Denver - Parking Space vs. Development @ Commuter Stations Dilemma

[M II A II R II K]

Denver Rethinks the Modern Commuter


July 24, 2012

By KRIS HUDSON

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...aletleft_email

As Denver moves forward with a $7.4 billion expansion of its rail system, the city is looking to rectify what some see as a flaw in the original concept. The dilemma is how to encourage the development of dense, walkable villages around stations so people don't have to drive to use the system.

- After the system opened in 1994, planners built parking lots and garages around many of its stations to cater to commuters. That strategy put parking on land that would have been ideal for stores, apartment buildings and squares catering to riders living adjacent to the stops. As a result, there has been little of that kind of development around the stations to change the area's car-dependent culture, and riders commute to the stations from up to 20 miles away.

- Denver-transit planners now are becoming more flexible when it comes to how much parking they require near rail stops and where they put it. In the continuing expansion of the Denver rail system—which will add up to 122 miles of light rail and commuter rail lines to the existing 35 miles within the next 10 years—land adjacent to stations will be earmarked in some cases for village-type developments. Parking lots can be as far as half a mile away from stations in this these types of projects.

- "Maybe you lose some [riders] on the front end by taking some spaces away," says Mr. Sirois. "But you enable something else to happen with…development." Whether to cater primarily to commuters or to residents near rail stops is a pivotal question for mass-transit planners in some cities. Many western cities expanding relatively young rail systems don't have the density or "walkability" that has allowed residents in older, Eastern cities such as New York to eschew cars in favor of mass transit.

- Still, some of Denver's peer cities already have embraced this approach. San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, and the TriMet mass-transit system in Portland, Ore., long have favored relegating park-and-ride service to their farthest flung stations in the suburbs. Meanwhile, they encourage dense clusters of apartments, condominiums and offices adjacent to their urban rail stops. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., have taken a similar approach recently. "Cities and transit agencies are getting a lot more sophisticated about the use of parking," said Marilee Utter, a Denver-based executive vice president at the Urban Land Institute, the research-and-education group focused on urban planning and land use.

- Yet cutting back on parking spaces isn't always practical. For that approach to work, basic services such as grocery stores and parks must be within walking distance of the system's rail stops. And other transit options, like bus service, must be available. That isn't always the case in fast-growing cities. "You can't just eliminate the parking [spaces] unless there is an alternative for people to get there," said Jeff Ordway, property-development manager for San Francisco's BART district. Critics ask whether Denver's change in approach on parking will chase some riders away rather than attract them. "So, they're going to make it more difficult to use transit in hopes that the real-estate speculators who use public money to build these things can flourish?" asks Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a think tank in Denver.

.....

[J. Will]

Placing a huge amount of parking at a lot of the LRT stations sounds like an excuse to not have good bus service (frequent, dense coverage, long hours) to get people to the stations.

[PLANSIT]

When you use Federal funds to help build a system, they come with various strings, one of which is a need to meet minimum ridership requirements. The Feds see parking as the immediate answer. Luckily, the thought process is fading and development is now seen as another answer. Sadly, Denver was a little too early.

As an example; the West Line is set to open early next year. A station, no more than a mile from downtown, is required to have 1900 spaces by opening day. This was not a decision RTD made, it was one that came out of the EIS.

RTD now has the ability to do joint-development. A pilot project is underway that will allow for redevelopment of parking lots near certain stations. The goal is to minimize parking and create a livable transit-oriented place.

[M II A II R II K]

I am of the persuasion that the park and ride system is the way to go, and development around Commuter stations isn't necessary for that function.

Instead of transit competing with cars it's a complimentary system where drivers don't have to get stuck in rush hour traffic and pay ridiculous parking costs.

However for it to work they have to be able to transfer to local transit services with convenient physical transfers that costs no extra. Also provide a premium metropass that covers the parking at any given Commuter Rail station as well.

[bunt_q]

24-hours of parking is generally free at the stations here.

The amount of density most municipalities are willing to allow will not come anywhere close to supporting the ridership that the parking allows for. Which is why there really hasnt been any tangible shift here, not yet. Figure half a circle, 1/4 mile radius, so say 60 acres. At 20 dua, which is more than most municipalities around here will realistically allow, that's 1,200 units. So maybe 300 riders per day? That's no subsititute for the park-n-ride.

The key is finding a developer that will build the parking into their project, but so far that hasn't been financially feasible.

[mr1138]

It should also be kept in mind that, in a roundabout way, this parking requirement can also lead to TOD opportunities. Oftentimes, it can be claimed to be more "cost efficient" to acquire enough land for surface parking to fill the parking requirement rather than build a garage. But after that, and sometimes before the line even opens, a portion of the land can be sold to private developers (or at least set aside for such a sale) to help fund a parking garage to replace all of those spaces. If planned correctly, this can actually jump start urban development directly adjacent to the station.

[Wizened Variations]

Part of the problem, IMO, relates to what light rail is designed to do in terms of ridership.

Putting parking facilities close to light rail stations gets a quick result in increased ridership, but thereafter, the ridership levels off, or even declines slightly (as the novelty factor wears off). This quick 'hit' can be used if the light rail system being built has to prove that ridership meets targets required for funding. So, if RTD can prove it's past projections met targets, then, pursuing further funding can be built under a "proven" track record history.

IMO, this philosophy, while almost inescapable, hurts TOD by increasing the distance between commercial and residential property and the light rail (or commuter) station.

An excellent example of such a problem can be seen at Broadway Station where parking lots form a huge belt adjacent to the bus access which abuts the terminal. How far away must one currently walk (discounting the future build up west of the Station- which should be planned extremely carefully to cover future ROW issues) is about 500 meters walking distance. Likewise, commercial outlets are 300 meters away on foot, due, in, part, to fencing surrounding the Qwest Diagnostics facility.

People who currently use the parking facility now, like the arrangement as is.

Perhaps those with the power to influence buildout are starting to realize what has been standard textbook knowledge: train stops need to become travel destinations themselves in order for ridership growth to increase past the "plateau" level produced by the quick 'hit' scenario.

Train station design is a known entity, with excellent examples worldwide. Short walking distance between transportation modes; safe egress over, or under rail lines; good security; good locations; etc., have been known since the 1920s, I suspect.

And, of course, having fast, frequent, safe, and, convenient transit that goes to meaninful locations helps, too.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

24-hours of parking is generally free at the stations here.

The amount of density most municipalities are willing to allow will not come anywhere close to supporting the ridership that the parking allows for. Which is why there really hasnt been any tangible shift here, not yet. Figure half a circle, 1/4 mile radius, so say 60 acres. At 20 dua, which is more than most municipalities around here will realistically allow, that's 1,200 units. So maybe 300 riders per day? That's no subsititute for the park-n-ride.

The key is finding a developer that will build the parking into their project, but so far that hasn't been financially feasible.

If you figure $25,000 per space to build that parking assuming it's structured above-grade, plus the costs of management, insurance, etc., you'd better charge enough to make it worthwhile. I don't know enough to guess, but it sounds like you'd have to charge nearly as much as an urban garage would. How would that work at the average suburban station?

You could have residents and commuters share parking. But residents with cars generally want designated spaces and security, so this isn't common to my knowledge.

Retail, office, and hotel don't share well with commuters for obvious reasons. But movie theaters do. They won't built transit garages, but they might help pay for staffing in the evenings (or something like that), and the theater can be more urban-friendly.

[ardecila]

1200 units generate 300 riders? That's less than 25%, considering the average occupancy of each unit is greater than 1.

Besides, I don't see why a hybrid approach couldn't work. A rail line has two sides - develop one side and build parking on the other. At a later date, parking can be consolidated into a garage once the transit and development have raised property values, and there could be development on both sides.

The last thing they should do is mix parking lots in with the buildings. Nobody wants crappy neighborhoods.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

... Figure half a circle, 1/4 mile radius, so say 60 acres. At 20 dua, which is more than most municipalities around here will realistically allow, that's 1,200 units. So maybe 300 riders per day? That's no subsititute for the park-n-ride

it's the right idea, but to really justify rail transit it takes more like a 1/2 mile radius circle (<10 min walk) and 50 DUA. now you've got 20,000 units, 30,000 residents, and maybe 8,000 riders. do that at 10 stations and you double the ridership of a typical light rail system.

there's no reason you also couldn't have a few thousand structured parking spaces - just take out one or two of the 400+ acres within a half mile (obviously one of the closer ones) and build structured parking. 350sf/space * 2,000 spaces = 700,000sf, or 8 stories on 2 acres.

[mhays]

No census tract in Denver has that sort of density, let alone any mile diameter. Hell, that's Brooklyn. Aside from inner cities, do any TOD districts in the country rise to that level? Are you suggesting that trains are rarely justified?

I believe that 50 DUA would be 24,000 units and 36,000 or so people, though the 1.5 might rise if districts like this were a big chunk of the housing stock, and multifamily became more common for families. If 10,000 were train riders that would be around 20,000 rides. That's not counting inbound commuters like those who work in your TOD. At that density, with a surface rail system where stations are cheap, you might as well do two stations.

While many people will walk a half-mile, the dropoff would be significant vs. people a block or two away. Pathetic as it is, people are lazy. And people who valued transit the most would probably locate closest to it. Someone like Cirrus might have typical numbers on this.

[mthd]

that's true. i don't know denver that well. capitol hill (27.01) looks to be about 140 acres, with 3,800 dwelling units, so maybe close to 30.

i'm not suggesting that trains aren't justified - just that if any cities want to transcend the 5-15% mode share for transit, they need to entertain significantly higher densities around transit stations. otherwise these very expensive systems will continue to serve pretty small percentages of the population.

denver's expansion is great, but the development side has yet to come, as noted by the OP. i also agree that you wouldn't put a park-and-ride lot 1/2 mile away, but they shouldn't be placed immediately adjacent. a 3 or 4 minute walk is fine and those huge parking garages won't make sense when a neighborhood is truly built out.

as another bookend, most of san francisco's downtown residential districts permit (and encourage) a density of between 360 and 225 dwelling units per acre. those are on the lots themselves, so you have to take out streets and parks and other uses but a built-out primary residential neighborhood would still be in the 100 DUA range. there are many parts of the city that exceed this, even without lots of towers which are understandably suspect in many neighborhoods and economically questionable for certain housing types.

Originally Posted by mhays

No census tract in Denver has that sort of density, let alone any mile diameter. Hell, that's Brooklyn. Aside from inner cities, do any TOD districts in the country rise to that level? Are you suggesting that trains are rarely justified?

I believe that 50 DUA would be 24,000 units and 36,000 or so people, though the 1.5 might rise if districts like this were a big chunk of the housing stock, and multifamily became more common for families. If 10,000 were train riders that would be around 20,000 rides. That's not counting inbound commuters like those who work in your TOD. At that density, with a surface rail system where stations are cheap, you might as well do two stations.

While many people will walk a half-mile, the dropoff would be significant vs. people a block or two away. Pathetic as it is, people are lazy. And people who valued transit the most would probably locate closest to it. Someone like Cirrus might have typical numbers on this.

[mhays]

I don't mean park-n-rides that far out. I mean residents 1/2 mile from the station won't use transit anywhere near as much as those closer.

Are you saying San Francisco only allows 360u/a at peak? Even little 'ol Seattle has projects that are multiples of that density. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the most is about 1,100/acre. I'm guessing you mean Downtown fringe districts.

[M II A II R II K]

Transit groups tackle Park-n-Ride shortcomings


10/07/2012

By Monte Whaley

Read More: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21...e-shortcomings

Often the biggest hurdle faced by commuters in metro Denver comes when they step off their Regional Transportation District bus or train. "Sometimes, the distance to your office is not a major factor," said Steve Klausing, executive director of the Denver South Economic Development Partnership. "But if you can't get the last 100 yards because of a variety of problems, it might as well be 10 miles away."

- Transit advocacy groups such as Klausing's say the problem is that many park-n-Rides are in neighborhoods and developments that didn't take transit use into consideration when they were built 10 or 20 years ago. "You have transit stations in suburbs that are already developed, and you have to work around the infrastructure already in place," Klausing said. "You have infrastructure creating barriers." That's why his organization — which concentrates on the FasTracks commuter system along south Interstate 25 in Denver — is studying ways to help commuters get to their final destination after the train doors close.

- The nonprofit 36 Commuting Solutions is doing the same for the six park-n-Rides along U.S. 36. It is partnering with Fehr & Peers, a Denver transportation planning and engineering consulting firm, for a $150,000 study. The effort is funded through the Denver Regional Council of Governments. They hope to solve the puzzle of the "first and final mile" dilemma, which has bedeviled city and transit planners for years, said 36 Commuting Solutions executive director Audrey DeBarros. "We receive a lot of feedback from commuters that there is often great difficulty in actually getting to or from their park-n-Ride to their destination," DeBarros said. "This study is the first step in solving that issue, and the outcomes will make transit more accessible and more viable commute options for the corridor."

.....

[mhays]

It's not just difficulty. It's also quality of experience. Small things, good or bad, are a big driver of behavior, including choice of mode.

[SnyderBock]

Well, at least Denver is taking the initiative, to study and eventually address these issues. This can only be a positive force to ridership and transit use share, in the future.

Denver does maintain an excellent bus service, to compliment it's transit network. That bus service will be improved under FasTracks, with routes re-aligned and timed with stations, live train arrival times at stations and credit card payment options being added to stations. As well as the introduction of BRT on US-36 to Boulder and a huge, 22-bay underground bus terminal being built at Denver Union Station. All these are positive things for ridership.

There are also two streetcar studies currently underway in Denver right now. One is a study for a streetcar on East Colfax. Which that study has already indicated a streetcar there may approach the highest ridership numbers for any streetcar line in the country, if designed and implemented right (up to 30,000 riders per day). The other streetcar study underway in Denver, is part of FasTracks extension of the Central corridor. RTD is looking to converting this section and extension of street-running LRT, into a streetcar line, then extending it throughout Denver's inner urban core.

Another factor which will help address the 1st and last mile issue, is the model of the Free 16th Street shuttle bus. It has low floors and wide, double doors which slide out and allow boarding like a train. With FasTracks, another such free shuttle bus line will be added to downtown from Union Station, down 18th/19th streets, across the CBD to capital Hill, then south to the Denver Art Museum and History Colorado Museum. This will greatly increase the number of destinations through downtown, which can be easily be accessible with a simple and convenient transfer from rail at Union Station, onto these free and easy to board shuttle buses.

Perhaps, over time, these or similar efforts could be implemented at other train stations around Denver. I could see something like a streetcar running from the Littleton LRT station, down Littleton Boulevard a few miles to Broadway (one of Denver's busiest bus routes). Or a streetcar at the Broadway/I-25 station running up and down Broadway. Possibly a streetcar line in Boulder. Even for a more affordable option, a free shuttle bus modeled after the ones in downtown Denver, running to and from certain, strategically chosen, suburban rail stations. Things like this at suburban stations, could potentially have significant boosts on ridership.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Denver does maintain an excellent bus service

That's debatable. It's certainly not generally excellent in terms of service frequency. Or hours of service on most routes for that matter.

Even with all the transit expansion in recent years, transit commute mode share in Denver (both city and metro) is VERY low. 6.2% and 4.2% in 2010 for the city and metro respectively.

[SnyderBock]

Well, when I say excellent bus service, I mean that it is superior to bus systems, in some American cities nearly twice as populated as Denver (ones like Houston and Dallas, for example). It's solid bus service, for a city not even with a metro at 3 million people yet. Frequency is solid in all the dense inner suburb urban corridors and only lacks in the outer suburbs. FasTracks will also be bringing some nice improvements to that bus service.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by J. Will

That's debatable. It's certainly not generally excellent in terms of service frequency. Or hours of service on most routes for that matter.

Even with all the transit expansion in recent years, transit commute mode share in Denver (both city and metro) is VERY low. 6.2% and 4.2% in 2010 for the city and metro respectively.

Denver vs. Toronto is NOT a good comparison, J. Will. And actually, any American city vs. any Canadian city is generally a poor comparison as well. For whatever reason, Canadians are generally more amenable to public transit than Americans, at least on average. The transit systems are generally better, whether bus or rail. Obviously there are certain exceptions, but I'm talking about generalities here.

For a mid-sized American metropolitan area, Denver's transit service is actually pretty damned good. Good coverage, decent frequencies, increasing amount of rail service. Of course it's not as good as somewhere like Vancouver, but that's beside the point. Stop the useless and blatant comparisons of American vs. Canadian cities, please.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Denver vs. Toronto is NOT a good comparison, J. Will.

No. That's a strawman argument that I never made.

Stop the useless and blatant comparisons of American vs. Canadian cities, please.

ROFLOL!

Please show me where I compared Denver's system to a Canadian system. Show me the exact quote and the exact post. I believe that whoever told you I made such a comparison is a liar.

Just to help you get started, prior to this post, post #17 is the only post I made in this thread. If you can find where I mentioned a Canadian city or system in that post, be my guest.

I wish people would stop accusing me of saying things I never said.