Comments on: Final 18th Street Ped Bridge Rendering http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html News, ideas, and commentary about urbanism in the Mile High City Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:34 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3931 Anonymous Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:47:25 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3931 The Paris Metro system, which is generally considered one of the best in the world, routinely causes people to walk more than 2 blocks to transfer, and it has done just fine. We are in a sad state indeed, if we view a 2-block walk as some kind of horrible imposition. The Paris Metro system, which is generally considered one of the best in the world, routinely causes people to walk more than 2 blocks to transfer, and it has done just fine. We are in a sad state indeed, if we view a 2-block walk as some kind of horrible imposition.

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3904 Anonymous Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:53:53 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3904 I fully support the light rail station being located along the railroad tracks instead of closer to Union Station. If you walk the distance to the station it really is not that far at all. With all of the commuter trains stopping right behind Union Station, it will have all of the pedestrian capacity it can handle anyway. Union Station is not all that large, nothing like Grand Central Station or D.C.'s main train station. Also, once all of the CPV is built-up, this area will be a densely developed part of downtown and not the currently barren, un-inviting lots. People will find the area engaging and not mind walking through it, or catching a transfer at the undergroung bus station. I think it is an inefficient use of space to curve the light-rail tracks closer to Union Station because it prevents alot of land from being developed for office, retail, and residential use. Efficiency is not the same as "kowtowing to developers."<br /><br />Corey I fully support the light rail station being located along the railroad tracks instead of closer to Union Station. If you walk the distance to the station it really is not that far at all. With all of the commuter trains stopping right behind Union Station, it will have all of the pedestrian capacity it can handle anyway. Union Station is not all that large, nothing like Grand Central Station or D.C.'s main train station. Also, once all of the CPV is built-up, this area will be a densely developed part of downtown and not the currently barren, un-inviting lots. People will find the area engaging and not mind walking through it, or catching a transfer at the undergroung bus station. I think it is an inefficient use of space to curve the light-rail tracks closer to Union Station because it prevents alot of land from being developed for office, retail, and residential use. Efficiency is not the same as "kowtowing to developers."

Corey

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3894 Anonymous Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:02:32 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3894 two lines to the airport is not a huge deal (we will probably end up with multiple, normal speed trains routed to there at some point)<br /><br />having a high-speed train present will not be a deterrent to ride, it will just serve a different purpose. undoubtedly it will be more than $3 and will be much faster, have no stops between DIA and downtown, serve more business, skiers and people-running-late business. two lines to the airport is not a huge deal (we will probably end up with multiple, normal speed trains routed to there at some point)

having a high-speed train present will not be a deterrent to ride, it will just serve a different purpose. undoubtedly it will be more than $3 and will be much faster, have no stops between DIA and downtown, serve more business, skiers and people-running-late business.

]]> By: Ryan http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3893 Ryan Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:04:49 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3893 @ RTD Watch: The only corridor that was originally planned as light rail but is now planned as commuter rail is the Gold Line. Look it up.<br /><br />That said, the Union Station plan is a disappointment, and classic kowtowing to private development interests. @ RTD Watch: The only corridor that was originally planned as light rail but is now planned as commuter rail is the Gold Line. Look it up.

That said, the Union Station plan is a disappointment, and classic kowtowing to private development interests.

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3892 Anonymous Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:12:35 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3892 DIA was designed for 50 million people, but its planners had the foresight to purchase enough land so that it could be expanded to 120 million. DIA was designed for 50 million people, but its planners had the foresight to purchase enough land so that it could be expanded to 120 million.

]]> By: RTD Watch http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3891 RTD Watch Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:43:12 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3891 Well its already established that most of FasTracks in NOT light rail like we voted for. In fact, the only new light rail line that Union Station will serve is the West Corridor already under-construction to Lakewood and Golden.<br /><br /> The rest of the lines (to DIA, Boulder/Longmont, Arvada and North Metro) are commuter/high speed rail lines (Was the Boulder line always meant to be commuter? I don't remember anymore). Yeah we didn't technically vote for that type of service but apparently RTD forgot to consult with Union Pacific and BNSF on all this, just to find out (after FasTracks passed) that light rail lines are incompatible next to the high-use freight trains lines. <br /><br />In a world where RTD actually was capable of pre-planning, this would have been figured out before we voted on it, but it wasn't, so that's what we're getting. And these changes are really why we are having problems now: RTD needs a new maintenance facility for their new types of trains and running into problems from that, the lawsuit would be null because under the original plan, there would be no need for a separation between light and commuter rail. So yeah, we basically are paying for something we didn't ask for and now the whole system will probably cost more and be delayed as a result. Well its already established that most of FasTracks in NOT light rail like we voted for. In fact, the only new light rail line that Union Station will serve is the West Corridor already under-construction to Lakewood and Golden.

The rest of the lines (to DIA, Boulder/Longmont, Arvada and North Metro) are commuter/high speed rail lines (Was the Boulder line always meant to be commuter? I don't remember anymore). Yeah we didn't technically vote for that type of service but apparently RTD forgot to consult with Union Pacific and BNSF on all this, just to find out (after FasTracks passed) that light rail lines are incompatible next to the high-use freight trains lines.

In a world where RTD actually was capable of pre-planning, this would have been figured out before we voted on it, but it wasn't, so that's what we're getting. And these changes are really why we are having problems now: RTD needs a new maintenance facility for their new types of trains and running into problems from that, the lawsuit would be null because under the original plan, there would be no need for a separation between light and commuter rail. So yeah, we basically are paying for something we didn't ask for and now the whole system will probably cost more and be delayed as a result.

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3890 Anonymous Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:22:16 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3890 Actually, its not all about light rail. Three light rail, extensions to two light rail, three commuter rail, one bus rapid transit, and a possible future northeast line were approved.<br /><br />However, just because high speed rail wasn't voted on doesn't mean you don't make accommodations for future expansion. Part of good urban planning is to plan 10, 20, or 50 years in the future for things that may or may not happen.<br /><br />For example, the proposed first phase of high speed rail is a Denver to DIA line. As we all know, Fastracks also has a Denver to DIA line. Are we going to build both of these?! Considering each of the lines is going to cost billions of dollars somebody better find out.<br /><br />At some point it is very likely there are going to be two multi billion dollar rail projects in Colorado. Not coordinating them is ridiculous. Only considering present needs is extremely short sighted and unconscionable.<br /><br />The lawsuit doesn't have to take years to complete. Try to consider objectively how your plan could be be better. My perspective is that the distance to the light rail line issue is just whining. The underground bus terminal issue perhaps has merit but probably not. Expandability definitely does.<br /><br />I'm not going to say DIA was a model of good planning but it did allow for expansion and it is needed. It might even make DIA the busiest airport in the world in a few decades.<br /><br />Again, two multi billion dollar rail projects for Colorado must be coordinated. Actually, its not all about light rail. Three light rail, extensions to two light rail, three commuter rail, one bus rapid transit, and a possible future northeast line were approved.

However, just because high speed rail wasn't voted on doesn't mean you don't make accommodations for future expansion. Part of good urban planning is to plan 10, 20, or 50 years in the future for things that may or may not happen.

For example, the proposed first phase of high speed rail is a Denver to DIA line. As we all know, Fastracks also has a Denver to DIA line. Are we going to build both of these?! Considering each of the lines is going to cost billions of dollars somebody better find out.

At some point it is very likely there are going to be two multi billion dollar rail projects in Colorado. Not coordinating them is ridiculous. Only considering present needs is extremely short sighted and unconscionable.

The lawsuit doesn't have to take years to complete. Try to consider objectively how your plan could be be better. My perspective is that the distance to the light rail line issue is just whining. The underground bus terminal issue perhaps has merit but probably not. Expandability definitely does.

I'm not going to say DIA was a model of good planning but it did allow for expansion and it is needed. It might even make DIA the busiest airport in the world in a few decades.

Again, two multi billion dollar rail projects for Colorado must be coordinated.

]]> By: Shane http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3888 Shane Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:49:15 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3888 No one voted on High Speed Rail. We voted on light rail. If someone wants High Speed Rail at DUS, put it on the ballot and we can vote on it. Otherwise, start building. Really, waiting to build b/c we might build a high speed rail in 10 years that we might want at DUS is ridiculous. <br /><br />It's true, we don't know what the needs will be 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Maybe we'll want 3 hubs in the city for high speed rail. Maybe we'll want something else. Who knows - there's no plan. <br /><br />If someone wants a future plan, put it on the ballot. Sure it would be nice to acocmodate some potential future plan at DUS at the moment, and it would be nice to have zero walking between transfers, and it would be nice to travel from Longmont to Lone Tree without transferring, but if you wanted to control the specifics of how RTD/Fastraks was run, you should have obtained the appropriate leadership position. That's how a democracy works.<br /><br />Holding up this plan just because there may be a future need that we havn't voted on but we're planning for now is unconscionable. Lawsuits can take YEARS to complete. If this project is held up for years, and the costs are increased because of it, I hope the persons who filed the suit are held responsible. <br /><br />Again, we didn't vote on high speed rail or some other future transportation need. We voted on light rail. No one voted on High Speed Rail. We voted on light rail. If someone wants High Speed Rail at DUS, put it on the ballot and we can vote on it. Otherwise, start building. Really, waiting to build b/c we might build a high speed rail in 10 years that we might want at DUS is ridiculous.

It's true, we don't know what the needs will be 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Maybe we'll want 3 hubs in the city for high speed rail. Maybe we'll want something else. Who knows – there's no plan.

If someone wants a future plan, put it on the ballot. Sure it would be nice to acocmodate some potential future plan at DUS at the moment, and it would be nice to have zero walking between transfers, and it would be nice to travel from Longmont to Lone Tree without transferring, but if you wanted to control the specifics of how RTD/Fastraks was run, you should have obtained the appropriate leadership position. That's how a democracy works.

Holding up this plan just because there may be a future need that we havn't voted on but we're planning for now is unconscionable. Lawsuits can take YEARS to complete. If this project is held up for years, and the costs are increased because of it, I hope the persons who filed the suit are held responsible.

Again, we didn't vote on high speed rail or some other future transportation need. We voted on light rail.

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3887 Anonymous Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:21 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3887 I remember about a year ago when the planners found out they couldn't bury the light rail line and end the track into a wall. Is that redesign what caused the walk between transit modes and lack of through transit options, or were those oversights there from the beginning. I remember about a year ago when the planners found out they couldn't bury the light rail line and end the track into a wall. Is that redesign what caused the walk between transit modes and lack of through transit options, or were those oversights there from the beginning.

]]> By: Anonymous http://denverinfill.com/blog/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html/comment-page-1#comment-3886 Anonymous Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:34:52 +0000 http://denverinfill.com/wordpress/2009/06/final-18th-street-ped-bridge-rendering.html#comment-3886 Also, if you get high speed rail on board it might open up another source of federal funding. Also, if you get high speed rail on board it might open up another source of federal funding.

]]>