Snyder, did you happen to check out the "COS, Boulder, Fort Collins, and that other town thread" today? There's a piece on the 11th HSR corridor and it's not going to include the I-70 corridor.

On the contrary, this is great for the I-70 corridor, as any Colorado contribution to the plan would include the I-70 corridor. The report simply did not get into fine details such as I-70. It says, "between El Paso and Denver," but that does not mean Fort Collins and Boulder would be left out either. It's just a generalization of the corridor. Details will come after studies are further advanced. Preliminary works indicate the Colorado I-25 corridor would not be feasible without including I-70 to Eagle County Airport. They would not meet the feds cost to benefit ratio without I-70, thus any front Range corridor would have to include I-70 in order to receive federal Funds. So yea, this is great news. This means Texas is jumping in with New Mexico and Colorado. El Paso is a huge city, growing rapidly and with a substantial cross border population on top of that. It increases teh population density of teh overall corridor substantially; almost like adding a second Denver to the corridor.

That's quite a stretch of logic.

this coudl be a boost for a different reason - it could give RMA 100% focus on the i-70 portion if it can be assumed that feds will cover i-25 portion. could be a big win if it happens.

You are correct... Personally I did not read anywhere in this that I-70 was NOT included. They simply did not say it was. But as I pointed out, they didn't say a lot about what will and wont be included in the corridor. I don't see how avoiding assumptions about the corridor is a stretch of logic. I am not saying it will be included, but hypothesizing that the studies done will recommend it to be included. The article did not say it would or wouldn't be included.

If I am incorrect, the RMRA will have the added cost benefit of I-25 ridership connections, without having to include it's cost into the I-70 corridor. Thus as bcp suggested, it could drastically improve the cost to benefit ratio for teh I-70 Corridor.

Either way seems like a good situation. This is definitely a good thing.

The Washington DC metro provides live updates.

So does London, I believe Paris does as well.

LTR West Corridor Update!
 

Drove down 6th ave yesterday and there is a lot of work going on for the new light rail line to Golden! Colfax/6th Ave is setting up to start bridge work. Sims/6th Ave looks like a lot going on with the tunnel work. And Barriers all the way down the project that runs along 6th Ave.

By may house (13th and Garrison-ish) not a lot of change yet just some poles removed by Comcast after they moved their stuff underground.

(hope to start taking some pictures soon and will post as I do!)

The I-225 Corridor EE is public and ready for review:

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/i225_1

Thoughts on these numbers for an average weekday in 2035? I have a few, but I'd be interested to see what others say first.

Vehicle Miles Traveled in Metro Denver
No Action = 118,546,833
Build Alternative = 118,481,070
Difference = -65,763 (-0.05%)

Vehicle Hours Traveled in Metro Denver
No Action = 4,072,984
Build Alternative = 4,065,206
Difference = -7,778 (-0.19%)

Vehicle Miles Traveled in Project Area
No Action = 2,591,813
Build Alternative = 2,586,961
Difference = -4,853 (-0.18%)

Vehicle Hours Traveled Project Area
No Action = 118,843
Build Alternative = 118,085
Difference = -758 (-0.64%)

2035 is a long time from now. There is a growing movement of peak-oil theorists that don't believe anyone will be in cars by then. They say the world reached it's peak in July of 2008 and we will steadily decline in production as demand from developing countries goes up. Thoughts on that?

My thoughts on that are - if none of us are in cars, then we'll be back on horses, because RTD (and Fastracks) would be useless in that world. I despise the "2% of all trips" argument against transit... but if you start discussing an imagined future without automobiles, that number actually becomes relevant.

When prices rise, we'll start the serious search for alternatives, plain and simple. We're a wealthy country, we'll manage to keep humming along on expensive gas much longer than most of the rest of the world will.

And why on earth would production go down in response to new demand? Peak oil isn't about global production, it's about the availability of new resource finds... new starts. Sure, that may go down, but global production won't, not for a long while.

It is a misconception that mass transit is supposed to alleviate congestion from highways. It's more to provide those an alternative mode to congested highway travel, especially during peak times. The CDOT is in charge of relieving highway congestion, not RTD. This is why the CDOT is requiring RTD to preserve enough corridor space along I-225 for future highway widening.

That they will be saying that we reached it's peak in July of 2018 a decade from now. Peak Oil has always suffered from having way too many unknown variables that are very difficult to compensate for.

But if that growing movement believes that no one will be in cars by then, that's fine because that rapid of a societal collapse would mean that most of the people in that growing movement, and the populace in general, will not be around to see it.

Transit was never intended to eliminate fossil fuel usage. Here are some thoughts about petroleum usage in 2035:

We may very well have been at peak oil in 2008. Cultural and technological changes can cope with declining oil supplies We can pick up on fuel efficiency to get the same number of driving miles on less oil for quite a few years. Based on some very informal research, average fuel efficiency in 2006 was 22.5 mils per gallon in the U.S.. Toyota Prius gets 45.

We are already theoretically capable of getting twice what we get. In 25 years the only new cars will be hybrids, most of which will have improved systems for re-claiming breaking energy, and many might even have plug-in capabilities to recharge electric systems,and 25 years is also enough time four our entire fleet of cars on the street to be replaced. If oil prices increase we'll all be driving smaller, lighter cars. Say that in 25 years, the average car gets twice the gas mileage of the average car today - I'm going only by what is already feasible through existing technology.

That's a 50 percent reduction in petroleum usage for automobiles.

Secondarily, many, many people will work from home because of the Internet, and who knows what other technology will emerge to keep us from going out so often. Maybe we'll order groceries Online and have them mailed to us (something that seems terrifyingly sad but it could happen.) Again, people will be using less oil without having to get rid of automobiles. Lets say that 15% more people work from home or we take 15% fewer trips because of new technology.

We're down to 42.5 percent of current petroleum usage.

Third, ethanol will creep up in percentage in ordinary fuel you buy at a gas station. We now use 10% ethanol, even though ethanol is currently a waste of resources. If we gain the ability to get ethanol from cellulose, ethanol becomes economically viable without subsidies, and is environmentally friendly. Let's say we're at 30% by 2035 - that's another 20% decrease in needed gasoline.

We're down to 34 percent of current petroleum usage.

Fourth, we can have biofuels to make hydrocarbon-based gasoline from plant products. I don't expect this to be much; lets say that 5% of vehicles run on biodiesel or pure ethanol, mostly government vehicles and a few token privately owned cars.

We're down to 32.3 percent of current petroleum usage.

Then comes transit. Our population will probably be growing, I expect that to swallow up all of what we improve by shifting away from cars as the main way of getting around. Cities will grow a lot with new population, suburbs will stay about the same size, and rural areas will shrink though they were hardly significant to begin with. So lets say that, all told, increased transit usage swallows up all but 5 percent of population growth.

We're back up to 33.915 percent of our current petroleum usage. But that's still a third of what we use now.

Too optimistic? There's a lot of room for error and we'd still be decreasing our dependency on petroleum in line with 2008 being peak oil.

And that's JUST automobiles. By using less paper and going Online for news instead, we cut down on fuel. By recycling more, we cut down on fuel again.

I don't think anybody thinks we'll be completely done with oil in 2035. Nor does anybody think we can use as much oil then as we do now and get by. The answer will be somewhere in the middle, and the more we save now, the longer we will have some left over. Remember that getting off oil is possible, and since oil is a scarce resource, the rate at which we shift off oil will be the rate at which we are forced to do so by oil prices.

We'll never "run out" of oil, it will just become more and more expensive, until its cheaper to use something else altogether and whatever amount is left in the ground will be turned to plastics or left forever.

Finally, this should also please Bunt as I remember him talking about the outrageous costs when this project first went out for bid.

RTD aims to complete four car light rail station with new contract

I can't wait to see four car trains cruising around. They will actually start to look like trains.

Does anyone know why RTD didn't initially require platforms to support 4 cars in the first place? Seems like a wee-bit of oversight that now requires an expensive re-do. :shrug:

^Projected ridership and funding would be my guess.

RTD is only now receiving new cars that would allow it to operate four car trains but I think they eventually planned to do so.

Besides, would it be considered a re-do or a capacity upgrade? All but one of the stations was designed to accomodate four car trains, the platforms were just built with the cheaper option for three-car.

I'd call it an upgrade, and a fairly minor one at that. It's true though, having 4 car trains will actually make them look more like, well, trains! :)

A good thing to do on a limited budget, especially when contractors are hurting so much that they're low-balling everything right now!

Aaron (Glowrock)

McCain’s Transit Hit List: Get the Details

by Elana Schor on September 14, 2009

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a self-styled foe of what he labels wasteful government spending, has launched a broadside against transit projects in the U.S. DOT's 2010 spending bill, which is slated for a vote this week in the upper chamber of Congress.

john_mccain_speech.jpgSen. John McCain (R-AZ) (Photo: Scrape TV)
McCain had proposed more than 20 amendments to the legislation as of Friday -- all but one of them to prohibit fellow lawmakers from earmarking Federal Transit Administration aid for local transit systems.

The GOP's 2008 presidential nominee frequently targets earmarks that span a broad variety of issues, although his efforts rarely succeed in peeling off more than a handful of Democrats. Still, his target list for the 2010 spending bill that funds the DOT and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is notable for its focus on stifling transit.

McCain included one federal highway project on his hit list, one that appeared deliberately chosen from his home state: a $4.25 million earmark for the Hoover Dam bypass bridge, requested by his fellow Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R).

Even if McCain's amendments fall short, as is likely, the U.S. DOT still could be blocked from spending money on clean transportation. Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) seven proposed amendment to the 2010 bill include one that would "prohibit the use of funds for roadkill reduction programs, transportation museums, scenic beautification projects, or bike and pedestrian paths" until the nation's highway trust fund is on a firmer financial footing, according to a report in Friday's CQ.

After the jump, check out a full list of the transit projects that McCain aims to strike this week.

* the ARC transit tunnel connecting New York City and New Jersey
* Utah's Mid-Jordan light rail, Draper light rail, and Weber-to-Salt Lake City commuter rail projects
* the Sound Transit light rail extension in the Seattle area
* the West, East, and Gold rail transit corridors in the Denver area
* Northwest/Southwest light rail and the Houston light rail extension in Texas
* the Dulles Corridor extension of D.C.'s Metro into Virginia
* the Sacramento light rail extension
* Honolulu's proposed rail transit line
* the Miami area's Metrorail Orange Line extension
* Wilshire Boulevard bus-only lanes and the Metro Gold Line extension in L.A.
* the Blue Line extension in Charlotte, N.C.
* the Chicago Transit Authority's Red Line rehabilitation project
* bus rapid transit from Bellevue to Redmond in Washington state
* the Tennessee statewide bus program
* Commuter rail improvements on the Wilmington to Newark route in Delaware
* regional rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit
* Stamford urban transitway in Connecticut

Source

God, I fucking hate Coburn.