SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Mountain West (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   DENVER | Transportation Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=150276)

trubador Apr 22, 2011 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5251698)
More from the Final EE (I am sure somebody is going to tell me these have tripled since this report was put out last May, but this is still what's out there.)

Average weekday rail ridership for the Preferred Alternative in 2035 is projected to be 8,400 riders per day with the FasTracks-only stations and 12,100 with all stations. [Note: lower initially, because they proposed to double opening day headways by 2035, agreement with BNSF and money permitting, of course.]

[...]

System-wide linked transit trips generated by each alternative can provide a comparison of the overall transit ridership impact on the entire system. System-wide linked transit trips forecast for the alternatives on an average weekday for the No Action Alternative are 429,700 linked transit trips, while the Preferred Alternative is expected to have 433,300 to 433,600 linked transit trips (depending on the number of stations provided).

System-wide transit ridership comparisons show that the Preferred Alternatives generates [sic] approximately 4,000 more transit-linked trips than the No Action Alternative. This difference in the number of average weekday transit trips system-wide between the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative equates to the number of trips by new daily transit riders. New transit riders would not normally use transit for their trip
without the transit improvements associated with an alternative.


So we are adding 4,000 transit trips per day in the corridor. Everything else is pulled from existing bus riders, presumably. At the bargain price of $707m. No wonder folks are skeptical.

Interesting also, while adding those 4 extra stations boosts ridership for the line by 3,700 riders, it only increases linked transit trips by 300. Does that mean it's just pulling people off the bus? I am not sure we need to spend $700 million to pull 3,000 or so people off the B bus and onto a train.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/nw_1

I think depending on the time I can see it moving people from the B or BX and possibly the L. traffic can get pretty bad on 36, but the HOV lanes should help quite a bit.

Wizened Variations Apr 23, 2011 1:53 AM

We are not dealing with reality yet....
 
We are not dealing with reality yet.... C'mon people in La La land, we are getting poorer quick. (Turn off MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, NPR, and look outside of our glass bubbles.)

Soon, only the folks working for RTD, involved contractors, local government agencies, and, real estate agencies will want anything built from here on.

An extra 3,700 people. Jeez wizz.

I am beginning to think that we just ought to leave the system as is being built out and forget it.

I hear so much Chamber of Commerce type lingo... WAIT 'til next year when the gas price and increase commodity cost effects kick in. Wait until the year after that when our debt stops us dead in our tracks.

Instead of further funding for Fastracks, more people are going to want soup.

Best transportation investment over the next 10-15 years? Likely Chinese buses.....

And the band played on....

Post script:

With $1,000,000,000 without inflation (LOL)

250,000,000 Express rider occurrences (trip within time frame).

7,000,000 or so monthly passes at $140 a pop

2,000 buses at $500,000 each (cheaper if bought in bulk from China).

1,500 buses and 6,000 drivers- for one year.

SnyderBock Apr 23, 2011 9:16 PM

Would you mind verifying those figures?

SnyderBock Apr 23, 2011 9:47 PM

From Denverurbanism blog:
Quote:

The recently-passed federal budget deal includes $528 million for a new installment of the program, which is expected to be announced formally along with a solicitation for applications some time in early summer. Submissions would most likely be due in late summer, with funding decisions probably coming in winter.

It’s expected that the new program will very closely mirror last year’s $600 million version, including the 80-20 federal-local match requirement and the merit-based project scoring. One expected difference will be that the new program may exclude planning and design projects in order to focus exclusively on construction and implementation. This would mean that the two Colorado projects from last year wouldn't be eligible this time around.

My question is as follows...
RTD is taking the $300+ million in savings from the Eagle P3 contract and applying in chunks of $90 million each towards I-225 LRT, North EMU and NW DMU.

The new TIGER funds will be an 80/20 Federal/Local match. So if RTD applied each of these projects, using the $90 million for each project as the local match, they would be in line to win up to $360 million in Federal funds, per project. Obviously the that's not going to happen.

So my question is, what might RTD apply for? Obviously they have many little projects as part of FasTracks, which can benefit and which RTD already has a local funding portion. If RTD is currently budgeting 100% of the cost for a project in FasTracks, wins TIGER funds for it, it suddenly frees up 80% of that, which RTD can then shift to another project.

One idea, there has been talk of further cuts being made to Union Station, such as the Wewatta Plaza and even the scaled back Kinetic Plaza. How about applying for TIGER funds, to get these features scaled back up where everyone really wanted them to be in the first place?

CastleScott Apr 23, 2011 11:02 PM

Just something on the West Corridor:

Colorado PUC judge listens to solutions for metro Denver light-rail "quiet crossings"
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/23/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
Claudia Folska, left, who is blind,has worked with RTD on an "audible pedestrian warning alternative" for crossing gates that would be loud enough to alert pedestrians but not so loud as to disturb residents of neighboring homes. (John Prieto, The Denver Post)
RTD is constructing quad safety gates at most at-grade crossings on the new West Corridor light-rail line, including the intersection of West 13th Avenue and Estes Street in Lakewood. (John Prieto, The Denver Post)LAKEWOOD — Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge Keith Kirchubel took his courtroom to the intersection of West 13th Avenue and Teller Street this week to listen to the sound of a judicial compromise.

RTD has petitioned the PUC to allow the transit agency to construct "quiet crossings" at 11 intersections along the West Corridor light-rail line.

Much of the $710 million, 12-mile rail line traverses residential areas in Lakewood and Denver, and for years, corridor residents have pushed the Regional Transportation District to take measures to eliminate warning bells on safety gates at intersections and run trains without sounding warning horns at each crossing.

The affected intersections in the corridor are between Knox Court in Denver and Oak Street in Lakewood.

The petition to the PUC calls for RTD to construct warning systems at the intersections that, in lieu of train horns and bells on the gates, rely on quad gates, or dual gates and raised medians, to prevent cars from driving around the gates when the arms are down.

RTD also proposes to retain flashing lights on the gates and use "mast-mounted signage" to help warn drivers of approaching trains.

When the PUC held a hearing in February on RTD's request, members of the blind community opposed the plan to eliminate warning bells.

At that time, Claudia Folska, who is blind and a dual doctoral student in architecture/planning and cognitive science at the University of Colorado, expressed "deep concerns regarding the lack of auditory information or signals at light-rail crossings."

Since then, Folska, neighborhood representatives and others have worked with RTD to come up with an "audible pedestrian warning alternative" for crossing gates that would be loud enough to alert pedestrians, both sighted and blind, but not so loud as to disturb residents living near the intersections.

RTD estimates that its trains will travel through about 294 gate-protected crossings each weekday when the West line opens in two years.

On the current light-rail system, warning bells on safety gates sound at 90 decibels, according to RTD.

The pedestrian-warning alternative calls for a bell volume that will not exceed 5 decibels above each intersection's pre-construction ambient noise level averaged over a 24- hour period.

For the 11 intersections, the average ambient noise level ranges between 51 and 62 decibels.

For comparison, normal conversation occurs at about 60 decibels, while a vacuum cleaner might register at 70 decibels — twice as loud as 60, experts say.

A garbage disposal might record at 80 decibels, twice as loud as 70, and

RTD West Corridor design manager Paul Von Fay adjusts a device at West 13th Avenue and Teller Street in Lakewood to produce a test bell sound that may be used to warn pedestrians about oncoming light-rail trains. (John Prieto, The Denver Post)a motorcycle 25 feet away could produce 90 decibels, they add.

Other provisions of the alternative require:

• A bell signal audible to pedestrians within 20 feet of the crossing gates.

• Signals positioned in a standard location at each intersection and directed in a way "to reduce noise outside the pedestrian path."

• A signal tone that is "a standard bell clearly identifiable as a railroad crossing warning bell."

• Signal volume "set to automatically adjust in real time, and set to sound at 5 decibels above existing ambient noise level."

On Tuesday, technicians set up a variety of devices at 13th and Teller to produce test bell sounds for Kirchubel to consider as he weighs RTD's request for quiet crossings and the compromise lower-decibel signal for pedestrians.

Folska also was present.

The judge took up various positions around the intersection and asked the techs to broadcast the pedestrian signal.

"It works for me; I can hear it," Fol ska said of the test bell, as she stood about 20 feet from where the crossing gates will come down. "We need to have a sound that tells a pedestrian, 'Do not cross.' "

Kirchubel plans to issue his ruling within about three weeks.

Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or jleib@denverpost.com




Read more: Colorado PUC judge listens to solutions for metro Denver light-rail "quiet crossings" - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17...#ixzz1KOFZASwW
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:

Cirrus Apr 24, 2011 5:17 AM

The truth is it's pretty unlikely Colorado will get any TIGER funds this year. They tend to try and distribute them geographically so nobody gets upset, and very few areas got money in both previous rounds. It's sort of Colorado's turn not to get any.

But that doesn't mean nobody should try.

bunt_q Apr 24, 2011 5:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock (Post 5252934)
Would you mind verifying those figures?

Me or Wizened Variations? I think his figures were for dramatic effect. :). I copied/pasted from the EE.

CastleScott Apr 24, 2011 4:03 PM

Some stuff on the East Corridor:

Denver International Airport, RTD weigh cost of additions on train line to terminal
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/24/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

A passenger of a RTD train. (Hyoung Chang | The Denver Post)RTD general manager Phillip Washington has expressed concern that Denver International Airport may miss its construction deadline for the East Corridor commuter train's station at DIA's terminal.

In an 11-page letter last week to DIA manager Kim Day, Washington said, "RTD is increasingly concerned that the schedule for substantial completion of the terminal station by (DIA) required by January 1, 2014, may be in jeopardy."

In an interview Friday, Day said the airport would meet the deadline.

"We are on schedule," she said.

On Wednesday, Day and other airport officials will seek initial Denver City Council approval of a $125 million contract for construction of the DIA rail station and other structures that

( | )will support a planned 500-room hotel to be built above the station.

The contract also includes work that will link the train station with DIA's existing terminal, and extensions of both the airport's baggage-handling system and its unmanned "people mover" that transports passengers from the terminal to the concourses.

In his letter, Washington also addressed other issues surrounding the $1.1 billion airport train project, including factors relating to the cost of adding train stations to the rail line in the Peña Boulevard corridor, and terms governing DIA's bid to "enhance" the rail bridge over Peña with the designs of noted Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava.

Calatrava is leading the design effort for the entire $500 million south terminal redevelopment that includes the train station/hotel complex at the south end of DIA's tented terminal.

RTD's plans call for an elevated structure spanning up to 1,800 feet, yet DIA is proposing the Calatrava design for only the center portion that crosses the highway — a section somewhat less than 500 feet long.

In the past, RTD said it would have $7.6 million to contribute to the bridge construction if DIA took over the task of building the entire span.

But because the airport only is considering construction of the center portion, Washington, in his letter, said "RTD would be prepared to contribute $1.4 million towards the cost of that section."

The reduced contribution is likely to scuttle DIA's effort to enhance the bridge with Calatrava's design.

Day said the decision on whether to go ahead with the bridge improvement will be made sometime this week.

Washington also promised to supply estimates to DIA by Friday on the cost of adding stations in the Peña Boulevard corridor at East 62nd Avenue and Peña, and East 72nd Avenue and Himalaya Road, east of Tower Road.

DIA and private developers who own land near those proposed stations are responsible for paying for the additions, but RTD has upped the ante by saying that the airport and the landowners might be responsible for converting a planned 4.5-mile single-track segment of the airport train line to double track to accommodate the addition of two stations.

Such a track enhancement would likely cost tens of millions of dollars and it is not clear whether DIA and the property owners would foot such a bill.

In his letter, Washington also responded to DIA's inquiry on the feasibility, and possible cost, of tying the East Corridor train with proposed rail service that would serve a future consolidated rental-car facility along the existing East 78th Avenue rental-car row north of Peña Boulevard.

More airports are building consolidated facilities, where all rental car companies are housed in a single location reached typically by bus or train service operated by the airport.

Washington said that for DIA's benefit, RTD and its contractor "have invested a significant amount of time and effort evaluating the feasibility of integrating a short-line (train) service" into the East Corridor project "in lieu of a people mover serving a consolidated rental car facility."

RTD's analysis found that the train station at DIA "would need to have three tracks and two platforms to support a reliable base commuter line" along with rail service to a rental car facility, Washington said.

"RTD would be happy to provide (DIA) with a cost estimate to conduct a formal study and prepare a proposal for the addition" of the rental-car facility service, he added.



Read more: Denver International Airport, RTD weigh cost of additions on train line to terminal - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17...#ixzz1KSOtCE3q
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

CastleScott Apr 24, 2011 4:05 PM

Some TOD tid bits:

Denver light-rail stations to border large multiuse development
High-density development stacked with residences, retail, offices will suit site because that's
By Margaret Jackson
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/24/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT
The Denver Design District on Thursday, April 21, 2011 at S. Broadway and E. Center Ave. that is in the center of a new development project. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post)
D4 Urban chief executive Chris Waggett, left, and development manager Dan Cohen stand next to the Herbert Bayer sculpture "Articulated Wall," which is in the Denver Design District. Cohen is the son of Warren Cohen, a lead investor in the property that D4 Urban plans to develop. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post )Over the next few decades, a high-density development that includes residences, retail and office space will sprout up between two of the region's most prominent light-rail stations.

Under a plan approved in May 2009, the developer of the site, D4 Urban LLC, can build up to 10 million square feet of space on about 75 acres between the Broadway at Interstate 25 and Alameda light-rail stations.

Today, a sea of parking lots separates the retail locations sprawling over the site, which includes three distinct districts: Broadway Marketplace, Denver Design Center and The Collection, the latter two of which are part of the Denver Design District. The buildings total about 900,000 square feet right now.

"It's not consistent with the compact city and modern urban-design principles," said Chris Waggett, chief executive of the newly established D4 Urban, which controls about 60 acres of the area included in the general development plan.

The vision calls for more than 3,000 residences, 350 hotel rooms, 2.6 million square feet of office space, 1.2 million square feet of retail and 200,000 square feet of educational space west of Broadway between Alameda and Ohio avenues, an area roughly the size of Lower Downtown or Cherry Creek North.

Waggett stressed that redevelopment of the site would not begin until market conditions are favorable and financing can be obtained. The team is working on a plan to do the project in phases so existing tenants see as little disruption as possible.

Waggett, former president of Lend Lease, teamed up with the lead investors in the property, Warren Cohen and Jim Frank, to form D4 Urban in February for the purpose of redeveloping the site. Cohen and Frank split their time between Colorado and California.

The location of D4 Urban's site near the Alameda light-rail platform gives them the inside track to develop the 4-acre parking lot serving the station, a project that could start next year.

"We don't want an isolated project on our site that wouldn't relate to what is happening within the marketplace itself," said Bill Sirois, manager of transit-oriented development for the Regional Transportation District, which owns the lot. "Development of our site could be a first step in the evolution of that area."

People in the neighborhoods near the site were involved in the process for both the Alameda Station plan and the general development plan, said Denver City Councilman Chris Nevitt, who represents the district the project is in.

"The plan looks deeply cool," Nevitt said. "Right now, it's just a parking lot with a couple of big-box stores, and the station itself is hidden behind the Kmart."

Several

Click on image to enlarge businesses fronting Broadway, such as Blue Bonnet and Imperial Chinese, are included in the plan, but D4 Urban doesn't control that real estate.

"We've been on Broadway for a long time, and it's great to see some interest and activity that will be taking place," Blue Bonnet owner Gary Mobell said. "This area where we are located is just outside of downtown and very easily accessed from the south side of town. It seems like a natural that this area would have the development taking place."

Broadway Marketplace was developed 17 years ago under a 25-year tax increment financing district set up by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority.

"In that 17 years, people started to recognize the benefits of public transportation, which changes the land usage and how we should develop that land," Waggett said.

But because the property is about 95 percent leased to tenants such as Albertson's, Sam's Club and Kmart, the challenge is how to redevelop the site without disrupting the income flowing to investors. The earliest a lease for an anchor tenant expires is 2018, but some have options that extend to 2069, Waggett said. The designer showrooms in the Denver Design Center and The Collection have shorter leases.

"There's got to be a phasing strategy that retains them in a different format," Waggett said. "We're at the point where we've moved the first pawns on the board. We're doing a ton of planning work, ton of design work and a ton of costing work."

It's likely that multistory buildings would be built for large-format retailers, similar to the recently opened Target at Belmar in Lakewood.

The Denver Design Center, a resource for the region's interior designers, is the lone survivor of what once was a three-way battle among design centers in Denver.

Jo Frank, executive director of Denver Design Center and who also handles leasing for the entire development, said that while development is years away, the plan is exciting.

"It's certainly an important urban project because of the proximity to downtown and access to the two light-rail stations and access to I-25 and the major arterials," Frank said.

Although the development plan was approved two years ago, not much attention was paid to the area. Rather, the focus was on the redevelopment of the old Gates Rubber factory at the Broadway light-rail station.

Gates Corp. took back a portion of the 50-acre former rubber factory south of downtown in 2009 after Cherokee Denver was unable to get financing to continue environmental remediation. The much-touted project, which would have been Denver's largest redevelopment since Stapleton, was expected to cost $1 billion and take up to 15 years to complete. The city had pledged $85 million in public financing toward cleaning up the site and rebuilding it into a residential and retail hub designed around access to public transportation.

While there are no firm plans for the site, a number of developers have been evaluating opportunities.

Also in play is RTD's former bus-barn site at West Alameda and South Santa Fe Drive, now under contract to Alameda Station LLC, which is among the locations Greyhound Lines is considering for its new location.

"We're evaluating a number of different options and trying to respond to the changing market," said Tom Wootten of Alameda Station. "It's nice to see a lot more activity than what we've seen in the last 18 months. We're also looking at retail and apartment uses. We want to make sure we have a development that is viable and sustainable."



Read more: Denver light-rail stations to border large multiuse development - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/c...#ixzz1KSPN7q52
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse


Btw the old Wards warehouse should have been kept inplace and used as a mixed use complex on this site...

Wizened Variations Apr 25, 2011 1:08 AM

Putting aside my role as a devil’s advocate
 
Putting aside my role as a devil’s advocate for a few moments:

1. Fastracks- no matter how mediocre the planning HAD to turn out- must be built out as soon as possible.
2. The timing for putting the needed tax increase enplace is critical. However, when to exercise this timing option is very difficult to determine.

I will make a brief caveat to explain a few aspects of the US economy which are going to affect us, and I apologize for needing to go off topic.

First:

The US has printed a huge amount of virtual money which was initially used to inject liquidity into a frozen financial system (06/07 to about 08/09), and, then continued in a ponzi type scheme via the financial houses to maintain equity value and keep interest rates low.

Second:

This scheme will not continue indefinitely, and, sooner or later, interest rates will HAVE to rise, which will further depress net debt service in all parts of the economy due to cost of money factors. This will coincide with another spike of even higher unemployment than we have experienced yet in the Great Recession.

The only question is how long the politicians can postpone this trigger being activated. IMO the answer is soon after the November 2012 elections at the outside. (2013 is likely to be brutal economically.)

Third:

The inflation that this huge injection of virtual money is causing is reflected in the cost of commodities, the precious metals, and oil. For example, an oil expert friend suspects that the price of oil in 2000 dollars is currently somewhere between $30 and $40, and, the difference in price from what we are seeing today is a mix of inflation and speculation.

Ok back to topic:

RTD and others are faced with the gamble about what the price of retail gas is going to be near term. If the price in current dollars of gas at the pump in November, 2011, is greater than $4.75 or so per gallon, the advertising pitch is simple: “save money now and in the future.” However, if the price of gas stabilizes at $4.00 or lower, and, as the broadly defined unemployment rate* continues to remain very high, the public will not sympathize with the pitch “getting the north side of Denver hooked into the hub and spoke model” with the exception of Boulder (“Boulderites!!” as a euphemism) and possibly Adams counties.

As I do not have a crystal ball, I don’t know which scenario will play out near term. I do believe that the inflationary burst soon will accelerate into double digit inflation, but I can only guess when the inflation curve will rapidly steepen.

(In addition, as I have hinted above, this inflation spike to come will cause the financial cost of the FasTracks build out to be too low, even with the passage of the tax increase. But, this is not the same question, as if the economy truly tanks out, the Feds will have to do massive public works, so the likelihood of additional Federal monies is high down the line.)

So IMO the irony is this: if the tax increase does not pass, the probability of any Federal money covering the spread to finish FasTracks will drop for any future request, while passing the tax increase will vastly increase the odds that the Feds will cover the additional $5-10 billion in future inflation that will be needed to complete the plan (7% true inflation doubles costs every 10 years and 10% true inflation doubles the cost every 7. Use this as a spread).

My vote would be to gamble and put the request on the November 2012 ballot with the Public Works aspect as the central sales pitch.

Regardless, the RTD board has a difficult decision to make. I am glad I do not have to make this decision. Good luck to them.


*reported unemployed on benefits + discouraged who have given up looking for work + now part time workers + those who are working for cash without documentation.

SnyderBock Apr 25, 2011 10:30 AM

After reading Romer Jr's comments, I think RTD might need to consider going for the expiring 0.1% stadium district sales tax this year. To relieve the constrained budget and get more elements under construction. Also to provide the local match on a possible I-225 LRT New Starts and/or North Corridor New Starts Federal grant attempt.

Then try for another 0.2 or 0.3% tax increase in 2012, to accelerate the build out, if people choose they want everything 100% complete before 2035, or possibly to even add another project to the agenda.

SnyderBock Apr 25, 2011 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5253248)
The truth is it's pretty unlikely Colorado will get any TIGER funds this year. They tend to try and distribute them geographically so nobody gets upset, and very few areas got money in both previous rounds. It's sort of Colorado's turn not to get any.

But that doesn't mean nobody should try.

Denver basically got completely passed by in the first round of TIGER funds and only got about 10% of what it requested in the second round of TIGER funds. It wasn't much. Instead of $100 million for the US36 BRT line, they gave it $10 million and suggested they use that to back a loan.

With all of the FasTracks elements currently shovel ready and financially in trouble, Denver should be landing far more of these funds than they have so far.

Cirrus Apr 25, 2011 2:46 PM

Quote:

Denver should be landing far more of these funds than they have so far.
Not really. You're underestimating how competitive these funds are nationally. The fact that RTD didn't get everything it asked for is immaterial. Nobody gets everything they ask for, because the amount of money available doesn't go nearly far enough to cover the need. In round one there was $1.5 billion available nationally and they got over $60 billion in applications. TIGER isn't like New Starts, where as long as you stick with the program and check off all the right boxes you'll probably get your money eventually. TIGER comes with no guarantees.

That being said, when I pull the recipient lists from both previous rounds there are 30 states that received money in both rounds 1 and 2, so Colorado isn't sticking out as much as I thought it was. Some of those 30 states will surely get some in round 3 too.

SnyderBock Apr 25, 2011 9:30 PM

I'm pretty sure Texas got far more than Colorado, and the politics and majority of the voter base here were opposed to the TIGER project from even being in existence. They got $20 million for SH 161 toll road (Denver only got $10 million for US36 BRT), and they got $23 million for developing a downtown Dallas streetcar. A project that's not even locally funded (as most of FasTracks is). There was a lot more than this awarded to Texas, this is only a small percentage. Not to bad for a state that didn't even want the TIGER project in the first place.

Denver actually has a very large amount of projections ready to break ground, currently underfunded and this almost perfectly describes the reason TIGER program was created in the first place. It was created to help mostly funded projects in need of a last little bit of funding, in order to kick-start it and break ground.

I feel not only was the TIGER program perfect to help FasTracks, but that it was more or less completely passed over in favor of less than ideal projects, many of which were farther from groundbreaking.

bunt_q Apr 25, 2011 9:57 PM

I'd rather nab a corridor or two for New Starts funding than get a few peanuts here and there in TIGER funding. That just doesn't strike me as a program designed for big corridor projects. The Feds are paying a lot into Fastracks already. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's too much to ask for Colorado to pony up too, outside of just Fastracks. US 36 seems like a great corridor to bond and get going, if only we were allowed to. What's funny, I think CDOT has been deferring maintenance on US 36 in anticipation of getting a big infusion of cash. I've never seen a road like that, never, anywhere. I drove Highway 93 just to avoid it yesterday (after a massive pothole-induced blowout last time). The ruts in the drive lanes are almost impossible to get out of now, they're probably 6 inches deep where the tires run. I can drive from Broomfield to Superior without touching the steering wheel, and I'm not really exaggerating. :)

And however Texas may have felt about the program politically, they should get more TIGER money than Colorado. They're 5 times our size.

I'd sure hate for DoD to start pulling all its money out of blue states (you, Colorado, didn't support the war in Iraq, so we're taking back Lockheed Martin).

The Dirt Apr 25, 2011 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q (Post 5254961)
The ruts in the drive lanes are almost impossible to get out of now, they're probably 6 inches deep where the tires run. I can drive from Broomfield to Superior without touching the steering wheel, and I'm not really exaggerating. :)

Or if your tires don't line up perfectly then it's constantly pulling you toward the center concrete barrier.

SnyderBock Apr 25, 2011 10:20 PM

Fair enough, that is very true.

Cirrus Apr 25, 2011 10:22 PM

Repaving highways is expensive. It takes a big infusion of cash to do it. CDOT may not have the money.

Cirrus Apr 25, 2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

That just doesn't strike me as a program designed for big corridor projects.
Right. The largest projects TIGER has ever funded were $100 million, and that was when the program was more than 3 times its current size (and even then there were very, very few of those). You might get a streetcar out of TIGER, but not a big regional line. That's what New Starts is for.

bunt_q Apr 25, 2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 5255014)
Repaving highways is expensive. It takes a big infusion of cash to do it. CDOT may not have the money.

There's a difference between repaving and routine maintenance. This is unusually bad. I'm not kidding when I say I think they're holding off spending any money in the corridor now, knowing it'll need wholesale reconstrucion sooner or later (sooner). It's not irrational, it's just not what I would choose to do.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.