How Not to Treat Street Design Near Transit Stations

The Denver Post published a story today by Megan Mitchell that depicts an uprising of sorts against smart street design near the Iliff Avenue Rail Station, which will open next year. Some residents, including Albert Melcher, president of the local neighborhood association, want to nix a planned bike lane and widen a nearby street to handle traffic from the planned mixed-use development.

The Iliff Avenue Station, part of the future I-225 Rail Line, is still under construction. Image: RTD
The Iliff Avenue Station, part of the future I-225 Rail Line, is still under construction. Image: RTD

From the article:

“Our major Anaheim concerns are the width of the street — 39 feet, 4 inches — and the increased traffic load in that congested area,” Melcher said. “This street is planned to have two lanes for parking, two automobile lanes and a multidirectional bike lane. Given the location of the bike lanes next to drivers opening their doors, the limited width of Anaheim, this seems like an accident ready to happen.”

The association’s recommendations for the neighborhood streets include removing a planned bicycle lane on Anaheim Street and widening and straightening Blackhawk Streets, but he said those suggestions aren’t being considered.

Good. As Mitchell reports, the Iliff station will be one of the busiest on the I-225 line. In sprawling southwest Aurora, the planned 30 acres of mixed-use development is the springboard to achieve more walkable and bikeable communities, where not every trip demands getting inside a car. Taking away the planned bike lane on Anaheim Street would rob people of a safe biking route — making it more likely that people will drive to the station and, ironically, creating more of the traffic that Melcher so fears.

Widening the two-lane Blackhawk Street, meanwhile, would induce more driving and higher speeds, making people less likely to walk or bike on it.

The rail station is already next to a highway and will have at least 600 parking spaces. More space for cars is not the answer for a new transit station. If Melcher is truly worried about congestion, his organization should fight for fewer parking spaces. The fact that abundant parking will make driving to the train a more attractive option and cause more traffic seems lost not just on Melcher, but public officials too.

Mitchell reports:

City officials say several methods to deter traffic were investigated with neighborhood residents, including an additional 300-space surface parking lot to be built across Harvard Avenue from the parking garage.

Bad idea. Once the I-225 line is expanded next year, travelers won’t need a car to fill the gaps between suburban rail stations. Passengers will be able to get from Lone Tree to DIA (and many other points north) without a car. Adding more parking will deter the very transit trips that this rail expansion is supposed to enable.

  • TTIP

    The parking will be needed at the station and surrounding areas. To get their projected ridership (which will never happen), you need parking. Look at 9 Mile as the example. Bike lanes help for the immediate area only.

    • John Riecke

      Most people arrive at nine mile by bus, not car. More parking creates more traffic and less welcoming places. Ditch it.

    • Rabbits Ride Bikes

      I disagree with this, I ride my bike everyday and know that there would be a benefit if there was a more connected bike network from nine mile into the surrounding residential areas. I find that I am dodging cars and forced to ride on the sidewalk because of the vehicular traffic. I am comfortable riding at peak AM/PM hour downtown in or out of the bike lane but not in Aurora on Peoria off of Parker road. I know a large amount of people that would like to ride to Nine Mile from east and north of the station but do not feel safe and therefore drive, if we had better connection it would give them the ability to ride their bike. “Bike lanes only help the immediate area only” if there is no connected-ness to the surrounding area(s)

  • neroden

    Here’s the thing about parking lots:

    If you really need them, *the free market will build them*. Paid parking is a very profitable business in most major cities. As long as parking is an allowed use under the zoning code, you never have to require it — entrepeneurs will build parking and make money doing so.

    So you should absolutely *NOT* be building taxpayer-subsidized free parking lots to encourage pollution while competing with these entrepeneurs

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

|
DenPo Editor Under Impression That, Unlike Other Agencies, RTD Fares Should Cover Operation Costs Rail~Volution Attendees Take a G Line Tour — On a Bus (9News) RTD to Aurora Mayor: Do Your Part to Boost R Line Ridership (9News) Good Thing City Leaders Didn’t Plow This Highway Through Lower Downtown in the 70s (Denverite) Light […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Denverites File Injunction to Stop CDOT from Widening I-70 Through Low-Income, Minority Neighborhoods (Denverite) National Rail~Volution Conference “Puts RTD’s System — and Shortcomings — On Display” (DenPo) RTD Asks Feds to Okay A and B Lines Once and For All So It Can Finally Open G Line (CBS4) Hit-and-Runs On the Rise, and Baker Bears […]