But it seems possible that it could have gotten to the current traffic levels with upgrades rather than a replacement. My guess is it would have needed to relocate the N-S runways to space them out much further, which would have involved imminent domain. And of course it would have needed reconfigured/added terminals. All of that might have cost as much as DIA, with a lot of challenges. And Sea-Tac might always have noise issues. But Stapleton would have meant less sprawl.

It seems implausible that Stapleton would have been able to process 60+ million passengers a year, much less 80 million by 2025, which is DIA's goal. The runway layout was inefficient, and it was much less reliable in winter weather operations. The concourses were small, and there wasn't much room to build more. There was a lot of opposition to expanding an airport on one of the most polluted nuclear superfund sites in the country, and a lot of neighbors wanted to see the airport go. Using eminent domain around Stapleton would have been politically unpopular.

It would have really taken a lot of effort to get Stapleton up to contemporary standards. Even then, it probably would have maxed out at some point and we'd be talking about building a secondary reliever airport somewhere else, which would have also contributed to more sprawl.

It's also worth pointing out that Stapleton did turn into a nice redevelopment opportunity as a close-in neighborhood. It probably could have been denser, and I'm sure the Stapleton neighborhood would be denser if we were building it today, but it wasn't a bad result given that much of it was planned in the late 80s.

[mhays]

That makes sense. I'd guess they could get up to the current level with a huge investment and some unpopular moves, but DIA can clearly grow more and was probably way easier.

Sea-Tac is pretty tight at 49.9m, and having to be really creative to shoehorn in more capacity into very small spaces.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by mhays

That makes sense. I'd guess they could get up to the current level with a huge investment and some unpopular moves, but DIA can clearly grow more and was probably way easier.

Sea-Tac is pretty tight at 49.9m, and having to be really creative to shoehorn in more capacity into very small spaces.

Yes, Seattle is doing the best with what it has, just like pretty much every other hub airport. Seattle reminds me a little bit of SFO in that both of them feel fairly modern, though they are starting to get pretty creative at trying to find space for new projects.

Denver was lucky to have space for a greenfield airport and the political will to do it. DIA was the last major airport in the country to be built from scratch, and I don't think any other city will be able to attempt such a thing anytime soon.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Actually according to Cvent it's 900,000 SF with Largest Exhibit Space being 612,500 Sq. Ft.

IIRC, they got caught up in the wave of cities expanding their convention facilities about the same time as Denver. The main expansion spans a street and roughly doubled their exhibition footprint. The third building is more of an 'Executive' meeting place. It is what it is; I don't concern myself with it.

You might want to go to the actual site of the Phoenix Convention Center instead of a free reference site to verify your numbers. Just sayin' friend.

Contiguous event space is also part of it. Denver has it. Phoenix doesn't.

[SnyderBock]

Off topic

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You might want to go to the actual site of the Phoenix Convention Center instead of a free reference site to verify your numbers. Just sayin' friend.

Contiguous event space is also part of it. Denver has it. Phoenix doesn't.

I can't even understand that site and I've done my best to NOT defend that place, just describe it (perhaps from inaccurate recall). Wouldn't you presume that Cvent got their info from the Phoenix Convention Center. The numbers seem to match.

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Yes, Seattle is doing the best with what it has, just like pretty much every other hub airport. Seattle reminds me a little bit of SFO in that both of them feel fairly modern, though they are starting to get pretty creative at trying to find space for new projects.

Denver was lucky to have space for a greenfield airport and the political will to do it. DIA was the last major airport in the country to be built from scratch, and I don't think any other city will be able to attempt such a thing anytime soon.

I always enjoy reading your posts as you know so much about airports.


What caught my eye
in this article about gentrification is this photo.


Decatur/Federal Station light rail stop in Sun Valley with downtown Denver on the horizon. (Amanda Clark, Special to The Colorado Sun)

[Launch 12]

http://www.9news.com/article/news/rt...a-3fb8afaa151f

[DenverDave]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Step by step, inch by inch
In January Denver released it's Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative. 2019 is for Design and Environmental work; begin process to seek federal funding.
2020's purpose will be Final design and implementation planning.

Could you speak to how cities like Cincinnati, Tempe and Kansas City have been able to fund streetcar lines but Denver has abandoned streetcar on Colfax which would get signficantly higher ridership than those systems?

[Cirrus]

^
The KC & Cincinnati streetcars are really short, like about 2 miles. It would be like if you built a Colfax streetcar but it started at Civic Center and didn't even reach Colorado Blvd, much less I-225. Doing it as BRT allows Denver to build its line all the way to the Aurora border basically right away, without making it cost prohibitive.

A Colfax streetcar would be nice. The ridership there justifies rail. But the BRT is just a lot more practical.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Launch 12

http://www.9news.com/article/news/rt...a-3fb8afaa151f

Very good news; still more steps but at least things are in forward motion.

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Could you speak to how cities like Cincinnati, Tempe and Kansas City have been able to fund streetcar lines but Denver has abandoned streetcar on Colfax which would get signficantly higher ridership than those systems?

Fair question. Cirrus is exactly right but I'll add some detail relative to Denver.

In an ideal world a streetcar would be great; it all comes down to funding ie a lack thereof. RTD can't legally use FasTracks tax revenue for the East Colfax project. That leaves funding primarily up to Denver plus any FTA grants. It's described as a 10-mile project and a streetcar would cost in the neighborhood of $600 million (my estimate) while Bus Rapid Transit should cost closer to $150 million. BRT done right, which Denver is trying hard to do, should make a world of difference. They need badly to secure FTA grants or they may be looking at half a loaf so pray for rain (or something).

[DenverDave]

Makes sense. It’s too bad we have no problem funding mega highway projects but urban mobility always seems to get short changed. I guess that’s America for you.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Makes sense. It’s too bad we have no problem funding mega highway projects but urban mobility always seems to get short changed. I guess that’s America for you.

I appreciate your frustration but I wouldn't take it out on CDOT which when it comes to "mega highway projects" is their responsibility. CDOT ofc covers the needs of the whole state in addition to many of Denver roads.

When you think of states that have been growing like Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona and Washington, CDOT has been poorly funded compared to them. Admittedly many are 'red' states and less transit friendly but Washington has the best of both worlds. Washington state added a $1 billion a year for 10 years to their state DOT while the Seattle metro area added $53 billion for transit specific projects. Meanwhile CDOT has had to use 'tolled express lanes' just to get some projects off of the drawing board.

Does Denver metro need more transit funding? You bet; something along the lines of the $20 billion that Portland is looking at asking voters to approve in 2020 would be wonderful.

[Cirrus]

Nothing prevents CDOT from using its money to fund transit projects. There's nothing that says state DOT money has to be used on highways. CDOT does transit projects.

The difference between transit and road funding in this country is that we've set up these DOT institutions in every state for expanding roads, and they get huge amounts of guaranteed money every year, nationwide (yes yes I know it's not enough). There's no such thing for transit. If you want to expand transit, you raise local revenue somehow, usually by asking voters directly.

Colorado is obviously spending a lot on transit via FasTracks, so it is admittedly unfair to say transit construction in Colorado is "shortchanged." Without looking it up, I'd bet more money has gone to transit expansion than highway expansion in the Denver area over the past decade. But FasTracks is a special and temporary situation created by voters to try and fix the exact problem that DenverDave describes: Guaranteed cash for highways, but transit has to figure it out project by project.