In the continuing saga of revised Denver Union Station plans, the latest plan was released on December 5 by the Union Station planning team. Here’s a quick summary:
Commuter rail will be at-grade behind the historic station, light rail will still be at-grade along the Consolidated Main Line tracks, and the bus facility will be underground connecting those two elements. Eighteenth Street will not become a through street for vehicular traffic from Wynkoop to Wewatta as originally planned, but pedestrians will still be able to cross over the tracks. Sixteenth Street, from Wynkoop to Chestnut, will be open to regular motor traffic as well as pedestrians and the Mall Shuttle. The proposed Downtown Circulator will go from Wynkoop at Eighteenth Street underground via the bus facility to access commuter and light rail stations.
For the latest plan presentation, download this PDF from the Union Station Master Plan website: http://www.denverunionstation.org/pdfs/meetings/USAC_Presentation_120507.pdf
By the way, the various maps and diagrams in the presentation have been saved at such a low resolution that they are virtually illegible. This is one of the most important projects in our city; the least we deserve is to have plans and materials presented to us in a clear, readable, manner. Denver Union Station planning team: Could you please upload a more legible version of the plan presentation? Thanks.
I find the circular train station "canopy" design interesting.
The "train room" isn't much of a room – I'm thinking they could have done better on that one. Maybe a DIA type design with a pointed canvas roof? Just a thought.
Also, what's with the suburban office park theme on the "View Down 17th Street?" I'm hoping those are just default buildings inserted by RTD for convenience. I know they're going for cheap, but do they have to make it look so obvious?
So much for the goal of enlivening Union Station: commuter trains are 1-2 blocks away, and LRT is 3 blocks away. Commuter trains will be about as far away as the Russian art gallery, which in no way enlivens or even relates to Union Station. And the LRT will be nearly as far away from the Station as the Compass Bank on 17th is in the opposite direction. Union Station will still be abandoned. So, in the end what have we ended up with? An underground bus facility, no different than the one at Market St Station (which is nothing more than a homeless shelter/public restroom). We've raised our taxes, so we can give $500 million to EastWest to move our city's largest underground urinal from one side of Union Station to the other. Good work, Planning Team! You've managed to accomplish ZERO of the project's goals and NONE of the promises of the FasTracks election — that takes effort!
Wow. Perhaps, I'm being too harsh here, but I'd have to call this plan a miserable failure on every possible level.
Uninspired, impractical, over budget, AND ugly? That takes some real effort to be all those things at once.
At every step, this plan has gotten a little worse. It's really become disappointing.
To me there's a huge difference between putting peds at grade and above grade. What a huge disappointment.
I hope they have excellent air circulation for the pollution that we'll be walking through the tunnel to get from light rail to commuter rail in the winter.
Lawguy-
They are at 3% design phase. Whatever you like/dislike about the designs will likely change, because no structures have actually been designed yet.
Denverjason-
1. A two-block underground transfer is not unusual for a transit system. In Paris, there are areas where you make nearly a half-mile walk underground just to transfer subway lines. Compared to that, our (at most) two-block sheltered transfer is no big deal. Plus, it might even have moving walkways, which makes it even less of an issue.
2. Union Station will not be abandoned. The primary access to the commuter rail tracks is through Union Station itself. Sure, people making transfers will likely not go through there, but why should they? Even if the whole system was underground and in one place, how would that make better use of the station building than the current plan? There's a limited amount the team can do, given the building's historic status. All of the new infrastructure has to be outside of the station's walls.
I personally think that the station is going to be phenomenal. The team has really solidly addressed both the difficult financial situation, and many of the concerns with their initial proposal (i.e. the two-block above-ground transfer). If you look carefully at the plans, you'll see the makings of a spectacular station, given the size and scope of Denver's post-Fastracks transit system.
Not to jump on the debbie downer bandwagon here, but I agree. The underground bus station reminded me of the underground Market Street station, and I'd agree with the previous poster's reservations about that station.
I do like the outdoor feel of the commuter rail, though. Now, if they could just get the light rail in there, too…
I understand cost is a consideration. However, the Union Station Development is not the place to cut costs. This will likely be the centerpiece of our city for generations to come. Denver and its residents deserves a unique design. Maybe putting a glass roof capable of supporting a pedestrian walkway on the underground station woudl help? Other ideas?
I really do like the design.
The train "room" actually looks quite nicely done. The 2 block walk really won't be bad. If the buildings are architecturally unique, and there are trees planted, it could actually be a very enjoyable walk. I love how the buildings will line the walkway creating a sort of "grand avenue" look.
Not sure who is to blame but someone should be fired over this 11th hour notice from the gov't agency that commuter trains can't dead end underground. Either the gov't ignored their responsibility for too long or RTD/design team was so clueless they didn't know the basics.
Due to the lack of details, can't really criticize the new design but since this is such a big change and important project, think we need to go back to the drawling board and start over.
In the current design, will there be a pedestrian way in the middle of the street? I hope the people movers that have been talked about are not only underground. Though if we have to live with this design, the new orientation for the bus station is good.
This project is a complete disaster. Could this thing eat up any more space? I thought the whole point of putting bus and rail underground was to be able build on top of it? The other team, the one not selected, had it right in trying bury as much as possible and making up the extra costs by building more density above. There had to have been a way financially to bury as much as possible, complete 18th Street, those 3 or so blocks behind Union Station and pay for it all. Somebody could have even asked taxpayers to help make up the difference. Considering Denver recently passed a half billion dollar bond package, I'm sure voters would have at least entertained giving up even more to get something better in return. I probably would have. But regardless of financing, I’d much rather participate in a debate over the height of a tower instead of the wasted consumption of space, no matter how well this team dresses it up.
It seems like money is the biggest obstacle to making Union Station world class. Has additional density been considered as a solution? I remember liking the Cherokee plan better, because it was more dense, among other reasons.
It seems like E/W, or RTD, or whoever has the final say here has dismissed additional density out of hand. Even if there are height restrictions, the other design was going to seek a waiver of those restrictions. Why can't E/W do the same?
History will not be kind to today's leaders if we are locked into a Union Station that no one will be proud of in the coming decades. Short changing Union Station now will be penny wise and pound foolish.
Yeah, total mixed bag:
The Bad:
1. Agreed that they should really have more buried, and although it would cost more, surely it's worth it to have everything right close to the station. I'm wondering whether the idea isn't to force commuters past all the shops that will line the boulevard. I think what they'll get instead are a bunch of people rushing around and making life hard for people who actually ARE shopping and lollygagging.
2. Although the layout of the boulevard looks a bit like the Champs Elysees, there is no indication that this will be full of really wide pedestrian walkways or cultural installations. This is sorely needed in the two-block distance between terminals.
The Good:
1. I think the train room looks pretty decent, and it's reminiscent of DIA without actually being DIA. Remember that probably the busiest line of all coming in on commuter rail will eventually be the one that comes in from DIA, so the design is appropriate.
2. The size and orientation of the underground bus station is excellent. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the Market St. station other than the lack of a few amenities and maintenance. Granted, the restrooms there are the WORST, but again that's about maintenance, not design. At any rate, it appears the new design is an improvement.
Anonymous 12:51:
The vast majority of the world's train stations are above ground, behind a station building, exactly like this proposal. I can think of only two significant reasons that Denver's station would even need to be underground: to complete 18th street, and to free up land for development.
1. Connecting 18th street doesn't seem that important to me since it terminates two blocks later anyway at the rail lines. If 18th stretched across the CPV into Highlands or something, connecting 18th would be a must-do, but as it is, I don't understand why the 18th street issue is quite as important as everyone seems to imply. Am I missing something?
2. The team is developing a similar amount of structures over the track areas in this new proposal as they were in the previous proposal with commuter rail underground. So I'm not sure the "wasted space" argument is really valid since the space is getting used similarly in both this and the prior version.
I understand that everyone wants the train and light rail lines to be underground, but it just doesn't seem realistic, or even necessary, to do so. Can someone provide a compelling reason instead of bitching and moaning? If this is going to be a "disaster" above ground, then are all of Europe's train stations a disaster?
This project is NOT doomed to fail, but it sure seems like everyone wants it to be.
Keep working on it…If we can spend so much money on an underground bus terminal why couldn't we pinch in the light rail too, when you compare the space each will require. Isn't it also kind of ironic that buses emiting robust aromas get to be in the cozy cavern and the green technology out in the cold? Hopefully when all is done our grand central hub won't in a couple decades mimic the convention vacility redo.
some concerns…
17th St should only have one lane in each direction for vehicle traffic. Then either bring the buildings closer together so its easier to cross the street or make the sidewalk wider and have a segregated bike lane. This isn't Paris so let's not make silly comparisons. There will be lots of pedestrians so why the car focus?
The pedestrian path through the bus station may do more harm than good by diverting people from street level.
What is the plan for bicycles to get around this area?
Denver, bus capital of the Universe? Come to Denver and ride the bus! Buses rule and maybe we can build a ramp all the way to the future bus lanes of the Boulder turnpike. Buses are big buses are beautiful. Someday they will replace all those pesky little autos too just like they did when they got rid of the street cars.
Ryan Nee:
I'm not sure why many of Europe's train stations were built above ground. Frankly, I don't care. This is Denver. The DUS had a vision that voters liked (see their website). This plan hardly fulfills that vision.
Imagine the 2 blocks walk from union station/commuter rail to the light rail station. Now imagine coming from DIA with luggage. It doesn’t make sense. The vision plan called for a convenient transportation plan. This certainly isn't very convenient. Sacrificing an efficient change between modes of transportation for $75-100 million doesn't justify itself in this case. We’re talking about thousands of people using this station daily for the next 40-50 years. This current plan either needs a DIA like shuttle system to get people from light rail to commuter rail or it needs to find a way to bury light rail closer to union station/commuter rail.
Why would anybody using light rail station pass through union station. This fails to fully activate Union Station as the vision plan desires. So much for creating Denver’s version of grand central station.
Losing 18th street at Union Station now forces cars onto 16th street. This significantly detracts from the pedestrian friendly nature of 16th street.
Finally, the density just isn't there with all of the changes. We've gone from the potential of 1.76 million square feet (when this plan was first selected) to 1.35 million square feet. That means we're losing about 23% of the above ground development. This is in a location where we should maximize development. Not doing so in a prime location such as this one would absolutely be a disaster.
If you burry everything, your not going to activate Union Station either, everyone will stay under ground waiting for their transfer. At least having everything at grade it will activate the shops and the street level won’t look like a ghost town. The walk with luggage is a moot point, if you park at DIA you are most likely walking farther than two blocks with luggage. The underground walk way is for bad weather otherwise I am going to be outside. I would rather be outside, this is Colorado one of the most beautiful active places in the US.
If you think the developer is enjoying losing development potential, you’re wrong. That is money out of their pocket and they are losing their margins. I think they are making good compromises with the cards they are being dealt by RTD. If anyone it is to blame it is RTD for dragging their feet for the last 2 years on this.
A lot of the people taking the train to/from DIA will either be staying downtown in a hotel, or will live downtown. Thus, they'll get right in a cab or shuttle bus. Most in the Denver area (at least north and south) are not going to take two seperate trains. Whether from an environmental view point it's right or not, traffic here (with the toll roads) just isn't bad enough to justify that length of a trip for many in the Denver area. Plus, two blocks isn't a huge distance either – provided that it's an interesting two blocks. The distance between GCT and Penn Station in NY, and North and South Stations in Boston is significantly greater, all those stations are doing just fine. Union Station will do fine too, provided that there are things worth going in there for. Give the people using commuter rail/bus a reason to go in, and they will.
Anon 12:40 The "bus capital of the world" comment totally had me laughing. Seriously though, after thinking about it, I think this plan is quite practical. The current illustrations are extremely ugly, however. I originally was opposed to having the light rail so far from Union Station. But, realistically, there is no reason to waste so much space to curve the light rail tracks to the station. Leaving the tracks along the main railroad line works since the vast majority of passengers will be using the circulator buses to reach their final destination anyway. Also, the trip to the station is only two very short blocks. My main concern is opening 16th street to local traffic. I think there will be too much traffic unless there is also excellent access from 19th and 20th streets to the area. Also, I really think they need to seriously consider having a streetcar as the 16th, 17th, and 18th street circulators before commiting to buses. We will see how it all turns out!
Personally, I think it is a mistake to have commuter rail and light rail separated as much as they are in this plan. Okay, some people will take one or the other, but the point of having a convergence of the various transportation modes is to allow people to transfer between the modes. That might not be true for me (I reside downtown), but it will be true for many people who live out it the greater Denver area and, while commuting to work, need to get to another part of the greater Denver area. By making things less convenient we will ensure that they are less used and that defeats the whole purpose of this development.
Please get it right before it is too late!
I think most are making a huge deal of the two short block walk/transfer between the lrt and commuter rail. I mean seriously, have yall ever walked two short blocks in downtown Denver, 3 minutes max at a normal pace. A previous poster rightly stated that in many transit systems worldwide, trnsfers at some stations are much further or longer. Try transfering at Grand Central in 3-4 minutes between subway and metro north lines- not gonna happen.
Dont get me wrong, I was a huge fan of the Cherokee proposal and was seriously bummed when when they werent awarded the project. But money being king, im sure they would have made necessary changes that not everyone would have liked. And im sure once east-west finishes this project, it will be something all Denverites will be proud of as it will be new and grand for our city, even though it may not have the scale that we were initially promised.
I agree, denser would be better, but it is what it is.
This plan is a complete failure.
The ONE goal of this project is to construct a unified hub of all rail in Denver at Union Station. Failing to create a unified hub at Union Station means the project's ONE goal is not accomplished. When you don't accomplish your goal, that is the definition of failure. It’s really that simple.
Ryan Nee: This is NOT a run-of-the-mill transfer station. This is THE transfer station. For good or ill, FasTracks is designed around all lines meeting at this one spot. There is absolutely nothing comparable in Paris, London or New York (each of which have multiple hubs). Denver’s ENTIRE transit system is totally dependent on Union Station transfers functioning efficiently. By exiling half the platforms in the system three blocks away from the other half, this plan dooms transit riders to unnecessary, ridership-shaving inconvenience.
It’s not about above ground versus below ground; it’s about distance. Find a way to get the light rail platforms adjacent to the commuter rail platforms, and connect them both to the main station house. If the lines have to be above ground, so be it, but putting them three blocks apart is totally unacceptable, and so is abandoning the historic station in favor of a new valley depot.
Remember this: CPV development is there to support the train station, not the other way around. The goal here is NOT to make money developing the CPV; the goal is to make Denver’s transit system work by providing an efficient, unified hub in the one place where all lines come together.
If the current development team has a different goal, then it’s time to find a new team.
In response to anonymous 9:43 I just wanted to say that I agree that for me walking two blocks isn't much an issue for making a connection between light rail and commuter rail. It isn't much of an issue because I will hardly ever be making that connection, since I live down town. The issue becomes more significant when we envision how others, not ourselves, will respond to the situation. Think of the daily commuter, making the connection every day, or the business man in a rush trying to make an early morning meeting, etc. The two block walk, mixed in with what ever walk he had in the morning to pick up his first ride on Denver mass-transit, add to that the time on the commuter rail, then the two block walk, followed by the next duration of time on the next mass-transit ride, followed by the walk to the office. My point is this, in order for us to discuss the viability of the proposed transportation hub at union station we have to put ourselves in the shoes of other people. We have to think about what the net effect will be of the proposed plans, and we need to remind ourselves as to why the hub exists in the first place. It is there to facilitate the transfer of passengers from one mode of transportation to another. If it doesn't perform that task very very well, then something is very very wrong.
beyonddc – I agree with you – if all lines do not intersect at Union Station, then Union Station will not be the transit hub we were promised. I feel the light and heavy rail lines should be left exactly as they are behind US and then new construction can be built above the current tracks. With the huge cash crunch facing the project and the wider recession fears, I don't understand why the developer hasn't even considered this option – it would save loads of money and still accomplish the primary goals of creating a real transit hub and urban density behind the historic station.
While I definitely understand those who say that the two-block indoor transfer makes this plan a "complete disaster," I still really disagree.
I created a diagram which compares Terminal A at DIA to the Union Station site, which gives this some perspective. You'll see that a two-block indoor walk is really not much different than getting from the train at the terminal to a gate at DIA. So, yes, it's pretty easy to imagine people doing a transfer like this with luggage, because I've seen them do a similar transfer every time I go to the airport.
Diagram:
DIA vs. DUS
The two-block indoor walk — with moving walkways, according to the renderings — will be the longest anyone will have to go to transfer. The thing that's great about this plan is that it puts all of the modes of transportation together into one sheltered/indoor complex – bus, circulator, mall shuttle, light rail, etc. The most common transfers between modes have actually improved significantly in this proposal versus the original ones. Light rail to commuter rail is indeed the most weak, I agree, but it is also the least common according to the RFP document. Plus, there's more room to expand than in previous proposals, ensuring that Union Station will be better able to handle some growth.
Why does the light rail have to be realigned anyway?
Exactly, Saint. More people should asking the development team that question instead of simply accepting it as part of the project. Jon Esty of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association did, but I have no idea if his comments were actually repsonded to or just brushed aside.
Moving the LRT tracks opens up more land for development in the CPV, but it costs money and is counterproductive in terms of the actual functioning of the transit station.
As BeyondDC pointed out, the union station project is meant to create an integral piece of our transit network, not to support new development projects in the CPV. Promoting a development plan that primarily opens up land for east/west to develop at the expense of the transit station itself is unacceptable.
I'd really like somebody to correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a better reason to spend taxpayer money moving the tracks farther away from the station than they currently are except to simply open up development parcels at the expense of the train station? This project is too important not to ask why.
I believe the main reason they are separating the tracks is for future expansion. There is simply not enough space for all of the CRT and LRT platforms right behind U.S. In the future, this transit system is going to need to somehow expand, there needs to be space. So splitting the CRT and LRT platforms allows room for future expansion. I personally see Denver and the metro area to continue to expand, it would not be good when they finish this in 7 years and it is already over capacity, just like TREX. Let’s learn from our past mistakes and allow room to grow.
Did I read the latest presentation right?
http://www.denverunionstation.org/pdfs/meetings/USAC_Presentation_120507.pdf
It seems to me that on slide #14 they've reduced spending on Light Rail by ~$20 million, Commuter Rail by ~ $100 million and *increased* spending on busses by ~$90 million?
Am I the only one who thinks that's backwards?