5 Questions: Matthew Elliott On Denver’s Dangerous Streets

Streets are more than just asphalt and traffic lanes—they’re where daily life unfolds. For Denver resident Matt Elliott, they’re also at the center of a growing safety crisis that highlights larger issues with the Denver transportation system.

As a full-time cyclist and parent who bikes his kids to school each day, Elliott has a clear view of how our infrastructure prioritizes speed and convenience over protection and equity. His personal experiences have turned him into a fierce advocate for safer, more people-centered street design.

What might feel like a near-miss to a driver is a life-threatening encounter for a cyclist or pedestrian. And for Elliott, these moments aren’t rare—they’re routine. In recent months, multiple crashes involving young people have occurred in his Northwest Denver neighborhood, highlighting just how urgently the city needs to change course. He believes safety shouldn’t depend on constant vigilance or luck; it should be built into the design of our streets.

Elliott has brought this urgency to discussions with city and state officials, particularly regarding the proposed BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project on Federal Boulevard; however, too many plans continue to reflect outdated, car-centric thinking. Instead of rising to meet the challenge, agencies often sidestep the public’s priorities in favor of minimal adjustments that leave dangerous corridors largely unchanged.

In this week’s 5 Questions, Elliott shares his perspective on what Denver’s leaders are getting wrong, what infrastructure we really need, and why walking or biking to school is still worth it—despite the risks. It’s a powerful read for anyone who wants a city where safety isn’t a privilege, but a given.

What got you concerned about safety on our streets for bikers and pedestrians?

I’ve always been concerned about street safety—those early moments behind the wheel when I thought I was driving responsibly, only to realize how close I came to hurting someone, have stayed with me. 

But my perspective shifted when I traded in the car and started biking full-time. Now I bike everywhere I go, including with my kids to and from school every day. The difference in how we experience our streets is stark. We feel every close pass, every blocked crosswalk, every intersection designed to keep cars moving rather than people safe. 

Being outside the car allows you to see your environment clearly—and it’s clear these streets weren’t built with people in mind.

When my kids were younger and I was still driving, I did what every parent does: told them to look both ways, not to run through the parking lot, to stay close. I see now that those warnings were never about kids making bad choices—they were about how dangerous our streets are by default. 

We’ve normalized the idea that kids need to be hyper-vigilant just to stay safe in public space, when really it’s the design of that space that needs to change. My daily rides, especially those with my kids, are a constant reminder that safety shouldn’t depend on vigilance alone—it should be built in.

Recently, there have been several crashes involving young people rolling or walking down Northwest Denver streets. What should be done to prevent this?

The recent crashes involving middle school students in Northwest Denver are devastating, and they highlight a systemic failure to protect the most vulnerable people on our streets. 

A student on a bike was hit at 41st and Lowell—an intersection that already has a flashing beacon (RRFB), which clearly isn’t enough. Another was hit while legally crossing Federal with a signal. A third child was killed while trying to cross Federal at 52nd. Most recently, another was hit on the Perry Street bikeway at 45th. 

These are not isolated incidents—they’re part of a repeated pattern on streets we already know are dangerous. Federal Boulevard, in particular, is on Denver’s “high injury network,” and yet we continue to allow high speeds, wide lanes, and turning conflicts in areas where kids are trying to get to school, the park, their friends’ house. 

The city’s response? Temporary grief and long-term inaction.

Denver has claimed to adopt Vision Zero, but the reality is there’s been no meaningful follow-through. When a serious crash happens—even in the same location, like 14th and Federal, directly in front of CDOT headquarters—nothing changes. There’s no redesign, no protected infrastructure, no shift in policy. We simply hope it doesn’t happen again until, inevitably, it does. 

That’s not Vision Zero. That’s negligence. To truly prevent these tragedies, we need to stop relying on enforcement and education alone and start building infrastructure that requires safe behavior.

Right now, a driver might get a ticket for speeding or failing to yield. That’s punishment—arbitrary and inconsistent. But if a street is designed so that speeding or dangerous turns are physically difficult or impossible, that’s consequence—reliable and automatic. That’s how you change behavior. 

And we need leadership—from the mayor’s office to DOTI and CDOT—that treats safe mobility as a fundamental right, not a perk for people in cars. The goal shouldn’t be moving cars quickly through our neighborhoods—it should be moving people safely, however they can (or choose to) get around.

You’ve mentioned that the infrastructure to ensure safety is lacking. Can you elaborate on this and explain why you think it’s a problem?

DOTI’s “Complete Streets” guidelines lay out a clear hierarchy of concerns: pedestrians first, then people on bikes and other micromobility devices, transit users, freight and goods movement, and finally private vehicles. 

On paper, that hierarchy sounds like the right approach. But in practice, it’s never actually followed. Project after project continues to prioritize car throughput and convenience over the safety and comfort of those walking, biking, or rolling. 

If DOTI were truly designing streets for the most vulnerable users first, we’d see infrastructure that reflects that—raised crosswalks, concrete-protected bike lanes, narrowed travel lanes and traffic-calming designs that slow vehicles down by default. Instead, we still see wide, fast streets with paint (and maybe plastic) bike lanes—if any—and crosswalks that force people on foot to descend into car space like second-class citizens.

Raised crosswalks are a great example of the kind of infrastructure that would align with the city’s stated priorities. Instead of making pedestrians dip down into the roadway and rely on drivers to yield, raised crosswalks maintain a continuous path at sidewalk level. This not only reinforces that pedestrians have the right of way—it physically forces cars to slow down as they move over the crossing. It’s a simple and proven tool used in cities around the world, yet you’ll be hard-pressed to find any in Denver, even near schools or along corridors where serious crashes continue to happen. If DOTI really believed that pedestrian safety comes first, raised crosswalks would be standard, not rare.

Another persistent problem is the expectation that everyone—people walking, biking, driving, even scootering—should all share the same space, often with little to no separation. This kind of mixed-use design might sound inclusive, but in practice, it’s confusing, stressful, and dangerous. 

The safest and most effective infrastructure provides separated, purpose-built space for each mode of travel. Pedestrians need sidewalks and safe crossings. People on bikes or scooters need physically protected lanes—not paint buffers—that are consistent and predictable. And cars need to be kept out of those spaces, with physical boundaries and traffic-calming features to reduce speed and conflict. When you blend all modes into the same narrow corridor, it guarantees conflict and puts the burden of safety on the least-protected users.

Ultimately, we can’t rely on individual behavior to fix a systemic design failure. Most drivers are doing what they think is right—they’re staying in their lane, driving near the speed limit, turning when they have a green light. But the infrastructure itself gives them permission to behave in ways that feel normal, yet put others at risk. If the cues you get from the road—wide lanes, long signal cycles, minimal pedestrian infrastructure—tell you to keep moving fast and pay little attention to those outside your car, then even your best intentions won’t keep others safe. 

We need to build streets that require safe behavior, not just signs that suggest it. That means real infrastructure changes, not just symbolic policies or Vision Zero statements with no teeth.

You were part of conversations with the state, as well as adults and kids, concerning the BRT project on Federal. Are community concerns being addressed in the planning?

No, community concerns are not being meaningfully addressed in the planning for the Federal Boulevard BRT project. 

CDOT took part in a community-led roundtable that brought together a wide range of voices—including students, Spanish-speaking residents, people with disabilities and others who are often left out of transportation planning conversations. What came out of that process was a clear, community-coalesced vision for what people wanted this project to achieve. That vision was captured in a concise “Challenge Statement” outlining how the BRT project could make Federal safer, more accessible, and more vibrant for everyone—not just for those driving through. But CDOT’s current plans don’t reflect that input in any meaningful way.

Instead of rising to meet that vision, the project continues to be shaped by the same priorities that created the dangerous, car-dominated version of Federal we live with today. The community asked for a design that slows drivers down, prioritizes safety for people walking, biking, and rolling, and makes bus travel truly competitive with driving. 

But CDOT’s designs show a corridor where space for people is only considered after space for cars has been protected. The project still centers private vehicle flow, still treats safety improvements as optional, and still fails to create the kind of comprehensive and reliable bus experience that would lead to real mode shift. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch a once-in-a-generation opportunity be watered down—not because the community lacked a clear vision, but because the agency in charge isn’t willing to listen.

The community showed up with creativity, clarity, and commitment. We asked for a BRT that improves access, equity, and livability on a corridor long neglected. We asked for a project we could be proud of. CDOT instead sees Federal as a highway, not the main street of West Denver. A place meant for cars, not people. Whereas the Colfax BRT stands a good chance to reshape that street for people, the Federal BRT is just a slightly nicer bus.

What would you say to other parents about letting their kids bike and walk to school in the neighborhoods of Denver?

I would say to other parents that it’s completely understandable to feel nervous about letting your kids bike or walk to school in Denver—because our streets simply aren’t designed to keep them safe. The fact that so few kids walk or bike to school isn’t a failure of parenting; it’s a reflection of the dangerous, car-centered environment that Denver continues to build. It should be embarrassing to all of us that this is the case.

Denver actually has a program called “Safe Routes to School.” Unfortunately it gets almost no funding and so it does very little to actually create the safe, connected networks kids need. The funding it would take to build safe, connected routes all over the city pales in comparison to what we spend just on one interstate interchange or highway widening project. And yet our city leaders aren’t prioritizing it. We should all be outraged by that—and we should all be demanding better.

Even on so-called “neighborhood bikeways,” which are supposed to offer calm, low-traffic routes, my family has near misses with drivers on a regular basis. People speed, roll stop signs, and make dangerous turns—and the infrastructure doesn’t do anything to stop it. Our kids are expected to be constantly alert, cautious, and defensive. And they are. The kids I see biking to school each day are often more predictable and responsible than the adult drivers around them. But it shouldn’t have to be this way.

That said, I still believe deeply that walking or biking to school is worth it if it’s possible for your family. Active travel improves kids’ health, focus, and mood. It builds confidence and a connection to their neighborhood. And the more of us who do it, the safer it becomes. Form a bike bus. Walk with neighbors. Show your kids—and your city—that this is not only possible, it’s good.

We shouldn’t be forced to choose between safety and independence. Let’s raise our voices as parents—not just to keep our own kids safe, but to build a city where every kid can walk, bike and roll to school without fear.