Top

news

Stories

 

Denver's latest traffic plan depends on getting you out of your car

Street smarts: Denver Department of Public Works manager Bill Vidal wants to change the way traffic flows through Denver's "travel sheds."
Street smarts: Denver Department of Public Works manager Bill Vidal wants to change the way traffic flows through Denver's "travel sheds."
Policy analyst Randal O'Toole  doubts the city's plan will relieve congestion.
Policy analyst Randal O'Toole doubts the city's plan will relieve congestion.

Read a list of Denver's eight worst intersections on the Latest Word blog.

Just south of downtown, a fender bender on Speer Boulevard jams up a long line of cars, which spills into the intersections at 13th and 14th avenues.

A white van making a right turn on red from Alameda Avenue onto Colorado Boulevard lurches into the intersection, then abruptly stops, transfixed by a rare crossing of pedestrians.

A brightly attired eastbound bicyclist races through a changing light at Federal and West 23rd Avenue — on his way to REI, no doubt.

If God is everywhere, then He sees all this and more, like that black Escalade cutting off a silver subcompact at Broadway and Sixth. I see it, too, because I happen to be a certain somewhere: the Transportation Management Center on the fifth floor of the Wellington E. Webb Building, operated by Denver's Department of Public Works. Surrounded by computers and facing a wall of video monitors, city employees quietly watch the surging traffic across the metro area, as the quirks and horrors of another afternoon rush hour get under way.

The city has 120 zoom cameras positioned at key intersections around town, and the TMC has enough video screens to present 64 different images of the traffic situation at once. But that's more stop-and-go than the human brain can possibly process, so the staff usually focuses on a few main corridors: Hampden, Evans, Alameda, Colfax, Speer, Colorado, Broadway and so on.

The top row of screens is reserved for views of I-25 and I-70 traffic; the Colorado Department of Transportation can deliver video to the city of highway conditions from Limon all the way to Hanging Lake, and from Pueblo to Northglenn. Denver operates its own cameras on the city's highway access ramps and sends the feeds to CDOT. On the rest of the screens, the images shift as staffers channel-surf, like couch potatoes hunting for the NASCAR Network.

The city's traffic managers do more than just watch, of course. Many of the traffic lights throughout the area can be controlled from the center. The team makes adjustments, reports malfunctions and outages to repair crews, types out traffic alerts that blaze on electronic billboards on major thoroughfares, warning motorists of trouble ahead. At more than a hundred intersections, the cameras have sensors that can detect when too many cars are waiting at a red light and alter the signal timing, a huge advance over the old sensors embedded in the pavement.

"We manage every big event from up here," says Matthew Wager, the TMC's overseer. The center has traffic plans in place for every Rockies and Broncos home game, every People's Fair and Taste of Colorado, as well as plans for morning and afternoon downtown commutes. During the Democratic National Convention last August, the control center was packed with officials from half a dozen state and federal agencies, who linked their technology with the city's array of cameras and tracked traffic and protesters in every direction.

For Wager, managing traffic is largely about managing information. He talks about the quest to get all of the traffic signals in the metro area coordinated and providing more timely reports about traffic disruptions to the traveling public. The city offers feeds from a few of its traffic cams online and highway advisories on the radio (at 870 AM), but Wager wants to get the word out more quickly to the individual driver — the busy mother with child and cocker spaniel, for example, heading toward that backup on Speer.

Other than the Speer slowdown, things are looking fairly calm on the video screens this afternoon. "In the big scheme of things, traffic in Denver is really good compared to a lot of other big cities," Wager says. "We're just starting the rush hour, and as you can see, we're in pretty good shape. It's not getting worse as fast as it could because we're doing better with the roadways that we've got. We fix problems faster."

Denver has, in fact, caught something of a break in its rush-hour follies of late. Completion of the T-Rex expansion and light-rail line on I-25 in 2006 brought a momentary reprieve for commuters in the southeast corridor, and the national recession appears to be slowing the pace of population growth in the region. But long-term projections call for the city's emerging congestion issues to get much, much worse. Planners expect the metro area to experience a 30 percent increase in population by 2030. That's more than a million additional people, which translates into a jump in daily "person trips," from 4 million on the city's roadways today to 5.4 million two decades from now.

A Denver Regional Council of Governments map shows current metro congestion as a series of neat, bright-red lines, designating a few corridors where significant delays can be expected for more than two hours of each day because demand exceeds capacity during peak travel times. The projected congestion for 2030 shows up as a startling mass of red welts. They're all over the place, oozing into each other, a mess of clogged arteries and blocked thoroughfares, like the battered heart of a morbidly obese chain-smoker, about to explode.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next Page >>
 
  • funseeker 03/23/2009 9:15:00 PM

    This is the dumbest thing to come out of "urban transportation planning" yet. We need LOTS more public transit NOW than what's available, and cost overruns are outtasight--leading one to believe mo betta public transportation ain't gonna happen anytime soon! Ever plunked your bottom down on a wet seat on the light rail or the bus? If not, you're in for a treat! Not everyone can take a bike ride to work, doctor's appointments and other necessities of life in Denver. These idiots are ignoring the elephant in the room: vast numbers of people over 50 who cannot hop on a bike whenever they please, and need their cars to get around. Since the weather around here changes every 5 minutes or so, lotsa luck trotting around in the next snowstorm!

  • Shane 03/18/2009 12:54:00 PM

    Allan- I suspect Vidal's figures may be based in part on induced capacity - the idea that, simply put, if you build it, they will come. With the completion of TREX, it is now much easier to travel up from the southeast, and people who might have not have driven from Parker downtown for lunch in the past because of traffic will do so now because there is the capacity on I-25. In other words, trips that wouldn't occur if I-25 were a congested mess now occur because of the wide-open freeway. I've seen studies that estimate that upwards of 60-90% of the trips taken on a new lane of freeway would not exist if that lane weren't there (look up induced capacity in publications of the Transportation Research Board of the Nat'l Acad. of Science). As for "policy analyst" Randal O'Toole, call me slightly biased, but he's no expert; merely the Tom Tancredo of the "single occupancy vehicle" movement. Whenever any transportation improvement that doesn't cater exclusively to cars is proposed in the US, he is trotted out to argue against it. If we could find a way to harness his hot air for power, he might do the world some good. But until then, we'd best just ignore him.

  • Doug 03/04/2009 11:11:00 PM

    O'Toole's comments, no matter how much "data" he has, are motivated by an organization that is funded by status quo commerical interests. Primarily the automotive, oil, and paving industries. These interests see absolutely no benefit in promoting alternative transporation. It detracts from their revenue of course. I lived in Washington DC for fifteen years, and biked to work in downtown from the suburbs for 10 of those years. I found it much easier and safer to take that trip, versus my current russian roulette ride from City Park to Lakewood, CO. Denver has a wonderful climate and topology to support non motorized transportation. This is not really supported by all of the bicycle paths that circle the city, or run north south. Most people I talk to who live and work in Denver would ride a bicycle to work if they didn't feel it would jeopardize life and limb. Most neighborhood streets do no even have speed limit signs, and many vehicles speed by in excess of 45 mph. Tons of opporunity. But the legacy Denver wild west mentality may not allow the opportunity to flourish. SHARROWS are a great way to start small, work fast, and spend relatively little funds. Thanks

  • Doug 03/04/2009 11:11:00 PM

    O'Toole's comments, no matter how much "data" he has, are motivated by an organization that is funded by status quo commerical interests. Primarily the automotive, oil, and paving industries. These interests see absolutely no benefit in promoting alternative transporation. It detracts from their revenue of course. I lived in Washington DC for fifteen years, and biked to work in downtown from the suburbs for 10 of those years. I found it much easier and safer to take that trip, versus my current russian roulette ride from City Park to Lakewood, CO. Denver has a wonderful climate and topology to support non motorized transportation. This is not really supported by all of the bicycle paths that circle the city, or run north south. Most people I talk to who live and work in Denver would ride a bicycle to work if they didn't feel it would jeopardize life and limb. Most neighborhood streets do no even have speed limit signs, and many vehicles speed by in excess of 45 mph. Tons of opporunity. But the legacy Denver wild west mentality may not allow the opportunity to flourish. SHARROWS are a great way to start small, work fast, and spend relatively little funds. Thanks

  • Allen 02/27/2009 6:31:00 AM

    I'm baffled as to why someone in Vidal's position would make the sort of claim he did in regards to needing 6 more lanes on I25 without the LRT portion of TRex. There's varying estimations over the capacity of a single lane of freeway capacity. The same with how many passengers per vehicle to use. But even if we use a very conservative 1200 cars / hour and, for rush hour, a likely under stated assumption of 1.2 people per vehicle, a single lane freeway lane during rush hour would carry about 1,500 people. That would mean that during 3 hours of morning rush hour, a single lane could conservatively carry 4,500 people (2 lanes 9,000; 3 lanes 13,500.... 6 lanes 27,000). Now remember we're talking just about morning rush hour. So this would be unique number of people on the freeway. On the other hand, the SE line has about 38,000 "riders" per day. Given the recession this is a generous estimate of ridership. It's likely lower. A "rider" is arguably a deceiving term as it doesn't not represent the number of unique people riding but the estimated number of trips. So there's about 19,000 people taking light rail each day. Using the above estimates, that'd be 4 lanes during the morning rush hour. But it's not that simple. About 2/3 of those 19,000 - about 13,000 people - wouldn't be driving. They were previously taking the bus or would be taking it no matter what. Those buses would not only be using the same freeway lanes as we have now (as we see with FREX service) but it would mean the average number of people would go up greatly. Say what? Essentially we spent $900 million to reduce the number of cars by about 6,000. Assuming all of those are happening during peak rush hour when there isn't extra capacity, we're talking about an extra lane or two. That's nothing like the extra 6 lanes of traffic that Vidal claims would be needed. I'm not sure why he made that claim. Maybe he was misquoted or just had a brain fart. Or maybe he just hopes we can't do simple math. Either way it's clear we could've had the same affect on traffic congestion without spending the $900 million we did on the SE Line.

  • Allen 02/27/2009 6:30:00 AM

    I'm baffled as to why someone in Vidal's position would make the sort of claim he did in regards to needing 6 more lanes on I25 without the LRT portion of TRex. There's varying estimations over the capacity of a single lane of freeway capacity. The same with how many passengers per vehicle to use. But even if we use a very conservative 1200 cars / hour and, for rush hour, a likely under stated assumption of 1.2 people per vehicle, a single lane freeway lane during rush hour would carry about 1,500 people. That would mean that during 3 hours of morning rush hour, a single lane could conservatively carry 4,500 people (2 lanes 9,000; 3 lanes 13,500.... 6 lanes 27,000). Now remember we're talking just about morning rush hour. So this would be unique number of people on the freeway. On the other hand, the SE line has about 38,000 "riders" per day. Given the recession this is a generous estimate of ridership. It's likely lower. A "rider" is arguably a deceiving term as it doesn't not represent the number of unique people riding but the estimated number of trips. So there's about 19,000 people taking light rail each day. Using the above estimates, that'd be 4 lanes during the morning rush hour. But it's not that simple. About 2/3 of those 19,000 - about 13,000 people - wouldn't be driving. They were previously taking the bus or would be taking it no matter what. Those buses would not only be using the same freeway lanes as we have now (as we see with FREX service) but it would mean the average number of people would go up greatly. Say what? Essentially we spent $900 million to reduce the number of cars by about 6,000. Assuming all of those are happening during peak rush hour when there isn't extra capacity, we're talking about an extra lane or two. That's nothing like the extra 6 lanes of traffic that Vidal claims would be needed. I'm not sure why he made that claim. Maybe he was misquoted or just had a brain fart. Or maybe he just hopes we can't do simple math. Either way it's clear we could've had the same affect on traffic congestion without spending the $900 million we did on the SE Line.

  • hadley hooper 02/25/2009 9:23:00 PM

    For more on the "Barnes Dance" check out Matt Holman's post on buckfifty.org! http://buckfifty.org/2009/01/08/the-barnes-dance/

  • Mary 02/20/2009 6:31:00 AM

    This was an interesting article, but I would have liked more practical analysis of the plan, rather than O'Toole's totally ideological objections. I mean, we got it- he doesn't like public transportation, socialism, blah blah blah. What do drivers think? Other politicians? Is it realistic to expect people who live in the exurbs to take public transportation or does it just make sense to focus on people who live in denser areas? I know there has been a lot of work on that and it would have been interesting to see more about it. There will probably be a lot of comments to this article saying what's wrong ith Denver's transportation system- but as a former Washington DC resident, Denver seems like a bike paradise to me- a lot more bike lanes and enough bikers that cars seem decently considerate. Car-sharing was mentioned briefly. I think this would be really popular in Denver. In D.C., Zipcar did it, and it worked pretty well.

  • J DUB 02/20/2009 12:55:00 AM

    "But it's a publicly owned right-of-way, and a third of the people in Colorado don't drive." Holy crap. I don't live in Denver - I'm in Scottsdale, AZ - but that sounds like an immense exaggeration! It sounds like the sensational type of whining that cyclist continually pervey. I guess if you count the elderly and children maybe he's right - but then they're not really your target consumers of roadways then either...

 
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy