Equitable Mobility Hubs in Denver

Introduction

Transportation infrastructure is heavily geared towards cars and car users, but there is a push in transportation planning at federal and state levels--especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic-- to reclaim streets as public assets through the lenses of community building, engines of commerce, and opportunities to safely access different kinds of mobility infrastructure (ie., bikes, scooters, other micro mobility, electric cars). This mindset is a dramatic shift in the way that users interact with streets and the considerations that should be taken into account by city planners. Mobility hubs are part of this shifting mindset as they provide an opportunity for transportation planners to improve connectivity and accessibility throughout existing networks.

Scope

Centers of mobility access are needed to connect networks, provide opportunities for electric vehicle charging as electrification of the transportation sector persists, and to be engines of placemaking. Mobility hubs are loose in interpretation due to their applicability in many settings according to the land-use implications and needs in the surrounding area, though the main goal is to improve connectivity and access within transportation networks. The mobility hub site plans we outline in this section include bus, bike, car charging, rideshare, wayfinding, public art, and commerce infrastructure to varying degrees based on site context, current and future plans for the area, and assessment of equitable access.

Determination of mobility amenities came after our spatial, statistical, and historic analyses of Denver transportation networks. We used R studio and JMP programming to understand the relationship between regions of Denver and an individual’s likelihood of living within a ½ mile radius of an RTD stop based on data from a 2016 DRCOG survey of 2500 Denver residents in relation to their views and interactions with transportation networks. We also analyze how different immutable characteristics such as race, gender, and age in addition to characteristics like income and the presence of a disability affect the preferences of individuals when choosing mobility options. One of the biggest reasons why Denver residents do not use buses and trains is due to the inconvenience of too many transfers and cost (see figure 1), indicating a need for better connectivity, convenience, and cost equity in Denver’s future mobility hub plans.

Main Themes

City planners have a myriad of priorities and stakeholders involved in the planning process. Using the specific case study of Denver, we approach the analysis of placement and potential contents of mobility hubs in a set of three scenarios addressing the following themes:

1. Equitable Access

Understanding that historic legacies of racism need to be addressed, reparative planning builds off the reparative justice movement (Williams, 2020). Reparative planning focuses on the “the annulment of both wrongful gains and losses” (Coleman, 1983) by making “reparation(s) for injustice and the obligation of wrongdoers, or their descendants or successors, for making this repair” (Thompson, 2002).

Williams dictates that the reparations movement within planning will not only operate within the economic realm of making financial reparations to communities of people but rather addressing how white supremacy remained unchecked in the first place – thus, confronting the whiteness of planning. Williams notes that a key challenge to reparative planning will be white ignorance. He cites that it will not succeed unless the factors causing resistance to racial justice are explicitly challenged (Williams, 2020). Furthermore, a shift in discourse is needed to stop problematizing communities and focus on the significant challenges of opportunity hoarding and discrimination engaged by exclusionary white communities.

Transit services and improvements to date have failed to make strides in spatial justice or social equity through transportation planning. Geospatial data has largely focused on performance measurements related to activity levels at different stops, and has left out the evaluation of transportation equity in light of surrounding economic data (United States Congress, 2012). Statistical and spatial analyses helped us determine where there are both gaps in Denver’s transportation infrastructure and historic inequalities in transportation investments.

In previous determinations of mobility hub placement needs in Denver, a statistic that is commonly used is ridership in order to determine tiers of activity thresholds. This metric is important to create amenities and connections in places where ridership lends itself to an identifiable need, however, in many instances, communities of color and low income neighborhoods are left out of the equation in the face of gentrification and housing that favors middle to upper income individuals. We suggest and demonstrate a mobility hub placement method with statistical and spatial backing that capitalizes on nodes of high activity and targeting plans in areas based on equity statistics similar to the equity plan used by the Boulder County Transportation Department (Natalie, date).

In light of this platform, we propose the following vision statement:

Whereas we exist in an age of ecological and climatic crisis, we must innovate the built environment to be more sustainable, including our transportation systems. As climate change disproportionately affects communities of color, our work must make reparations to historically discriminated communities to ensure they do not continue facing transit inequality. Our mobility hubs will work to create a more equitable transportation environment.

2. Scalable Solutions

One of the aspects highlighted in Natalie’s comments on our presentation is the importance of scalability in mobility hub design. She described this concept as the “ability to identify different solutions for specific areas that can scale up or down depending on the surrounding infrastructure (Natalie, date).” These recommendations and renders of each site plan illustrate different scales of mobility access in Denver, which can potentially be used to determine placement and scale of mobility hub typologies in other city contexts. Previous studies and literature outline three categories of mobility hubs with different scales that are important to understand in the context of placement: neighborhood, central, and regional hubs. Neighborhood hubs include smaller stops that include amenities like bike racks, shelters, benches, accessible sidewalks and crosswalks and are a user’s first or last stop throughout their trip. Central hubs are near significant neighborhood centers and serve multiple functions past the neighborhood hubs. The additional amenities can include wayfinding signs, interactive maps, rideshare pickup zones, charging stations, and others. Regional hubs are large centers for regional connections and often serve bus and rail stops. A good example of this hub typology in Denver is Union Station. Our recommendations include one neighborhood style mobility hub (Colfax Corridor) and two central hubs (Virginia Vale, S Federal Blvd/W Florida Ave). For example, bike share stations, bus stops, wayfinding devices, and car-share pick-up/drop-off areas can all be part of a standalone mobility hub in addition to an on-street circumstance, though the amenities for the latter may be more spread out or located along a city block in some cases as we show in the renderings for mobility hubs 1 and 3.

Relatedly, the statistical methods used to determine placement in Denver can be scaled to other places and potentially aid other city planning efforts in identifying areas with both dense ridership and discrepancies in equity of the surrounding area that could be partially addressed through better access to more kinds of transit.

3. Connectivity

Mobility hubs are not a new concept in terms of providing nodes where transportation methods pick up and let riders off, however, the strategic placement and consideration of components to improve connectivity in a changing streetscape that is less car-dominated introduces new challenges and opportunities for transportation planners in Denver and beyond. Connectivity is understood in this analysis in terms of transportation amenities, supporting technology, and infrastructure where multiple modes of transportation seamlessly converge. It is also understood in terms of social connectivity through public art installations and opportunities for commerce, which are proven to generate a sense of community and place especially in disadvantaged communities. Lastly, connectivity is understood in the context of the surrounding land area and previous (or current) plans that exist in Denver. This element is illustrated in the Colfax Corridor on-street hub. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is in the early stages of planning (in 2019), though there are currently significant funding barriers that have caused this project to be at least 5-10 years delayed. Improving current system function though increased mobility access and connectivity could potentially be the connective tissue between the current state of the Colfax corridor and a reimagined BRT system that both reinforces and is reinforced by mobility hub amenities, infrastructure, and supporting technology.

Precedents

Mobility hubs are being planned in major cities across the country, however, this concept is relatively new in context of emerging transportation amenities. From a policymaking perspective, lawmakers and city officials want to learn more about the possibilities of new mobility hubs.

Breman, Germany: What makes an effective mobility hub?

A prominent trailblazer in terms of research and planning in this area is Michael Glotz-Richer, who is a senior project manager for the City of Breman, Germany. He pioneered the concept with the Mobil.Punkit system and wrote about Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPS), which highlights how his city integrated car sharing and other key resources with public transit through the use of mobility hubs. In the design of these hubs, he highlights seven key aspects and lessons learned from his 15 years of designing better mobility access in Breman, with the most important advice being to build mobility hubs around strong transit stops. The remaining lessons learned are illustrated in the following table along with quotes from Michael describing these key aspects.

Michael Glotz-Richer’s 7 Criteria for Successful Mobility Hub Placement and Implementation

1. Build around Strong Transit Stops: “Transit is the cornerstone to creating a life where you do not need to depend on car ownership.”

2. Target areas with high parking pressure: “We want to get into areas where people are a little pissed off with car ownership. The willingness to give up private cars is higher when owning a car is a pain in the butt.”

3. Get as Close as Possible to your Users: “The next thing we learned is that it’s important for hubs to be close to the needs of their users. They should be close to where people live, or to the buildings where they work.”

4. Leverage Mobile Technology for Wayfinding and Fare Integration: “A good mobility hub should help make transfers between modes as seamless as possible. To support multimodal trip planning, many hubs feature wayfinding resources via tablets, interactive kiosks or physical maps.”

5. Use Mobility Hubs to Promote Multimodal Living: While encouraging connections is an integral part of the mobility hub concept, Michael suggests that mobility hubs are at their best when serving as a “one-stop-shop” where riders can walk up and select a mobility option that best meets their needs for the day.

6. Make Mobility Hubs Visible: “The most important thing is awareness, awareness, awareness,”

7. Market Mobility Hubs: Michael developed a cartoon mascot named “Udo” (short for “use, don’t own”) to highlight the convenience of mobility hubs (“We put convenience front and center, not environmental benefits”)

*Quotes from Shared Mobility Center

Austin, Texas: Tangible Impacts

In Austin, Texas an experimental Community Mobility Hub launched in 2018, where the initial goals were to “reduce emissions, improve physical health, improve mental health and well-being, and enhance equity access.” Results from this report correlate with the initial goals and indicate that “car trips are down 39%, people are walking 25% more often, community interaction is increasing, and scooter and bike use is rampant.” This project was introduced at the same time as a shared e-scooter and bike program. The city found that these two rollouts contributed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced obesity, enhanced respiratory, and mental health.

When cross checking with the Germany case study, a number of commonalities exist in terms of the considerations used to determine placement of the pilot project community hub in Austin. The intersection of E. 12th St and Chicon St in East Austin was decided on as the site for the project based on walkability and bike friendliness, demographic diversity, proximity to housing and businesses, level of need to improve health, and lack of high frequency transit. The only main difference in this criteria is the last definition. Michael may have sited it somewhere that has a stronger activity threshold, rather than a lack of high frequency transit.

IMS countrywide data: Mobility hub popularity increase

Integrating Market Systems (IMS) is a company that does market research and reporting on recent innovations and pilot projects. From 2012 to 2016, they covered one or two mobility hubs, however, in 2017-18, there were eight, and in 2019 there were twelve projects. This illustrates a clear increase in popularity among planning departments across the country. Here are some of those plans through which we drew inspiration and design ideas from regarding placement and contents of mobility hubs:

1. Los Angeles, CA (2019): Westside mobility study

2. Miami Beach, FL (2019): Rapid Mass Transit Solution for Beach Corridor Trunk Line

3. Boston, MA (2019): Design and Engineering for Mobility Hubs

4. Seattle, WA (2018): EV Charging Infrastructure Siting Model and EV Charging Infrastructure Roadmap for Shared Mobility Hubs

5. Denver, CO (2019): Current RTD Mobility Hub Guidelines

What is new?

The placement criteria that we are using takes three main ideas into consideration--Activity threshold, spatial assessment, and equitable needs (refer to figure 2 in website figures). The activity threshold is mirrored by the criteria already outlined in the most recent RTD Mobility Hub Guidelines, though the consideration of an equitable needs and spatial assessment coupled with activity levels in the area provide a three pronged, novel approach to placing mobility hubs where they will both be used and maximally helpful to Denver communities and individuals who rely on transportation modes other than a car the most.

Changing conditions and reasons for not implementing in past:

Some of the main reasons that mobility hubs have not been capitalized on to a greater extent in Denver’s past could be a result of the following:

1) Use of some transportation modes (specifically bikeshare) did not stick as a result of lack of connectivity and density of stations/stops. NACTO recommends that there are 28 stations per square mile within the bike-share service area. Denver B-Cycle had just five stations per square mile in 2014.

2) Ideas are relatively new regarding electrification conditions, car sharing culture, and other wayfinding devices. The transportation landscape has flourished in the recent decade with regard to the many different options available. Confusion among planning agencies that mostly focus on improving the experience for car drivers on streets may arise when there are more and more transit amenities and technologies to choose from in specific site contexts that deal with other forms of transportation (Jay Decker, Date). Changing conditions require transportation infrastructure to be reimagined and easily rearranged. Mobility hub planning exists alongside the push for transportation electrification, and an inherently new way of “re-fueling,” cars. The infrastructure present in mobility hubs, especially in those that are standalone structures, should include an element of charging stations for electric powered vehicles (Natalie, date).

Feasibility: successes and complications:

Evidence of political feasibility is present at the University of Denver downtown campus, where student and faculty collaborators from the law and geography departments researched ways to improve mobility in relation to light rail access. DU and DRCOG collaborated on a $200,000 grant to make plans and improvements to the area. This project blossomed into the future possibility of a multi-modal transportation hub connected to the DU District and light rail station. The case for a mobility hub is strong in this context with professors and students collaborating with city officials from the planning department, however, the feasibility of such mobility hubs is not as strong in other places. For example, in a recent April 15, 2021 report on Fox 31 news, “One West Denver neighborhood is pushing back against the proposal of two protected bikes lanes along their road (along Perry and Knox Ct.), which would take away all street parking outside their homes.” This general pushback against changes in transportation infrastructure is a concern for mobility hub planning. Bikes need infrastructure to get around on streets (protected bike lanes, etc). Without the proper street-side amenities, mobility hubs might not be used enough to be convenient or connect meaningful gaps in transportation as seen in Denver’s case, where ridership in the B-cycle program declined starting in 2014.

Analysis and Hub Placement

We use spatial techniques through GIS, statistical analysis, and historic inequities literature to support the placement for the three proposed mobility hub site plans. These mobility hubs specifically target first mile, last mile trips through the use of neighborhood and central scales.

Statistics (see website figure 3 below)

We analyzed a survey commissioned by the Denver Regional Council of Governments to gauge demographic and behavioral data as it relates to transportation usage. It comprises 2547 mail responses from nine regions of the Denver area. Specifically, the National Research Center studied the population of individuals who live within a one mile radius of an existing or under construction rail or bus station. Through analyzing reasons why Denver residents are not currently utilizing public transportation options, or walking/biking will provide potential clues relating to possible solutions that mobility hubs can present the community through an equity-focused approach.

Text for figure 3 (The likelihood that a resident’s walking distance to the closest RTD station (both rail and bus) is between 0 and ½ miles is the response variable. Negative numbers in the rightmost column indicate that a resident is less likely to be within that comfortable walking distance range. Positive numbers indicate that a resident living in the respective region is more likely to live within a 0-½ mile radius of an RTD stop.

Key point: In this model, if you live in the North metro, East, and W Line regions, you are significantly less likely to live within 0-½ miles of an RTD station. If you live in the Southeast or Gold line regions, you are significantly more likely to be within a half-mile of an RTD station.

Figure 4: Mobility hub placement

1. Colfax Corridor (figures 5 and 6)

Our Colfax Corridor intervention is a neighborhood scale project based off of Dever’s existing “point hub” framework. This hub will function primarily as a bus stop, with added amenities such as bike share, free wifi, and a covered waiting area. The site we have chosen at Yosemite and Colfax, has ample room for seating, large sidewalks, and landscaping.

2. S Federal Blvd/W Florida Ave (figures 9 and 10)

This medium scale mobility hub has all the amenities of the point hub model, and more. This site is located in a highly populated area surrounded by retail and restaurants. To take advantage of this opportunity, we propose a site plan that includes community spaces and outdoor dining. Art installations will be used as a tool for placemaking. Transportation amenities will include BRT, bike share, a Zipcar loading area, and a covered bus stop.

3. Washington Virginia Dale (figure 7 and 8)

This location is the largest of the three. It will include all the amenities as the first two hubs (BRT, bike share, wifi, zipcar), and will add additional features such as parking and electric vehicle charging stations. This hub connects into the area’s surrounding bike and pedestrian infrastructure by creating new bike paths that will run down to the Cherry Creek. Landscape architecture will be used as a placemaking tool. There is plenty of room on this site to create community space that is rooted in the natural world, such as ponds, and walking trails.

References

Bardaka, E., & Hersey, J. (2019, August 13). Transit-Oriented Development is More

Transit-Oriented When It’s Affordable Housing. TransitCenter.

https://transitcenter.org/transit-oriented-development-transit-oriented-affordable-housing/

Borrup, T. (2009, January 1). 5 Ways Arts Projects Can Improve Struggling Communities.

Project for Public Spaces. https://www.pps.org/article/artsprojects

Bosselman, A., Andersen, M., Denver, S., Denver, S., Denver, S., Denver, S., & Denver, S.

(2019, November 21). BREAKING: Denver’s Bike Share Program Will Shut Down; City

Will Shake up Scooter Program. Streetsblog Denver.

https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/11/21/breaking-denvers-bike-share-program-will-shut

-down-city-will-shake-up-scooter-program/

Colonel, M. (2020, June 25). Electrification of transportation sector nears tipping point.

Renewable Energy World.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/opinion-and-commentary/electrification-of-trans

portation-sector-nears-tipping-point/#gref

DeNardo, D. (2019, October 31). Moving Forward with Mobility Hubs. ImsInfo.

https://www.imsinfo.com/industry-insights/moving-forward-mobility-hubs/

Engel-Yan, J., & Leonard, A. (2012). Planning for Mobility Hubs Metrolinx s Mobility Hub

Program Identifying Mobility Hubs.

Ezike, R., & Burrowes, K. (2020, August 12). Are Cars a Necessity? During COVID-19,

Low-Income Households May Consider Public Transit Alternatives. Housing Matters.

https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/are-cars-necessity-during-covid-19-low-income-

Households-may-consider-public-transit

Glotz-Richter, M. (2016). Reclaim Street Space! – Exploit the European Potential of Car

Sharing. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1296–1304.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.202

Griffin, J. (2021, February 22). How mobility hubs are changing city transit. TransitScreen.

https://transitscreen.com/blog/mobility-hubs-easy-transit-simple-commutes-smart-cities-b

etter-access-to-transit-public-private/

Kenney, A. (2019, August 1). East Colfax bus-rapid transit could be nearly a decade away as

Denver scrapes for money. The Denver Post.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/01/east-colfax-brt-bus-denver-delay/

Mass Transit. (2017, March 10). Increasing Rider Satisfaction

https://www.masstransitmag.com/technology/article/12304447/rider-amenities-increasing

-rider-satisfaction-through-multiple-means

Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2015). Integrating social equity into urban

transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in

transportation plans in North America. Transport Policy, 37, 167–176.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013

Rucks, G., Holland, B., & House, H. (2019, January 23). Reimagining the Urban Form: Austin’s

Community Mobility Hub. RMI.

https://rmi.org/reimagining-the-urban-form-austins-community-mobility-hub/

Transpo-Talk Exclusive: Delivering Mobility Solutions in Car-Centric Cities. (2020, November 3).

REMIX.

https://www.remix.com/blog/transpo-talk-exclusive-delivering-mobility-solutions-in-car-ce

Ntric-cities

Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A. H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2018).

Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment. Journal of Planning

Literature, 33(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217716439