Personal Thoughts: A Return to Colorado, the Importance of Transit Investment

I began this blog more than four years ago in 2007 as a way to stay connected with economic development issues in my hometown region of the Denver Metro Area.   About six months ago I moved back to the Front Range.  Now after 25 years I am a resident again in my hometown of Boulder Colorado.   I am very thankful to be able to help out and keep an eye on an aging parent who only lives a mile away from me.

Since I left Colorado I have been fortunate to  have lived in regions with strong public transportation systems: Boston, London, New York, San Francisco, Washington DC.   Despite many many return visits to Colorado and the careful watch I have kept over the FasTracks developments, I was really not sure what the day to day experience would be in using Mass Transit in the Boulder/Denver Area.

My first thought is I have been pleasantly surprised.   I am very appreciative of how well connected Boulder is to Denver via the BF/BX/BV routes and how well served Denver itself is by local bus routes.   Both my wife and I are frequent users of these routes for commuting and personal trips.   However, as good as this system is, there are big gaps that need to be filled.

As the national economy struggles, concerns about environmental sustainability continue and the likelihood of energy price increases remain, my thoughts keep returning to the great wisdom of the Denver Metro Area's plan to build FasTracks.  

The timing of this investment could not be more critical: it is creating job in a weak economy, providing more sustainable transit alternatives to a congested region, promoting economic vitality and regional competitiveness along the Front Range, and helping facilitate an increase in population while protecting the quality of life. 

Over the next few years the Denver region will come to another transit cross roads.   We will have to decide if we are willing to pay higher taxes to fund transit infrastructure investments to complete the FasTracks build out and take our transportation investments to the next level of vision---or retrench while the historic opportunity to make the Denver region a world class metropolitan area recedes backwards.   In my mind this is one of the two or three most important regional economic development questions the Denver Region will face and we will have to live with the consequences of our choice for decades to come.

Civic Choices: Post Card from Birmingham

I just spent a weekend in Birmingham, the largest city in Alabama. According to locals I met, Birmingham has been hampered in its economic development by the horrible legacy of Jim Crow and also by a lack of vision and poor decision making among civic leaders. Birmingham lost out on the southern Delta Airlines hub to Atlanta due to a lack of support from local business and government officials. This helped Hartsfield Airport and metro Atlanta become regional powerhouses sucking corporate headquarters, economic activity and regional prosperity away from Birmingham. Birmingham also lost out on the SEC football championship game, which it hosted for the first two years, to Atlanta.

In contrast, the City of Denver and its citizens have made a string of public investments and good decisions. However, with a reckoning day approaching for the FasTracks project, the question is, will the region's voters and taxpayers step up to save the comprehensive region-wide network, or will the project collapse due to financial pressure and regional political squabbles and be limited to a few discrete lines? If Denver falters in its drive to improve its infrastructure and bolster its economic competitiveness, other cities are waiting in the wings, to take over Denver's role as the primary economic hub in the Intermountain West. That other Delta Airlines hub city, Salt Lake City is a serious threat.

Metro Denver must keep its forward looking vision and track record of public investment and find a way to fund the full FasTracks system and avoid the mistakes of Birmingham.

A Union Station Milestone

Construction is ready to begin at Union Station after Labor Day. This is quite a milestone for the Denver Region.

Just in time....the Union Station project has a great new web site.

FasTracks Bringing National Attention to the Denver Story

FasTracks is bringing prestige and national media attention to Denver.

"This past week, Denver has been host to an annual gathering of the Congress for the New Urbanism, a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to sprawl. When it last held its conference in Denver a little more than a decade ago, few
people lived in the downtown core around the historic Union Station. Since then, Denver has embarked on a $4.7 billion expansion of its transit system, funded by a 0.4 percent sales tax increase approved by voters in 2004. The rogram,FasTracks, will add 122 miles of light rail, as well as new bus service, and is scheduled to be completed by 2017. The city is also overseeing a $1 billion redevelopment of Union Station.

Along the rail line, mixed-use communities have sprouted, such as Stapleton, a $5 billion development on the site of the former Stapleton International Airport, which closed in 1995. Shops and restaurants in downtown Denver are lively long after the workday has ended, and neighborhoods like Central Platte Valley, just northwest of downtown, are still being developed. “It’s been transformative,” said Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. He anticipates 50 transit-oriented developments to be built around FasTracks over the next
decade."

Photos from Matthew Staver for The New York Times.

See full article, "New Rail Lines Spur Urban Revival," in The New York Times, June 13, 2009.

See my previous blog entry about a recent article in Slate which also mentions FasTracks.

Also see recent Denver Post article, "FasTracks Seen as Key to Denver's Repuation," from June 25, 2009, echoing this theme.

The FasTracks I-225 Intra-Suburban Beltway Corridor

The issues surrounding the proposed Purple Line on the Washington D.C. subway system are very relevant for FasTracks. See below for an extended excerpt from an article titled "Greening the Suburbs" from The New Republic's environmental blog, The Vine.

The Purple Line in Maryland would be the first intra-suburban rail transit line in the D.C. system because it would not carry people from the suburbs to the city center in a hub-spoke model but instead would follow the beltway around the city carrying people between the suburbs. The purple line provides connectivity between the spoke lines near the perimeter of the system allowing for transfers to occur away from the city center.

In the FasTracks system, the analogous line is the I-225 Corridor which will connect the Southeast and East Corridors together and make it easier for Southeast riders to travel to DIA as well as serving new destinations in Aurora. This line is an intra-suburban beltway line like the purple line in D.C.

Some of the proposed solutions to the FasTracks budget deficit involve shortening the I-225 Corridor including not completing loop and terminating the line before the connection to the East Corridor at the Peoria/Smith Station. As I have said in previous posts, I believe any cuts to the FasTracks system including the I-225 line would be a huge mistake.

Excerpt from "Greening the Suburbs:"

"The logic undergirding the Purple Line is that D.C.'s Metro, like most old-school subways, is a hub-and-spoke model, built for an era when people lived in the suburbs and commuted downtown for work. Nowadays, though, most traffic flows from suburb to suburb—hence the need to interlink Montgomery County and Prince George's County. Most area residents favor some sort of connecting line; the bickering is over the details. Marc Elrich, a Montgomery County councilman, explained that he was agonizing about whether Maryland should spend $1.2 billion on a fixed light-rail system projected to transport 64,000 people per day, or spend just $600 million on a bus rapid transit (BRT) system with a dedicated lane, projected to transport 58,000, and use the savings for other worthwhile initiatives.

Chris Leinberger, a Brookings expert on development who comes at things from a real-estate perspective, countered that Elrich was approaching this too narrowly. Leinberger argued that transportation tends to drive development, and that transit projects should be viewed as a means of creating new value in a metro area. In that vein, he argued that middle-class people like trains well enough, but often refuse to ride buses, which carry the stigma of poverty; as a result, developers are much more likely to invest around rail stations than bus stops. (This may not be an ironclad law, but, alas, the United States has relatively few examples of successful BRT, a la the famous system in Curitiba, Brazil).

What's more, Leinberger assured the audience, developers will flutter to new light-rail stops in droves, because there's colossal pent-up demand in this country for transit-oriented development. By his count, some 30 to 50 percent of residents in U.S. metropolitan areas want to live in a walkable urban environment—a trend fueled by the growing number of single and childless couples, who will constitute 88 percent of household growth through 2040. Trouble is, he estimates there are currently only enough walkable neighborhoods to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of metro residents, which is why rents in transit-accessible areas are so exorbitant. (Incidentally, the boom in childless households is one reason why development in D.C. could start to expand beyond Montgomery County and toward the northeastern suburbs, which have long been hampered by relatively inferior schools.)

Of course, to fix all this, new rail lines alone won't suffice. The towns around the proposed stops will have to revamp their zoning codes to allow high-density development near train stations—a suggestion that's typically greeted by angry, pitchfork-wielding mobs. (Ryan Avent recently dredged up a perfect example.) Now, since these changes in land use can both reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and bring down the cost of housing, Leinberger argued that environmentalists and social-justice activists should be at the forefront here. "Instead," he said, "you've just been leaving it up to developers—and no one seems to trust us!" Not that developers will ever be irrelevant: One interesting point Leinberger made was that if transit really does create the sort of value he expects, then real-estate developers should be more willing to pitch in and help finance these projects."

Governor Ritter on The News Hour

"Think in a state like Colorado, it's got 5 million people, but we have, again, 100-plus projects that we could have shovels in the ground in 90 days. And if you infuse our economy with, let's say, $500 million worth of transportation projects in 30 to 180 days, that puts people to work in a sector that has suffered.

And think about that nationwide. Gov. Schwarzenegger today said there are $136 billion worth of highway projects that are on the shelf that we could immediately change around, right, we could put shovels in the ground in 90 to 120 days.

Add to that clean-energy jobs. Think about wind farms and solar farms. The manufacturing end of that, you can create jobs on the manufacturing end of that in a whole new industry by investing in that industry and by really doing things with the stimulus package that don't cost money, other than through tax credit and ways to incentivize people to get into the industry."

Governor Bill Ritter on The News Hour, December 2, 2008. Click here for the full transcript.

I keep wondering if a combination of the recent sharp declines in commodities prices and the prospect of incremental infrastructure funds from an Obama Administration will end up solving the FasTracks budget shortfall? Its probably a long shot but one can hope.

Image from www.pbs.org.

The FasTracks Dilemma: Increasing Sales Taxes is the Right Solution

The Denver Region's ambitious public transit build out has run into financial difficulties. Due to escalating construction and right of way acquisition costs, the price tag for building out the current system has increased by almost $2 billion to $7.9 billion. Additionally sales tax revenues which are financing the system have been below forecasts due to the sluggish economy. If the system is to be built as planned by 2017, additional money will need to be raised. Otherwise the system will be scaled back or delayed.

Since the vote approving FasTracks in 2004, two other things have changed as well. First, gas prices have more than doubled from just under $2 per gallon to just under $4 per gallon with further increases likely to occur. Second, the urgency of reducing carbon emissions to stave off global warning has become increasingly clear.

The tax payers of the Denver Region have a right to be angry about the escalating price tag associated with the FasTrack system but at the same time its important to understand that the same factors which are driving up the cost of the system are increasing the economic value of public transportation. Denver needs the full FasTrack system now more than ever.

Cuts in the system would have adverse long-term implications: harming the region's economic competitiveness, reducing the value of the portions of the system that do get built due to a loss of interconnectivity, and slowing the region's embrace of denser, transit oriented real estate development.

Its worth noting that construction costs for many critically-needed large scale infrastructure projects grow beyond initial forecasts as was the case with DIA. However, RTD's track record in previous projects has been largely successful in keeping projects within planned time and budget commitments.

As painful as additional tax increases are, in this instance, they are the right public policy action to provide a better future for citizens of the Denver Area. It will be a tough sell to Colorado's frugal voters, but sales taxes should be increased by an additional .2 to .3 percent beyond the current 1 percent rate being used to fund FasTracks. This will support building out the full system on schedule by 2017.

An Overview of the Union Station Redevelopment

The story by Joel Warner, "Union Station May Become Denver's Gateway Again -- If it Stays on Track," published Westword (August 14), provides a superb overview of the Union Station redevelopment.

For a couple of my recent blog entries on the Union Station redevelopment and FasTracks, see here and here.

Keeping Perspective on the Challenges with Union Station and FasTracks

If misery loves company, Metro Denver should keep in mind whats happening at the World Trade Center in New York when assessing the difficulties of planning and re-developing Union Station and building FasTracks. These types of complex multi-party infrastructure projects are fraught with challenges in the best of economic times. The delays and cost overruns at the World Trade Center site are enormous and increasing and have forced cutbacks to the Santiago Calatrava designed transit hub in lower Manhattan.

The Widom of the Union Station Developer Selection Decision: The Conservative Choice was the Right Choice

I live in the New York Metro Area where there are more than a dozen sorely needed massive infrastructure projects in various stages of planning and execution. As the economy weakens, many of these projects, which are public private partnerships, are beginning to be scaled back or indefinitely postponed.

Figure I: Rendering of the Proposed Moynihan Station in New York, First Proposed in 1993 and Likely to be Delayed and Scaled Back (Image from www.moynihanstation.org).

The Hudson Yards on the far west side of mid-town Manhattan, The Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and Moynihan Station (the proposed new Penn Station and Madison Square Garden-see Figure I to the left) are likely to be delayed and/or reduced in scope. When projects of this magnitude and complexity get delayed or postponed, they frequently languish for years or even decades without regenerating enough momentum to be restarted. Many big infrastructure projects like the channel tunnel, which connects England and France by rail, run massively over budget.

Closer to home for Denver residents, the Auraria Campus Science Building had its State of Colorado funding eliminated due to budgetary shortfalls despite the fact that construction has already started. There is a gaping hole in the ground at the Downtown Denver Campus and a great deal of uncertainty about when and if it will be "filled in" with a new science center.

This leads me to the most important public private partnership going in Metro Denver today - the Union Station redevelopment. I have blogged previously about this project suggesting the use of green design ideas, discussing changes in the station design, and the need to integrate commercial bus service on site at Union Station.

Many people were disappointed that Union Station Partners (USPs) lost out to Continuum Partners/East West Partners (CPEWPs) on the contract to be master developer for Union Station. USPs proposed a denser development at Union Station which was closer to the original vision for the site with all of the transportation elements (bus, light rail, commuter rail, Amtrack) located underground in close proximity to each other.

CPEWPs proposed a less costly design with only the bus and commuter rail underground and the light rail above ground a couple of blocks away from the station terminal building. Critics felt this design was too much of a compromise from the original vision, complaining that it would not provide a "world class" solution for the region and that the intermodal transit connections would be inconveniently spread out. These are, of course, legitimate concerns.

This CPEWPs design has subsequently been changed again to move the commuter rail above ground for both budgetary and safety reasons, resulting in even less density at the site and further complaints from critics.

At the time the master developer selection decision was made in November 2006, the project's public leadership argued that level of density needed to pay for the higher costs associated with building the transportation infrastructure underground was very risky. Basically the public sector would be required to make upfront infrastructure investments partially financed by municipal bonds and would have to hope that market conditions would allow for the very dense real estate development to be successfully financed and absorbed to generate enough new property and sales tax revenue to pay off the public sector debt via a process known as tax increment financing (TIF). If economic, real estate or financial market conditions changed between the time the public sector investment was made and the real estate was developed and leased, the public sector could be "on the hook" for millions of dollars in debt without an adequate revenue stream to service the bonds.

According to a Rocky Mountain News Article featuring extensive quotes from then Denver Director of Economic Development John Huggins:

"[USPs], Huggins explained, needed almost every dollar of income projected from private development to pay off the public bonds that will fund a state-of-the-art travel hub. 'If the projected private development isn't there,' Huggins said, 'or if it comes late or if it isn't as valuable, there won't be enough money to pay back the loans. It was like a balloon inflated to the bursting point. One sharp edge and the thing would pop.'"

Since the selection of CPEWPs was made back in November of 2006, two things have happened. First, the costs of building the transportation infrastructure and refurbishing Union Station have escalated and the resulting design has been scaled back. Second, economic conditions have deteriorated. If the more expensive USPs plan had been selected, I beleive the whole project might have become economically infeasible jeopardizing the overall FasTracks Plan or causing large scale delays to the project timetable.

With the benefit of a few months of hindsight, the decision to select CPEWPs as the master developer was clearly the correct choice. Underground transportation infrastructure and greater density is a good thing for a transit-oriented development like Union Station but its an even better thing to have a transit hub that actually gets built and provides benefits to the region. A theoretically great design that never gets built or gets delayed for years or decades or that bankrupts the public purse would not be an acceptable outcome for the Denver Region.

The Wisdom of FasTracks

The FasTracks program is working its way from planning to implementation stages along the various transit corridors. A range of issues and challenges are emerging from cost overruns and service cut backs, to engineering challenges and community opposition to the noise and disruptions associated with rail service, to the fear and pain experienced by individual property and business owners whose land is in the rights-of-way which will be acquired to build the transportation network. In the face of all these issues, it is very easy to forget the long term region-wide benefits of building such an extensive public transport system.

In the age of $100 per barrel oil and gas prices approaching $4 a gallon, growing concerns about global warming, and ever increasing world-wide economic competition among metro areas, the FasTracks investment looks wise indeed. I found this article about the growing use of public transportation based on a study by the American Public Transit Association to be a powerful reminder of the foresight of metropolitan Denver voters in approving the plan.

FasTracks Spurring Development at the Denver Federal Center

The Denver Post has an interesting article about the new Federal Center Master Plan and Preferred Development Alternative. This new plan provides further evidence that FasTracks is spurring Transit Oriented Development, real estate redevelopment, region-wide economic development and helping to change land use patterns, even before the tracks are laid and the trains are operating.

Image taken from Denver Federal Center Website.

10 Economic Development Issues, Events, Trends and Questions to Watch for in Denver in 2008

2008 promises to be another exciting year for economic development in the Denver Region. Here are 10 issues, events, trends and questions to watch for:

1) Democratic National Convention. Will the convention go off smoothly? Can Metro Denver capitalize on the convention and raise the area’s profile as an international business and leisure destination? How much will the event contribute directly to Denver’s economy in 2008?

2) FasTracks & Union Station. The design and construction of the FasTracks system and its central hub, Union Station, is a key event in the economic history of Metro Denver and 2008 will be an important year for this massive infrastructure project. The Union Station final design, approval, and commencement of construction are scheduled to occur in 2008. Planning and construction on the West Corridor light rail line from Union Station to Jefferson County will accelerate in 2008 and planning for other corridors will continue.

3) Downtown Denver Construction Boom. Can the downtown construction boom in residential, hotel and office properties continue in the face of uncertain macro economic conditions and the credit squeeze?

a) Condo Projects. The fate of the Spire project (http://www.spiredenver/), a well conceived, nicely located condo building, targeting an under served niche - young, middle income buyers - will be a key signpost indicating whether the local downtown residential construction boom will continue or tail off in the face of economic and credit market headwinds. Construction started at the Spire site near the convention center but was suddenly halted in September when the German construction lender suddenly pulled out. The Great Gulf Group’s 1401 Lawrence Street (1401lawrence.com) , a 51 story luxury condo tower with a is another bellwether downtown residential project. If these two developments move forward it will be a powerful indication that Denver’s downtown residential boom can survive the current economic conditions.

b) Office Properties. There have been almost no new speculative office towers built in the Central Business District (CBD) of Denver since the 1980s oil bust. In recent years Denver’s office vacancy rates have been moving steadily downward in as the regional economy finally grows into the existing inventory. Another factor which should support office sector expansion in Metro Denver is the boom in oil and natural gas prices (see number 4 below) which is leading to increased employment in this sector. However, given the recent turbulence in real estate lending markets, the possibility of a recession, prospective increases in cap rates and other factors which could potentially reduce demand for and the value of commercial real estate, a cloud of uncertainty hangs over new office construction in many parts of the United States. Currently, there are several high rise office projects in Denver’s CBD which are in the pre-construction stages. If projects like Tabor Center II (www.callahancp.com/taborII.htm) at 17th and Larimer Streets are able to move forward it will be a key milestone in Denver’s economic recovery from the 1980s commercial real estate downturn.

4) The Price of and Demand for Oil, Natural Gas and Other Resources. The price of oil, natural gas and other resources has several effects on Metro Denver economic development. High oil prices could lead to inflation and a slow down in the U.S. economy by forcing the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates which could reduce overall U.S. economic growth. However, as oil and natural gas prices increase, regionally-based extractive companies, which are highly concentrated in Denver relative to the U.S as a whole, are likely to increase their operations and the metro area economy will get a boost from this increase in activity. As a point of reference, the oil and gas extraction sector employs more than 3,000 people in Metro Denver and is the second most highly concentrated industry cluster in Denver (see my July 4, 2007 blog entry for more information http://aviewoftherockies.blogspot.com/2007/07/analyzing-metro-denver-economic-base.html).

5) The Development of a Renewable Energy Cluster in Metro Denver and Colorado. The high energy prices (mentioned above in number 4) provide a strong market incentive for continuing investments in the alternative energy sector which is also well represented in Metro Denver and Colorado. The region has public facilities like the Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory (http://www.nrel.gov/) in Jefferson County, the University of Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines and private companies like Danish wind-blade manufacturer, Vestas (http://www.vestas.com/), in Weld County and Denver based ethanol producer BioFuel Energy Corp (http://www.bfenergy.com/). With these types of resources, the Metro Area is poised to attract additional alternative energy businesses. However, despite having a supportive governor who sponsored a helpful package of state legislation in the Spring of 2007 to promote renewable energy, competition is fierce to host green energy clusters. In addition to Metro Denver, Boston, Austin, Silicon Valley, New Jersey, Arizona and Toledo, are all working to attract these businesses. Right now Denver is behind several of these other regions.



6) Who is Buying the Former Storage Technology Headquarters in Louisville from Sun Microsystems? It was announced in November 2007 that the former Storage Technology headquarter campus is under contract to be purchased for $60 million by a closely held “mystery” buyer. Rumors include Google (who purchased Boulder’s @Last Software in 2006), Apple, or E-bay. An acquisition of this strategic property by any of these technology heavy-hitters would be huge news and a boon to Metro Denver’s technology cluster.

7) Merger Questions: Will the U.S. corporate headquarters of MillerCoors, the joint venture of Molson Coors (http://www.molsoncoors.com/) and SABMiller to be finalized in 2008, be located in Denver or Milwaukee? Will the potential tie-up between United Airlines and Delta be consummated and how will it impact United’s Denver hub? Is AT&T going to acquire Englewood-based EchoStar Communications Corp? What other mergers are out there that will impact Metro Denver headquarters and jobs.?

8) Progress on Museums. As the Clifford Still Museum design and planning process ramps up for its 2010 opening we should get more detailed information on the building next year. Additionally, there should be a final decision in 2008 on the new location for the Colorado History Museum, currently proposed to be sited in the city-owned McNichols Building in Denver's Civic Center Park.

9) Spending City and County of Denver Infrastructure Property Taxes and Bond Revenue from November Election. The recent successful passage of Questions 1-A through H for the City and Country of Denver will raise millions of dollars in public funds which will help boost infrastructure and promote economic activity in Denver. The city and county should begin to spending some of this revenue in 2008. Over time these funds will go toward maintaining, repairing and upgrading city parks, buildings, roads, libraries, health and human services facilities, and cultural facilities (such as the Botanic Gardens, Boettcher Concert Hall, the Museum of Science and Nature).

10) NCAA Mens Hockey Frozen Four. In 2008 Denver will host the NCAA Men’s Division I Hockey National Championship. This event is a natural fit for Denver given its status as a prominent hockey town with the University of Denver’s national powerhouse hockey program and the NHL's Colorado Avalanche. This event is being heavily promoted by the Metro Denver Sports Commission (http://www.denver.org/FrozenFour/default.htm).

The images in this blog entry are from the Callahan Capital Partners, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Molson Coors, and the Denver Sports Commission web sites as referenced above in the text. The image of Union Station is from the Wikepedia entry on the station. All Rights Reserved.

A Green Rail Platform Canopy for Union Station

This blog entry is a follow up to my most recent entry from November 25, 2007 on the proposed design changes to the Union Station transit hub (http://aviewoftherockies.blogspot.com/2007/11/big-changes-to-union-station-design.html).

The Friends of Union Station have released a good outline of the new proposed design of Union Station (www.friendsofunionstation.org/news) which I highly recommend interested parties review to better understand the revisions. [Update from December 9, 2007. For a set of drawings showing the new Union Station design see the presentation from the December 5 Union Station Advisory Committee meeting visit the following link: http://denverunionstation.org/pdfs/meetings/USAC_Presentation_120507.pdf)]

I am still assessing the pros and cons of this new design compared to other options and don't have much more to say about this topic yet.

However, assuming that the basic premise of the new design won't be changing, I think the above grade commuter rail and Amtrak station does present some interesting opportunities for creating a landmark canopy to cover the rail passenger platforms at Union Station.

One idea which I find appealing (which I first saw suggested in the skyscraper page forum http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=127820&page=11) is to follow the motif established by Denver International Airport's (DIA's) Jeppesen Terminal roof. Said to remind viewers of the snow-capped peaks of the Rocky Mountains, the translucent, teflon-coated fiberglass fabric covering at the airport has become emblematic of transportation in Colorado. Including this motif from DIA at Union Station will help to symbolically tie these two transportation hubs together just as they are physically being connected by the electric commuter rail FasTracks East Corridor. (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_1). Additionally, a white peaked roof with masts poking through could help tie Union Station to the surrounding Central Platte Valley and Highland neighborhoods by evoking the colors and lines used in the Millennium, Platte River and Highland pedestrian bridges.

The Union Station rail canopy should be designed to combine the DIA motif with green building features such as interspersed solar electric panels and a system for collecting and recycling rain water at Union Station. This combination would create a regional icon which embodies civic virtues like public transportation, commercial vitality, and environmentally sustainable economic development.


The photograph above of the roof of DIA used in this blog is from the DIA web site "photo provided courtesy of Denver International Airport." The photograph to the right of the Millennium Bridge is from the Wikepedia entry on the bridge.

Big Changes to Union Station Design. More Information Required.

The public-private partnership team working on the design of Union Station has recently announced major changes to the transportation component of the project. See the Friends of Union Station web site for a high level written description of the new design.(http://www.friendsofunionstation.org/news.htm). Additionally, see Figure to the left of this paragraph from The Denver Post for a partial graphical representation of the new plan.(http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7501540)

Some of the important changes include building the commuter rail station at-grade instead of in an uncovered below-grade trench, a plan for integrating a commercial bus terminal at the Union Station site (see my blog from November 4, 2007 which calls for this integration: http://aviewoftherockies.blogspot.com/2007/11/including-commerical-bus-depot-at-union.html), changes to the 16th Street Mall Shuttle and the Downtown Circulator routes and stops near Union Station, the opening of 16th Street from Wynkoop to Chestnut Streets to private automobile traffic and other changes.

Putting the commuter rail at grade instead of below grade is one of the biggest changes and this apparently has to do with both safety and cost issues.

Obviously these changes raise a number of questions and concerns. Are they good for the utility and operations of the transit junction? Will the new design facilitate easy transfers among the various transportation modes served by the site? How will the changes impact the building density and other aspects of the mixed use redevelopment planned for the site? Will the new plan provide a world class experience for transportation users both in the short-term and in the long-term? Why are these design changes happening so late in the planning process? Will the public have an adequate opportunity to provide input and feedback on the changes? How will these changes impact place-building, aesthetic considerations and other civic aspects of the project's design? How will these changes impact the neighborhoods surrounding Union Station? And many others.

These changes have also generated a great deal of discussion and criticism from some online forums. See for example the Mountain West Forum on Skyscraperpage.com(http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=127820&page=15).

A View of the Rockies believes that the redevelopment of Union Station will have a critical impact on Metro Denver over coming decades and must be done with great care and foresight. Until we learn more information about the specifics of the new plans, we are holding off on providing an assessment of these design changes.

Infrastructure Investments and Global Competitiveness

The past Thursday evening I was at a Northern New Jersey Urban Land Institute (ULI) meeting where, Bob Dunphy, ULI Senior Resident Fellow for Transportation and Infrastructure, gave a fascinating presentation on infrastructure investment in the United States and around the world. Its incredible how much money China is pouring into new infrastructure projects including high speed rail, airports and local infrastructure. Its also quite astonishing how much deferred maintenance has built up in the U.S. and how large the capital deficits are becoming on our core infrastructure. This has been a challenge in the U.S. since the 1980s and continues to get worse and worse. According to Mr. Dunphy the Federal Highway Trust is going to be bankrupt by 2009 under current policy and funding trends.

Where I live in Northern New Jersey and New York, there are many pressing infrastructure needs such as expanding commercial air capacity, improving freight movement, building commute corridors and strengthening the electrical grid and power supply. This got me thinking how foresighted Metro Denver has been in terms of core infrastructure investment over the last decade or so. Here are a few examples I came up with along with the rough costs of the projects (not in consistent year dollars):

• Building Denver International Airport (DIA) from scratch in the 1980s and early 1990s. The current plans to expand the terminal, build more gates, add rail transport etc. ($5.2 billion + $1.2 billion) See my July 30, 2007 blog entry (http://aviewoftherockies.blogspot.com/2007/07/dia-expansion-fullfilling-vision.html).
• The innovative transportation expansion (T-REX) project which jointly expanded light rail and the I-25 freeway along the same right of way ($1.67 billion);
• The ambitious FasTracks program, over 12 years, to construct 137 miles of new commuter rail, light rail and bus rapid transit service throughout the Denver Metro Area.($6.1 billion);
• The November 2007 infrastructure bond package approved by the voters at the City and County of Denver ($550 Million).

As Metro Areas around the world compete with each other for footloose talent, capital, businesses and jobs, having world-class infrastructure is a key source of competitive advantage. The Metro Denver Area is on a solid path of maintaining and improving its infrastructure and needs to continue moving in this direction in the coming years and decades. This is an issue I hope to follow closely in A View of the Rockies.

Including a Commerical Bus Depot at Union Station

The redevelopment of Denver’s Union Station as a multi-modal transportation hub as part of the overall FasTracks effort is one of the most exciting development projects in Denver (and the United States as a whole). A primary benefit of this project is that it will create convenient linkages between different modes of transportation—light rail, commuter rail, Amtrak, the Ski Train, local and regional mass transit buses, commercial buses, private van services, taxis, the 16th Street Shuttle and Downtown Circulator, bicycle and pedestrian access and others. Each new transit service which interconnects at the junction increases the value of all the other transport modes, creating a positive “network effort” or externality. To maximize the social benefits of the transit system as a whole, as many modes as possible should be co-located at Union Station.




The master plan for Union Station includes the idea of locating Denver’s main commercial bus terminal, serving carriers like Greyhound, at the Union Station site ( http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/514/documents/structuring1.pdf). This terminal would likely be above grade (i.e. elevated above street level).

Greyhound’s current Denver bus terminal is a low rise building located at 1055 19th St., taking up the whole city block defined by 19th, 20th, Curtis and Arapahoe streets at a location ripe for redevelopment to a higher and better use. According to press accounts, Greyhound has been approached by the developer of Ritz-Carlton which is located across 19th street from the bus depot. (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/06/12/story1.html?jst=s_cn_hl)

Based on some of the publicly available status updates on the Union Station project, it appears that Greyhound, the primary commercial bus carrier in Denver, and the public agencies involved in the Union Station project have not yet been able to come up with a plan to ensure that Greyhound moves from its current location to Union Station due to the high cost of constructing a new commercial bus terminal at Union Station.

According to the Denver Union Station Redevelopment Project Update – July 24, 2007, posted on the Friends of Union Station Web Site (http://www.friendsofunionstation.org/DUSUpdate072307.pdf ):

“On June 21, 2007, Cal Marsella on behalf of the EOC sent a letter to Greyhound
to determine their level of interest in participating on a financial basis at
DUS. On July 9, 2007, Greyhound returned the correspondence stating that
they would prefer a location on or near the site that is at-grade, and that the
cost of the facility at $40M to $50M would be too high for them to provide their
portion of a local match. They also suggested that the partner agencies
apply for additional federal funds (5309 FTA funds) for the intercity bus
portion of the project. RTD has already applied for a Federal 5308 grant
funds for the RTD regional bus facility. Greyhound stated that while they
are comfortable in their current facility, they would be happy to work with the
Partner Agencies to be a part of the DUS project.

At this point in time there is not an acceptable at-grade location on the 19.5 acre DUS site for a commercial bus facility. The commercial bus providers will not be able to provide sufficient funding to develop a private facility for their uses on site at or above grade. To the extent an adjacent site is found and developed by Greyhound, the project will work with them to connect it to the facility. The Partner Agencies will also continue to work with Greyhound and the other commercial bus providers to provide access at DUS….if they are interested.”

I do not know for sure if this information from the past summer represents the current status of the negotiations between Greyhound and regional public transit officials but I think it is very important for Greyhound and the transit authorities to work out a way for Greyhound to be located on site at Union Station. Even if Greyhound can not be moved to the Union Station location when the transit hub is first launched it must be part of the long term plan. Because Greyhound and the public at large (including the public transit agencies) will be better off if Greyhound is co-located with other carriers at the site, both parties should be prepared to make appropriate financial contributions to the costs of including a commercial bus depot at Union Station and other necessary compromises.

I strongly encourage both Greyhound and the public authorities to work together to find a “win-win” solution to fulfill the promise of making Union Station the true multi-modal transit hub in the Denver Metro Area by maximizing the number of transit modes operating at the station, providing additional passengers for Greyhound and advancing the public good.

Note, the photo of Union Station in this blog entry was taken from the Wikepedia entry for “Union Station (Denver)”

Denver’s Train to Plane: Lessons Learned from Personal Experience and Other Transit Agencies.

As part of the FasTracks rapid transit build out, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) is designing the East Corridor from Union Station to Denver International Airport (DIA) (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_1 ). RTD has announced that this Corridor will be built with electric commuter rail technology and it is targeted for construction between 2011 and 2014 with the rail system becoming operational in 2015. This line has the potential to dramatically improve transportation to/from DIA, reduce road congestion and provide a reliable way to get to/from the airport in adverse conditions.

However, for this transit option to fulfill its full promise, RTD must design the corridor with the needs of air travelers clearly in mind and should pay attention to the lessons learned from other transit systems. Even small considerations and amenities can substantially improve the overall experience and increase ridership particularly given the stressful nature of air travel today.

I have the following suggestions: provide a “one seat ride” between Union Station and DIA (i.e. not requiring any transfers from the commuter rail to an airport people mover train or buses to reach the airport terminal); make sure the DIA rail station connection to the airport terminals is convenient to air travelers; configure the rail car interiors and station platforms to accommodate passenger luggage; provide paid long term parking capacity on the East Corridor and at stations throughout the FasTracks system and ensure that the facilities at Denver Union Station promote smooth intermodal connections between the East Corridor and other transportation methods.

To my knowledge RTD and DIA have not released detailed design information for the DIA rail station but RTD has posted a rough schematic that shows the proposed DIA rail station will be located underground, on Level One, below a proposed future DIA terminal to be constructed south of and across 84th Avenue from the current Jeppesen Terminal. The new terminal will provide additional departing passenger ticket counters(http://eastcorridor.com/meetingminutes/CorMtng11-8_9-06/CorMtng_11-8_9-06_StationRecom-DIA.pdf).

RTD explains that further detail is not offered in its proposal because

“[s]tation location characteristics for DIA are not evaluated as part of the [East Line Environmental Impact Statement] EIS because it is being done as part of the DIA expansion project.”

In the recently released Preliminary Official Statement Dated July 25, 2007 for DIA Airport System Revenue Bonds, the airport also reveals some information about its rail station plans (http://www.flydenver.com/diabiz/stats/financials/reports/bonds_2007ABC.pdf).

“The airport plans to spend slightly more than $26 million on “Train System Projects” between 2008 and 2013….The 2008-2013 Capital Program also includes a terminal complex project that will provide access from a new rail station to be constructed by the Regional Transportation District...to the Airport terminal. RTD…is currently in the environmental processing and preliminary engineering phases of providing commuter rail service from Denver Union Station…to the Airport….RTD is planning to fund, design, build and operate a rail line to the Airport, as well as station platforms and other rail transit amenities at the Airport Station. The City…is planning to design, build and operate the rail station facilities required to provide access from the rail station to the terminal building including the elevators, escalators, baggage checking and security requirements necessary to accomplish this access.”

So between the information from RTD and DIA provided above, it appears the current design proposal will meet the “one seat ride” criteria unless passengers going to Jeppesen Terminal are required to board a people mover train which seems unlikely based on the information in the bond statement. The design of the connection between the airport rail station and the new airport terminal and the Jeppesen Terminal should facilitate easy pedestrian access. For example moving walkways, ramps, escalators and elevators could be employed.

I have found the connection between Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) heavy rail transit system, to be very convenient and easy to use. It’s a short walk from baggage claim or the ticket counters to the MARTA trains. This contrasts with the less convenient connection between San Francisco International Airport and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains which requires use of an escalator and the airport people mover train to connect between BART and the domestic terminals at San Francisco International Airport. Additionally, the airport rail links to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, Newark-Liberty Airport in New Jersey and Logan Airport in Boston are also inconvenient because they require transfers from the mass transit system to an airport-based transit mode before connecting passengers to the airport terminal.

The rail cars on the East Corridor should be designed to accommodate luggage with luggage racks and floor space suitable for larger luggage. Additionally, East Corridor rail stations should have ramps and elevators leading to elevated platforms so that passengers can easily get their luggage from the street level onto the rail cars without ever climbing up any steps. Union Station itself should be designed to provide quick, easy connections between different transportation modes including light rail, commuter rail, buses and other modes.

Finally an important amenity which can be used to attract riders to the FasTracks airport rail link is to offer paid long term parking at rail stops. RTD is planning to have more than 3,000 parking spots at four different park and ride stations on the East Corridor. (see http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/maps/index.html for details). I am not sure how many, if any spaces, will be available for long-term, overnight use by air passengers. Obviously priority should be given to daily users who park at the stations during work-day commutes. However, in the context of appropriate land use considerations, RTD should provide long-term parking spaces to attract airport passengers.

The BART connection to San Francisco International Airport has not met its ridership expectations since its opening in 2003. However, the system is now offering long term parking at stations near the airport in an effort to increase ridership. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/13/BAG5CR00AJ1.DTL&hw=BART+SFO+Parking&sn=008&sc=497) . RTD should follow this idea and provide paid long-term parking spaces on FasTracks at East Corridor stations and stations on other connecting corridors where feasible.

The Denver Metro Area will maximize the benefits from the East Corridor as long as common sense design decisions are made which provide a comfortable and convenient experience to air travelers.

All images in this blog entry are from the RTD FasTracks web site http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ except images of the Plane taking off and the DIA terminal which are Courtesy of Denver International Airport http://www.flydenver.com/.