It is a process that takes time. It is changing the urban and suburban landscape more and more each year. I can tell you there are station area plans throughout the new west line, and many private sector developers are already working to develop new TODs along that line that will add significant density. The F and E lines going south are and have seen a tone of TOD. Wait 10 years and see what those lines look like and the development patterns that will be around them.

I think the real point is that they now have the transit infrastructure to change the future. Some of that change has already happen, and much more is coming. This type of massive infrastructure isn't as much about what is, but what will be and that is a great position to be in.

Union Station Transit Hub nearing completion.

 

Source: DenverInfill - http://denverinfill.com/blog/

Denver's light-rail system is also much bigger than Cleveland's (47 miles vs. 18 miles) and was built in recent years to serve recent travel needs in a fast-growing metro area. If you include Cleveland's heavy rail line, total system miles increase to 37. If we want ridership to grow, the most responsible thing Cleveland could do at this time is to promote development around existing stations.

 

From 1913 to the 1980s, Cleveland's Blue & Green lines effectively linked Shaker Heights to its biggest single travel destination -- downtown. Today, the biggest single travel destination from Shaker Heights is University Circle.

 

EDIT: it's too bad Denver has no rail near those great urban neighborhoods south of downtown and near Cheesman Park. The rail lines go around that area -- much like our Red Line missed going down Euclid Avenue like it should have when it was built 60 years ago.

Denver's light-rail system is also much bigger than Cleveland's (47 miles vs. 18 miles) and was built in recent years to serve recent travel needs in a fast-growing metro area. If you include Cleveland's heavy rail line, total system miles increase to 37. If we want ridership to grow, the most responsible thing Cleveland could do at this time is to promote development around existing stations.

 

From 1913 to the 1980s, Cleveland's Blue & Green lines effectively linked Shaker Heights to its biggest single travel destination -- downtown. Today, the biggest single travel destination from Shaker Heights is University Circle.

 

That is a very good point. RTD leadership in Denver has taken a very progressive approach to their place in development. They don't just see themselves as a transit builder and provider, they are actively engaged in creating TODs and infill. This is a very unique approach for most transit agencies. But one that I think will catch on over time.

Denver's light-rail system is also much bigger than Cleveland's (47 miles vs. 18 miles) and was built in recent years to serve recent travel needs in a fast-growing metro area. If you include Cleveland's heavy rail line, total system miles increase to 37. If we want ridership to grow, the most responsible thing Cleveland could do at this time is to promote development around existing stations.

 

From 1913 to the 1980s, Cleveland's Blue & Green lines effectively linked Shaker Heights to its biggest single travel destination -- downtown. Today, the biggest single travel destination from Shaker Heights is University Circle.

 

EDIT: it's too bad Denver has no rail near those great urban neighborhoods south of downtown and near Cheesman Park. The rail lines go around that area -- much like our Red Line missed going down Euclid Avenue like it should have when it was built 60 years ago.

 

The ridership I gave was for the red line and green/blue, so all 37 miles.  Also Denver's 47 miles would actually be less because that includes a line that just opened this year, not in 2012 numbers.

 

Personally I would prefer Cleveland abandon the majority of its rail for new rail lines with better placement(I'm looking at you Red Line!). I would refuse to remove the current rail though until the new ones are built.

This is a video of apparently their newest line.  Extensive single-tracking and an oppressively dull low-density landscape:

 

I don't get it, people.  This line takes a circuitous route through one non-descript suburb after another, with not even a single station that appears to serve an existing commercial district in a natural way. 

I would take this over nothing though. Denver is a fast growing city. It won't take long to bring up the density around those stations and along the line.

Personally I would prefer Cleveland abandon the majority of its rail for new rail lines with better placement(I'm looking at you Red Line!). I would refuse to remove the current rail though until the new ones are built.

 

In terms of placing rail where the population is, Denver’s rail (both existing and planned) is more poorly placed, in terms of being near walkable areas, than Cleveland’s.  That dense, south (and East)-of-Denver's downtown neighborhood you speak of is completly missed by RTD rail, FasTracks or otherwise... At least Cleveland’s serves Shaker Sq/Larchmere, Ohio City and Little Italy, lower Detroit-Shoreway (and soon a built up FEB).  Denver’s rail, while attracting some TOD, is strictly regional commuter rail, esp the actual commuter railroad lines (all of which are mostly single-track lines, meaning frequency will be restricted even during rush hours).  Denver’s system fans out and covers wide swaths of the metro area and is geared toward park N ride commuters, not walkers or bus transfers.  It’s similar to the Dallas system – not surprising, since age-wise, growth-wise and density-wise, Dallas is a warm weather Denver, and vice versa.

 

Let’s quit all this pointless, silly whining about how bad RTA rail is and make the rail we’ve got work.  That is, keep working on TOD and creating density and getting more people, esp young people, onto the rails – which is happening given the constant rider increases…  Denver’s new system is far from perfect, but that hasn’t stopped them from pushing forward.

 

^ the red line is basically 100% park and ride too. 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

^ the red line is basically 100% park and ride too. 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

University Circle, Ohio City and the new Little Italy station, which have/will have, substantial ridership have no parking. 

^ the red line is basically 100% park and ride too. 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

University Circle, Ohio City and the new Little Italy station, which have/will have, substantial ridership have no parking.

 

The majority of the Red Line ridership is from west siders driving to the stations and taking the train into work.

And no station in our system has that high of ridership. The highest (other than Tower City) is Brookpark, a station completely isolated and surrounded by parking. Cedar relies mostly on bus transfers, ohio city doesn't have that high of ridership IIRC, and Little Italy isn't built yet, but I do believe that station will be strong, as it will be the best urban station in the system that also serves a major employment center.

 

I only bring this up based on your comments about Denver's system being mostly park and ride. So is ours.

A park & ride system that largely follows the interstates will get the easy suburban votes in a county or multi-county taxing scheme.  A much slower system running at-grade on arterials might achieve much higher ROI but is a much tougher sell to the electorate. 

 

Houston's light rail has experienced huge ridership and probably huge ROI despite running entirely in the street.  From wikipedia:

METRORail is the 7.5-mile (12.1 km) light rail line in Houston, Texas (USA). With an average weekday ridership of 36,250,[1] METRORail ranks as the fourteenth most-traveled light rail system in the United States, with the second highest ridership per track mile.

A park & ride system that largely follows the interstates will get the easy suburban votes in a county or multi-county taxing scheme.  A much slower system running at-grade on arterials might achieve much higher ROI but is a much tougher sell to the electorate. 

 

Excellent point.

While I like much of what Denver's doing -- it's aggressive expansion in building a rail network generally suited to its frontier sprawl (despite missing some key close-in walking districts) -- I'm puzzled why their building their huge Union Station terminal/transfer facility as open-air given that Denver's a cold-weather city.

^ the red line is basically 100% park and ride too. 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

Only because much of the vacated land is very polluted. The number of EPA Superfund sites between East 55th and University Circle is appalling.

 

Stations with 22 or fewer parking spaces devoted to RTA passengers are: West 65th, Ohio City, Tower City, East 34th, East 55th, East 79th, East 105th/Quincy, University Circle, and East 120th/Euclid. So half of the 18 Red Line stations have little or no parking for passengers.

 

This is very different from Denver's rail system which, as Jake points, is heavily dependent on park-n-ride traffic. Jakes points out one of the reasons why. Another is that much of Denver's system won federal funds when the FTA awarded grants to rail projects whose foremost purpose was to get cars off roads and chase development, not build cities and shape development.

 

That makes more sense then.  And from what I'm seeing the lines themselves are not very attractive.  They feel "marginalized" because they were built after the interstates that they parallel, typically on the variably steeped slope.

 

 

 

 

See, if I was in Denver, I'd be advocating for a streetcar on Colfax and on Broadway.

 

Oops, too late.....

 

http://www.denvergov.org/infrastructure/DenverPublicWorksPolicyandPlanning/CurrentProjects/EastColfaxMobility/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy/tabid/443185/Default.aspx

 

Unfortunately, the Colfax plan has been kicking around since the early 2000s. And there is no active effort to restore streetcar service to Broadway, which was the busiest route of the old Denver Tramway Corp. So even in Denver where local funding for transit development is significant, some things take a long time.

^ the red line is basically 100% park and ride too. 

 

The problem with our rail is that's it's placement makes TOD that much harder.

 

Only because much of the vacated land is very polluted. The number of EPA Superfund sites between East 55th and University Circle is appalling.

 

Stations with 22 or fewer parking spaces devoted to RTA passengers are: West 65th, Ohio City, Tower City, East 34th, East 55th, East 79th, East 105th/Quincy, University Circle, and East 120th/Euclid. So half of the 18 Red Line stations have little or no parking for passengers.

 

This is very different from Denver's rail system which, as Jake points, is heavily dependent on park-n-ride traffic. Jakes points out one of the reasons why. Another is that much of Denver's system won federal funds when the FTA awarded grants to rail projects whose foremost purpose was to get cars off roads and chase development, not build cities and shape development.

 

The majority of our ridership is still park and ride, making our low ridership system dependent on park and ride traffic as well. You know that. Most of the stations you listed have some of the lowest ridership and university circle station is dependent on bus transfers due to its poor placement/connection with the neighborhood. What makes TOD also harder is that out stations are isolated, making any TOD have to stand on its own rather than add to an existing neighborhood.

^Wait a minute, you just said University Circle, which is one of the Red Line's busier stations and one that has zero parking, relies on a lot of bus passengers.  So what's your point?  Bus transfers are not park n' riders and, btw, some of the very best rail networks: New York, DC Metro, Toronto, Boston T, rely heavily bus transfers.  in fact, heavy bus-to-rail transfer stations are usually considered well placed because they intercept bus riders along busy arteries -- and each of those riders are not driving; which is what I thought you were getting at.  And by the way, University Circle draws a lot of UH workers who are reverse commuters.  So it can't be all bad....

 

Jmecklenborg's analysis of Denver is correct:  it was designed as car oriented to get cars off the road as well as to push development and not necessarily serve Denver's dense areas, especially close in to downtown.  Many Denverites, on other blogs, are griping for example that the North Line, which just received funding for 13 of its 18 miles, is targeted to dead end in the middle of farm land. 

^Wait a minute, you just said University Circle, which is one of the Red Line's busier stations and one that has zero parking, relies on a lot of bus passengers.  So what's your point?  Bus transfers are not park n' riders and, btw, some of the very best rail networks: New York, DC Metro, Toronto, Boston T, rely heavily bus transfers.  in fact, heavy bus-to-rail transfer stations are usually considered well placed because they intercept bus riders along busy arteries -- and each of those riders are not driving; which is what I thought you were getting at.  And by the way, University Circle draws a lot of UH workers who are reverse commuters.  So it can't be all bad....

 

Jmecklenborg's analysis of Denver is correct:  it was designed as car oriented to get cars off the road as well as to push development and not necessarily serve Denver's dense areas, especially close in to downtown.  Many Denverites, on other blogs, are griping for example that the North Line, which just received funding for 13 of its 18 miles, is targeted to dead end in the middle of farm land. 

 

While transfers aren't as bad as park and rides, they are essentially the low income equivalent in most cases.

 

Cleveland's Red Line is completely dependent on park and rides.  I don't really see how you can claim otherwise.

 

If anything Denver's system is slightly better due to its impact on downtown, as it has a more visible presence, and multiple more convenient stops. Cleveland only having one true downtown station really hurts ridership(which can only get so big as parking lots can only get so big.) Additionally Cleveland's rail is built away from strong commercial strips(which we lack in the first place),  away from residential, and is built next to 6 lines of freight rail. At least Denver has several rail lines that are built going through the neighborhood providing a much greater possibility of actual TOD.

 

How many other cities have rail that is completely built on a freight rail ROW?

^People transferring from the Heights at University Circle are generally not low income.

 

The Shaker Line is not entirely along railroad ROW.  Shaker Square is a model TOD for the nation.  Others exist along Van Aken.  And as has been noted, Flats East Bank and Little Italy will be major TODs (and Little Italy, btw, is next to that 6 track, 4 freight rail, ROW).

^People transferring from the Heights at University Circle are generally not low income.

 

The Shaker Line is not entirely along railroad ROW.  Shaker Square is a model TOD for the nation.  Others exist along Van Aken.  And as has been noted, Flats East Bank and Little Italy will be major TODs (and Little Italy, btw, is next to that 6 track, 4 freight rail, ROW).

 

I said in most cases, and besides the number of Cleveland Heights residents transferring from bus to the Red Line is very low. There are some, Im not denying that, but that isn't the major factor in that stations ridership.

 

I was mainly talking about the Red Line, which has the highest ridership for a rail line in Cleveland and seems to be the most talked about.

 

The Shaker Lines are built much better IMO. And while Shaker Blvd is beautiful, from a rail perspective, its a shame that higher density residential and commercial uses were never allowed to develop. Also times have changed, and like KJP has stated, these residents now are more likely to work in University Circle than Downtown, making the rail line less valuable to them. I still love the area and thinks its one of the greatest spots in region.

 

Edit: The way the rail is routed out of Downtown to the east also hurts ridership. From tower city to east 55th, the rail lines basically travel though a wasteland that will never be able to provide any worthwhile ridership or development.

Edit: The way the rail is routed out of Downtown to the east also hurts ridership. From tower city to east 55th, the rail lines basically travel though a wasteland that will never be able to provide any worthwhile ridership or development.

 

Never is a very long time. And cities last a very long time.

 

BTW, let's keep this focused on Denver please.

While I like much of what Denver's doing -- it's aggressive expansion in building a rail network generally suited to its frontier sprawl (despite missing some key close-in walking districts) -- I'm puzzled why their building their huge Union Station terminal/transfer facility as open-air given that Denver's a cold-weather city.

 

Actually Denver is not as cold as many think on average and is one of the sunnier major US cities.

 

"Metro Denver has nearly 300 sunny days a year—more annual days of sunshine than either San Diego or Miami Beach."

http://www.metrodenver.org/living-here/climate

^Denver does get snow, though, often heavy and often as early as mid September.  That's cold weather enough to dictate an indoor central terminal/transfer station like Union Station.  Only places like South Florida or Southern Cal. should logically be building such open-air stations as this.

^Denver does get snow, though, often heavy and often as early as mid September.  That's cold weather enough to dictate an indoor central terminal/transfer station like Union Station.  Only places like South Florida or Southern Cal. should logically be building such open-air stations as this.

 

Do to the altitude, dry air and sunshine that snow usually melts/evaporates very quickly. It can easily snow a half a foot at night and the streets and sidewalks are dry by noon.

I think the design is more than just about weather, its that Denver has a culture that embraces the outdoors and the sunshine it gets. Also, everything above ground is connected underground.

I lived in Denver for six years and have had to travel there for work for the past 10+ years.  It can get snow as early as September and as late as April (heaviest snow month is March), regularly.  It can also get bitterly cold, talking close to -20, it was -14 just one week ago.  It got so cold once that it cracked our windshield from one side to the other when we turned our defrost on, freakish.

 

True that it is an arid, dry climate, extremely dry in the Winter.  True that has a good amount of Sun days.  But it also has some chaotic weather, 2-3 feet of snow in one storm not uncommon, hellacious hail/wind storms.  The snow combined with sun during the day leads to icy roads due to very cold nights (no cloud cover holding in the heat), and very poor maintenance by road crews.

 

Denver is far from a weather utopia.

Recent pic of the Union Station area. All the current cranes are for private sector projects now underway.

Source: http://denverinfill.com/blog/

 

Also just announced and now under city review is the The Confluence. This new tower will be 1.5 blocks from Union Station. Anticipated ground breaking is in the first half of 2014.

 

Source:http://denverinfill.com/blog/page/2

Recent pic of the Union Station area. All the current cranes are for private sector projects now underway.

Source: http://denverinfill.com/blog/

 

 

I hate these sort of photos that show a mountain range behind a city when said mountain range is at least 10 miles away.  I lived in Knoxville, TN for four years, which is about 25 miles from the Smokey Mountains.  They would go out of their way to have that mountain range show up in every promotional photograph.  However, the average local visited the mountains no more often than people from Ohio. 

 

People like saying they live near mountains or near a beach.  They like "having" them. 

 

 

 

 

That photo doesn't look inaccurate based on my trips to Denver?

Recent pic of the Union Station area. All the current cranes are for private sector projects now underway.

Source: http://denverinfill.com/blog/

 

 

I hate these sort of photos that show a mountain range behind a city when said mountain range is at least 10 miles away.  I lived in Knoxville, TN for four years, which is about 25 miles from the Smokey Mountains.  They would go out of their way to have that mountain range show up in every promotional photograph.  However, the average local visited the mountains no more often than people from Ohio. 

 

People like saying they live near mountains or near a beach.  They like "having" them. 

 

 

 

 

 

It kind of hard to avoid the mountains (14,000+ feet) in Denver views unless your photo is looking eastward only. South views pick up Pikes Peak and Devils Head and northern photos usually get Long's Peak and Rocky Mountain National Park. The Denver metro core does go into the the 'foothills', canyons and valley areas of the Rocky Mountains (Evergreen, Golden, Castle Rock, Morrison, etc.). You don't have to go out of your way to get city and mountain views together in Denver.

Recent pic of the Union Station area. All the current cranes are for private sector projects now underway.

Source: http://denverinfill.com/blog/

 

 

I hate these sort of photos that show a mountain range behind a city when said mountain range is at least 10 miles away.  I lived in Knoxville, TN for four years, which is about 25 miles from the Smokey Mountains.  They would go out of their way to have that mountain range show up in every promotional photograph.  However, the average local visited the mountains no more often than people from Ohio. 

 

People like saying they live near mountains or near a beach.  They like "having" them. 

 

 

 

 

 

It kind of hard to avoid the mountains (14,000+ feet) in Denver views unless your photo is looking eastward only. South views pick up Pikes Peak and Devils Head and northern photos usually get Long's Peak and Rocky Mountain National Park. The Denver metro core does go into the the 'foothills', canyons and valley areas of the Rocky Mountains (Evergreen, Golden, Castle Rock, Morrison, etc.). You don't have to go out of your way to get city and mountain views together in Denver.

 

Plus whats wrong with showing the mountains. They are part of the city's backdrop since you can see them when downtown. You don't have to physically be at the mountain to enjoy it. Think of skyline pictures. Why do they exist? The skyline is far away, but it is still attractive to the pedestrian from far away.

 

Cleveland likes showing our lake even though most hardly/never use it.

Cleveland likes showing our lake even though most hardly/never use it.

 

"Most"? How can anyone track that number? And why even throw that opinion into a Denver thread?

^^Denver is so committed to TOD downtown that they literally are stretching downtown northward to surround the revitalized Union Station commuter hub.  Union Station was at the far northern fringes of downtown a few years ago.

Downtown Denver (and the region) is just hot right now. There are about 25 major construction projects under way right now in the downtown area. That doesn't include uptown, the golden triangle, highlands, capitol hill, etc. It is pretty impressive and the mass transit effort is at the core of this transformation. To give a quick feel on what the transit means to the region, recently a new fortune 500 company moved from California to Denver and would only locate their new headquarters near a transit hub. They just finished their new office tower across the street from Union Station. But Union Station and all the transit is just part of a much bigger picture. Denver now has over 80 b-cycle stations, and adding another free bus system for downtown along with the current 19 block 16th free shuttle system. These systems will cover almost 40 blocks in the downtown area with free transit and connect the area to Union Station.

 

Construction starts on Free MetroRide

"RTD has named and branded another free bus service. The new service will debut next spring, traveling from Union Station to Civic Center Station along 18th and 19th streets. The service is being implemented as part of RTD's FasTracks transit expansion program."

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ddc_3

Another office building going up at Union Station. Construction is expected to begin in January.

Source: http://denverinfill.com/blog/

Grand opening for the underground bus transit center will be May 9th with the historic Union Station redevelopment opening in July. All four commuter rail lines are now under construction along with the I-225 light rail line. 3 of the commuter lines and the I-225 will open in 2016 with the North Metro Line opening in 2018.

 

Denver Union Station area draws $1 billion in private development

"With construction of the new bus terminal at Denver Union Station nearly complete, the transformation of the historic depot has already drawn nearly $1 billion in private money in the form of new buildings underway or planned on the surrounding 19.5 acres."

"In addition to the bus station, the transit hub includes stops for light rail trains, Amtrak and the 16th Street Mall shuttle. Commuter rail lines currently under construction will connect Union Station to Denver International Airport, Arvada and Westminster in early 2016."

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2014/04/denver-union-station-areadraws-1-billion-in.html?page=2

Denver Union Station Transit Center had its grand opening on Friday. Below is a few pics from the opening event. It is an amazing project that is transforming Denver in a big way. The historic train station opens in July and will have a new hotel, several restaurants, shops and an outdoor interactive fountain/plazas. (Sorry for the quality of the photos - I just had my phone with me.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here is a link to video of the grand opening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku03epypAxA

Denver is not part of my territory, so I don't know it too well, but I did see a lot of model urban infill in core neighborhoods, and no doubt a lot of new-build light rail. From what I've seen, it clearly is the king of the Mountain West as far as urban places go. Salt Lake City is not even close. Denver is the biggest, densest city in the Rockies by a large margin.

 

Though, to be honest, I prefer the small cities near the mountains to the big cities. Places like Jackson, Wyoming or Missoula, Montana do a better job capturing the Rocky Mountain feeling IMO.

 

Denver's vibe is weird. "This sort of feels like a big city, but why is a big city here?" I've always felt inland cities far away from waterways are strange places. The isolation can create a very localized culture (which is both a good thing and a bad thing). I felt out of place in Denver. I'm a coastal person and beach bum, not the skier or snowboarder type. Though I imagine Denver is great for those types of people. I just couldn't imagine living away from the water. You really feel isolated in Denver. Pretty much everything from the Mississippi to the California border feels isolated...

Denver is not part of my territory, so I don't know it too well, but I did see a lot of model urban infill in core neighborhoods, and no doubt a lot of new-build light rail. From what I've seen, it clearly is the king of the Mountain West as far as urban places go. Salt Lake City is not even close. Denver is the biggest, densest city in the Rockies by a large margin.

 

Though, to be honest, I prefer the small cities near the mountains to the big cities. Places like Jackson, Wyoming or Missoula, Montana do a better job capturing the Rocky Mountain feeling IMO.

 

Denver's vibe is weird. "This sort of feels like a big city, but why is a big city here?" I've always felt inland cities far away from waterways are strange places. The isolation can create a very localized culture (which is both a good thing and a bad thing). I felt out of place in Denver. I'm a coastal person and beach bum, not the skier or snowboarder type. Though I imagine Denver is great for those types of people. I just couldn't imagine living away from the water. You really feel isolated in Denver. Pretty much everything from the Mississippi to the California border feels isolated...

Well said.  Friends of ours lived there for 6 years.  After about two years, they said exactly that.  Coming from the Cleveland area, they felt very isolated.  Sure, you can travel to the Mountains and Parks, but every business trip was by air travel as was visting family.  The closest larger cities to them were 10 hours or more away being Kansas City or Salt Lake City.  And the weather, they hated.  They would get snow into late May, and big snows at that.  Big snows were also fair game in October.  That combined with zero beaches within a 20 hour or more drive, in my opinion is just depressing.  They moved back here soley due to the isolation and volitile weater patterns.

Well said.  Friends of ours lived there for 6 years.  After about two years, they said exactly that.  Coming from the Cleveland area, they felt very isolated.  Sure, you can travel to the Mountains and Parks, but every business trip was by air travel as was visting family.  The closest larger cities to them were 10 hours or more away being Kansas City or Salt Lake City.  And the weather, they hated.  They would get snow into late May, and big snows at that.  Big snows were also fair game in October.  That combined with zero beaches within a 20 hour or more drive, in my opinion is just depressing.  They moved back here soley due to the isolation and volitile weater patterns.

 

They thought Denver and it's 300+ days a year of sunshine was volatile?  No wonder they like Cleveland!  They must be gluttons for punishment! :)

And the weather, they hated.  They would get snow into late May, and big snows at that.  Big snows were also fair game in October.  . . .  They moved back here soley due to the isolation and volitile weater patterns.

 

... which is precisely why building the open air Union Station platforms was foolish... I do love all the TOD, though.  Looks exciting.

I'm still not understanding the concerns with Denver weather?  It is BEAUTIFUL there when contrasted with Cleveland.  Cleveland gets WAY more precipitation, and temperature wise Cleveland is only 2 degrees warmer on average, just because Denver's higher air low temps tend to be lower.

 

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/compare/results?from=vac_compare&clocid1=USOH0195&clocid2=USCO0105

 

Denver also has nearly double the number of sunny, clear days than Cleveland.

 

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sunshine-by-city.php

 

If you want concern--we should all be concerned with the weather protections afforded by the new convention center Hilton hotel valet areas, but that is for another thread....

^This isn't about Cleveland.  Denver gets snow: significant Rocky Mountain snow; several feet sometimes.  And the fact is, any city other than non-snowy, perpetually tropical-type weather such as much of California and Florida, ought not be building open air central platforms exposing passengers to the elements.  I repeat: it's foolish.

I happened to use this station the other day. It's absolutely beautiful and the design is very unique. The open air concept works in summer, and while pictures might be deceiving there's quite a bit of protection from the elements. The new underground bus terminal also opened (very sleek!), which is immediately adjacent to these tracks via an escalator, so I suppose people could use that as a waiting area. The 23 mile east line rail extension is also expected to be completed in a few years connecting the airport with Union Station.

 

 

The progress that Denver has made with regards to light rail and TOD is extraordinary. In the 90s, the are behind Union Station was a wasteland of empty weed lots, rail yards, some warehouses and factories all the way to the South Platte River. There was no street grid. The riverside has now been turned into a park. The street grid has been extended by many blocks and nearly every infill parcel has a high rise or mid rise mixed use development on it. I'd imagine in less than 2 years the new street grid will be completely filled out. To compare the size and scope to Cleveland, it would be similar to the entirety of the Scranton Peninsula being transformed from its current state to a gridded city full of mid rise mixed use buildings along a riverfront park in 15 years.

^What Denver is doing with LRT, commuter rail, the new underground bus terminal and TOD, esp as you note near Union Station, is exciting... I hope to visit a friend there in the next few years... hopefully the airport commuter rail line will be up 'n running by then.

Nice to see this is in a Cleveland publication. Funny, we were just having this discussion in one of the Cleveland transit threads -- should rail transit be built to encourage growth or respond to it?

 

what cities like cleveland can learn from denver

ERIC PETERSON | THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2014

 

Think big.

 

That might as well have been the Denver mantra for the last quarter-century.

 

It started with Denver International Airport (DIA), and continued with four new pro sports venues, new and expanded museums and the nation's largest investment in light rail. Now the just-completed $500 million redevelopment of Union Station -- complete with a hotel, restaurants, shops and transit hub -- is the latest and greatest project.

 

The city is aggressively using its investment in light rail to foster development of once-distressed real estate, but the concept only functions because the suburbs have participated in footing the bill. But these long strides are not just about the big picture -- they are ultimately about incremental steps along the way.

 

Denver has "an uncanny ability to achieve very significant goals," says Tami Door, President and CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership (DDP). It's not about the endgame so much as the road map, she argues. "It's a combination of thousands of tiny goals that project 20 years into the future."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://freshwatercleveland.com/features/smartcitiesdenver082114.aspx

Quick update.

The commuter rail cars are starting to arrive.

Source: RTD

 

In 2016 Denver will add almost 70 miles or new rail and BRT with the following lines:

East Rail line is a 22.8-mile commuter rail transit corridor that will operate between Union Station and Denver International Airport;

Gold Line 11.2-mile electric commuter rail line will connect Union Station to Wheat Ridge, passing through northwest Denver, Adams County and Arvada;

I-225 light rail with 10.5-mile through Aurora;

6.2-mile segment of the Northwest Rail Line (guide rail) from Union Station to south Westminster;

18 mile US 36 BRT line from Denver Union Station to Boulder.

RTD is planning a new infill station (61st Ave & Pena) on the East Line: the electrified commuter rail line to DIA scheduled to open next year... This is interesting because the area around this new station is totally undeveloped and the new transit-oriented, dense neighborhood will rise like a phoenix from the prairie.  This shows what coordinated TOD planning can bring.

 

https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/61st_and_Pena/61-Pena-station-area-plan-web.pdf

Powered testing of rail cars begins at Airport Station

 

Two of RTD's new commuter rail cars pulled into the station at Denver International Airport for the first time Friday, April 17. Click on the play button below to see the video.

 

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_64