definitly kill off boulder to longmont rail...what a waste

SE / WE extensions? i don't think so...and much of the SE extension assumed that there would be a $5BB development at the new end of the line, but i'm not srue that is coming to fruition.

i'd agree that 225 really does need to connect - and that we'll see more than expected traffic as DTCers head to the airport.

what an AWESOME idea to have the voters decide between "extend the tax" or "extend the timeline"

Are you referring to ridgegate? Did something happen to it?

How much would it save to delay the extensions of the SE and SW light rail and by ending the rail in Boulder instead of Longmont? How much would it save to push the SE and SW extensions off the table until the future when more funding would become available?

What do you think about the North Metro line bcp and everyone for that matter? Projected ridership is lower in this line (although more recent estimates are higher). The North line isn't eligible for Federal funds (why is this?). So should it be scaled back some, but in a way that would allow for future upgrades/extensions?

Ridgegate is alive and well. You been down there lately? Thr new I-25 interchange is almost done. The SE extension needs to happen. The density proposed down there... It could make Stapleton look downright sprawley.

Qualifying for federal funds (limited funds) is very competitive and done by formula to a large extent (a fancy cost-benefit analysis basically). Low ridership per dollar spent can doom a project's funding. By to mention, it's still political.. Can Denver really expect to get everything it wants? There are other cities out there that probably need it more (Honolulu comes to mind :))

Bah! You live on an island. Take your limited space and shove it. Us urban sprawlers on the continent are who really need transit monies! ;)

^^ ha ha...

buntie...proposed density? it could happen...but i would assume that project will be scaled back especially in light of gates being delayed/reduced a bit...even so, it's 15 miles from DT and there are MUCH denser areas that should be served before ridgegate.

This fact used to make me depressed, but I have moved on with my life. In about the year 2000 I was pushing to design the Boulder train corridor as a form of long distance light rail based on the Camden to Trenton DMU system that was then under construction in New Jersey. That line is 34 miles long (same as Boulder to Longmont). It would have cost a bundle, but it could access the high ridership destinations using street running.

I was so far ahead of my time. In fact, I almost lost my job over it.

Certain forces (centered in Broomfield) were pro-bus and pro-highway, but anti-rail. Other forces (such as public perception) were pro-rail. The compromise is the solution as it exists today.

In the mean time, two other DMU light rail systems have opened or are under construction in the USA: Austin Capital MetroRail and the Sprinter from Oceanside to Escondido.

The good thing about rail to Boulder: it can be extended to Fort Collins!

Perhaps RTD should only focus on the BRT to Boulder, then try to get a ballot measure going for a Front Range Commuter rail, in which the Boulder-Longmont rail would be taken out of FasTracks and included into the Front Range rail plan.

The currently allocated FasTracks funds for the Boulder rail, would then be divided up among the other corridors to help balance the budget.

Sure, that plan would be hard to pull off, but it seems both logical and feasible enough to be worth a try.

hmm..i kinda like that idea - ditch boulder rail until the front-range rail comes through (they were planning redundancy anyway). but where is that project? haven't heard a peep from the organizers in a year.

I'm not sure where the front Range Commuter Rail project is at right now. I would think new Mexico's lead would help encourage this.

I do think that RTD could help push to get the Front Range Commuter Rail moving forward, even if they won't be the managing agency. One thing seems sure, someone needs to take the lead role with this to get it off the ground.

there used to be a website for it...but now it is some goofy google log-in page. this is certainly not the way to build support...the site was not great before, but bob briggs (organizer) seemed to be building good political support. he seems to be a man on his own trying to do this - which is awesome - but i don't know if he has the financial strength to be another boone pickens.

there is a good summary here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Range_Commuter_Rail

and it seems they are on there way to a feasibility study (and having the funding for it). statewide tax initiative would have to be in an even year, so 2010 at the earliest?

oh, of note is that wyoming to NM as well as DIA to Utah are being studied at ONCE and being called a single corrideor....nice.

ph that is nice, because if the front Range commuter rail also had connections to DIA and some of the nice ski resorts and mountain towns, that would draw so much more ridership, it seems. People from all along the Front Range and mountain towns along the rail, would ride a train to DIA (via Union Station). Also tourist would ride the trains to destinations in the mountains and also places such as Colorado Springs and Fort Collins - which are tourist draws as well.

California is moving forward with their HSR network, New Mexico is building their closer and closer to Colorado boarder. I think support is going to begin building, especially if RTD can get an acceptable plan going for FasTracks and calm some people down about that.

Here is a question: why hasn't Denver looked into using cable cars for the downtown area - primarily the 16th Street Mall and the surrounding loop? I was wondering about this after visiting San Francisco over the weekend and seeing how cable cars were maintained by the city. BTW, I'd recommend visiting the cable car museum for anyone in the SF area. :tup: It's really old technology, but works extremely well, especially when you consider it's the same method used on Ski Lifts to move people up the mountains. However, instead of the insane hills of San Fran or the mountains, we have relatively flat areas of city to traverse. In other words, the torque required to move the cables would be much lower.

All that would be required is to dig a small tunnel under the mall to insert some pulleys underground and add a generator at one end of the mall. Then, whether the city wanted to utilize rail cars - or even a vehicle on wheels - the moving platform could then clamp down on the continuously moving rail to go forward - or conversely de-clamp from the rail in order to stop.

This would get us away from using buses and would be an eco-friendly method of moving people around the city. Plus, the city wouldn't have to install unsightly electrical wires overhead, which would be a huge advantage esthetically. Not to mention, it's a quiet and clean propulsion system and could get us away from carbon-emiting plumes of exhaust that we currently encounter when passing by.

Currently, San Fran is the only city in the world that still uses cable cars. However, if it's good enough for them and good enough for our ski resorts, why can't it be good enough for the mall? It could easily move people up to 20 mph and would be a great "attraction" to downtown visitors. Of course, it wouldn't have the historical significance of SF, but it would still be a draw. Why not consider it? :shrug:

Camparisons....
 

Cable cars are slower and have a lower capacity than the mall shuttles. The street cars in Portland, which are doubles, are very quick and have more capacity... close to that of an articulated bus. Don't get me wrong, cable cars are nifty and a good tourist draw.

There is a limit on the number of cars that can attach to the cable at one time, which would be a big issue during lunch when they run a bunch of shuttles at once. IIRC cable cars are not very efficient, particularly when compared to overhead powered street cars.

:( I have been looking forward to the Boulder Longmont rail section, but I can understand why some here would find it unneccessary. Boulder - Longmont traffic isn't related to Denver after all, but you all would have to understand it's one of those politically neccessary plans in order to gain support for the sales tax in Boulder County. Not that the US 36 corridor has a higher priority.

Still - Longmont is a very conservative town, at least in comparison to Denver / Boulder & it is questionable how many people truly support rail here. The city government certainly does, but if the Longmont rail section was delayed, the anti-tax crowd would have a field day.

What a few of us have come up with here, is taking the Denver-Boulder-Longmont rail corridor out of the FasTracks plan and packaging it into a new bill for a Front Range Commuter rail from Fort Collins to Pueblo and even to New Mexico's border to tie in with the Front Runner Express Commuter rail.

The FasTracks portion of this proposed Front Range commuter rail would be redundant anyway.

This would leave RTD with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Boulder. RTD could run the buses from the end of line BRT stations in Boulder, on up to Longmont, at least until the Front Range Commuter Rail becomes operational.

We are not the experts, details and little quirks could be worked out between RTD, CDOT and the politicians.

I think in concept this idea would save FasTracks budget enough money, to distribute among the other projects to significantly close the gap and there wouldn't be any lost service. It would just shift the Northwest out of FasTracks budget and into the Front range Commuter rail budget (which would have to be created via the bill).

It is possible that the Front range Commuter rail budget could also take over the North Metro line and extend it to Greeley. This would further close the funding gap - if not completely balance the FasTracks budget.

Once the Front Range Commuter Rail was open, RTD would be allowed to share the tracks with the low frequency Front Range Commuter Rail service. RTD's trains would operate at much higher frequency than the Front Range Commuter Rail trains and RTD's trains would operate on these tracks within the NW and North Metro portions - inside of RTD's district - to meet original ridership and frequency projections promised to these north metro cities (Commerce City, Thornton, Boulder, Longmont, etc,...)

I never got the BRT and the commuter rail for the US-36 corridor. What's the point of doing both? I don't think that a rapid bus line is going to make it any more appealing. Commuter rail also sounds a lot less appealing than light-rail. Who thought of this hodge-podge plan anyway? I agree the Boulder to Longmont rail seems like an afterthought, and clearly would have much less ridership. I really doubt that people in Longmont will be riding the train for 1.5 hours to work on Denver, or 20 minutes to get to Boulder. Longmont people are truck/SUV people. Boulderites going to Longmont? To do what? The front range corridor is a great idea - let's get a move on. I'm sure Caldera is ready to fight that one as well, and he probably will have a better argument now that Fastracks is over budget. Lets just build subways or f*cking gondolas.

Gondola from Civic Center Station to Cherry Creek? ;-) It might add a certain romance to the trip, in a Rocky Mountain kind of way.

Wow, I think you just made my statement not sarcastic - and I like it! Cherry Creek gondola rides... Hmm... it could work.