HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #621  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2009, 8:11 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
$7 billion, give or take $500 million. That's for FasTracks as proposed now. So somewhere between $6.5 billion and $7.5 billion. Even if it requires PPP's to get it done.

I think if RTD goes before voters for a tax increase, it shouldn't be a small .2 or .3 percent increase just to bailout FasTracks, it should be both a FasTracks bailout and a NexTracks expansion upon the existing plan, simular to what I posted above.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #622  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2009, 8:59 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Hello neighbors to the east! I just wanted to throw something out there and get a little feed back from those of you over in Denver.

I have read a little bit regarding rail service along the 70 corridor and the desire to provide better access to the ski resorts. I would agree that high speed, maglev trains wouldn't be idea for that. However I think that the entire nation is in need of a maglev high speed train network to connect larger cities. I think Colorado and Utah, as well as Colorado and other neighboring states, and Utah and other neighboring states should develop a plan for high speed rail. For instance from Denver someone could take high speed rail West to Salt Lake City, South to Albuquerque, and East to Kansas City. While from SLC there would be service to Vegas, and Boise, and San Francisco. Then Vegas to LA and Phoenix and Phoenix to Albuquerque.

Once in those cities there would be the option to use the local transit, (commuter and light rail) to access additional destinations.

I'm just throwing it out there, but I wonder if it would be feasible if enough states, say those in the Mountain West, ID, UT, CO, AZ, NV, and NW formed a highspeed rail coalition to lobby congress to begin a nationwide network.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #623  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2009, 9:15 PM
Fritzdude Fritzdude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Hello neighbors to the east! I just wanted to throw something out there and get a little feed back from those of you over in Denver.

I have read a little bit regarding rail service along the 70 corridor and the desire to provide better access to the ski resorts. I would agree that high speed, maglev trains wouldn't be idea for that. However I think that the entire nation is in need of a maglev high speed train network to connect larger cities. I think Colorado and Utah, as well as Colorado and other neighboring states, and Utah and other neighboring states should develop a plan for high speed rail. For instance from Denver someone could take high speed rail West to Salt Lake City, South to Albuquerque, and East to Kansas City. While from SLC there would be service to Vegas, and Boise, and San Francisco. Then Vegas to LA and Phoenix and Phoenix to Albuquerque.

Once in those cities there would be the option to use the local transit, (commuter and light rail) to access additional destinations.

I'm just throwing it out there, but I wonder if it would be feasible if enough states, say those in the Mountain West, ID, UT, CO, AZ, NV, and NW formed a highspeed rail coalition to lobby congress to begin a nationwide network.
Honestly, as much as I love trains, I think the distances are too great in the West and the populations too small to support the huge amount of infrastructure that would be required. We're just crossing our fingers to get several more miles of Light Rail and trying to come up with the several billions dollars that it, by itself, would require. There just aren't that many people needing to get to Salt Lake from Denver - for example.

However, I could see the use of high speed rail up and down the eastern seaboard - or even the west coast. Maybe in Florida as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #624  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2009, 10:10 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
I totally disagree with that assessment, because these western states continue to be the fastest growing in the nation, among the highest for tourists destinations and such a high speed system could connect directly to California's high speed system to be built and their massive population.

Furthermore, the distances are not any farther than the distances from say New York to Chicago to Saint Louis. And the projected future populations from Los Angles to Las Vegas to Salt Lake to Denver are comparable to the NY-Chi-Stl line. Not to mention the LA-Vegas-Salt Lake-Denver route would draw many millions more tourists ridership per year than any line between NY-Chi-Stl.

And if the western High speed rail extended from Denver to Kansas City (relatively flat and open space), thus connecting to a Chicago line connected to the entire Eastern Seaboard, then people from out east may start planning their entire vacations around high speed train travel out west, instead of aircraft transportation.

Of course the ramifications of this might be a government subsidized train agency competing with and possibly putting out of business passenger air companies.I'm sure these airline companies will keep lobbyist paid well enough to influence the Senators away from any such plan. Lets hope instead that some kind of integration and cooperation could be formed for a symbiotic relationship.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #625  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2009, 10:37 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
in this instance, i 100% agree with you Snyder...in fact, CO has already started this process by applying to be designated as the 11th and final "high speed corridor" on the federal radar. we wisely applied with i-25 and i-70 being consider ONE travel corridor.

the other variable here is how much of an increase in trips there would be if the prices were decent and the speeds were FAST.

out west we certainly would have less lines than back east, but two or three spine routes would serve us very well (at the detriminet of the airlines...but then we could switch subsidies from air to rail).

i wonder if the routes could also double as light freight / package delivery as well during off hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #626  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2009, 12:31 AM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
$7 billion, give or take $500 million. That's for FasTracks as proposed now. So somewhere between $6.5 billion and $7.5 billion. Even if it requires PPP's to get it done.

I think if RTD goes before voters for a tax increase, it shouldn't be a small .2 or .3 percent increase just to bailout FasTracks, it should be both a FasTracks bailout and a NexTracks expansion upon the existing plan, simular to what I posted above.
Why should the Denver Metro area support a NexTracks proposal that focuses entirely on the city center?

Denver will have to fund an expansion like this on their own. It's just the nature of the metro area political beast.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Jan 23, 2009 at 4:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #627  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2009, 2:43 AM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
I don't know if anybody has seen this yet... http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nw/2008-0923_FasTracks_Public_Presentation.pdf It's a RTD presentation my friend forwarded to me from Dec. It basically spells out the five options from here forward. Looks like the East, Gold, West lines and Union Station are a sure thing no matter what. The rest could face changes.
Thanks for this presentation! I had not seen it before. Good to see the options laid out.

Your link inspired me to search for more. I found a newer version from December. They made some decisions on which options to eliminate, explain how lines are eligible for federal funds and discuss the budget. Bottom line is they were $2 billion in the hole in December:

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/CAC_11_Handout_2.pdf

Some good news. A proposed site change (area in purple . . . Fox North) for the commuter rail maintenance facility could save $100 million because it wouldn't require replacing RTD's bus facility. Only $1.9 billion to go.



http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/mf_12

Last edited by Octavian; Jan 23, 2009 at 3:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #628  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2009, 8:20 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,614
Lightbulb

Costs for High Speed Rail vary by speed.

If you're planning on using the existing Freight Railroad Corridors owned by UP or BNSF, don't expect them to upgrade their mainline tracks over Class 5 standards without 100% government subsidies.

FRA Track Class Standards:

Class 1: 10 mph for freight, 15 mph for passenger. Much yard, branch line, short line, and industrial spur trackage falls into category.

Class 2: 25 mph for freight, 30 mph for passenger. Branch lines, secondary main lines, many regional railroads, and some tourist operations frequently fall into this class. Examples are Burlington Northern Santa Fe's branch from Sioux Falls to Madison, S. Dak.; Napa Valley Wine Train's 18-mile ex-SP line between Napa and St. Helena, Calif.; and the entire Strasburg Rail Road, 4 and-a-half miles between Strasburg and Leaman Place, Pa.

Class 3: 40 mph for freight, 60 mph for passenger. This commonly includes regional railroads and Class 1 secondary main lines. Examples are BNSF between Spokane and Kettle Falls, Wash.; and Canadian National's Wisconsin Central line between Neenah, Wis., and Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.

Class 4: 60 mph for freight, 80 mph for passenger. This is the dominant class for main-line track used in passenger and long-haul freight service. Examples are most of the suburban trackage of Chicago's Metra commuter railroad, including its own Rock Island District west of Blue Island and Milwaukee District West Line west of Bensenville (also a Soo Line freight route); plus BNSF west of Cicero Yard and Union Pacific (former C&NW) west of Proviso Yard; New England Central's entire main line between New London, Conn., and East Alburgh, Vt.; and the Arizona & California (ex-Santa Fe) between Matthie, Ariz., and Cadiz, Calif.

Class 5: 80 mph for freight, 90 mph for passenger. This is the standard for most high-speed track in the U.S. Examples are UP's main line between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and North Platte, Nebr.; and BNSF between Fullerton and San Diego, Calif., used mostly by Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner trains to San Diego.

Class 6: 110 mph for freight, 110 mph for passenger. This is found in the U.S. exclusively on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston.

Class 7: Amtrak has also received special "Class 7" status for 125 mph operation and (with the launch of high-speed Acela Express trains)

Class 8: Amtrak has also received special "Class 8" status for 150 mph on short specific segments of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.

Class 9: No tracks in America have ever been maintained to this standard.

Excepted track. In addition to the nine numbered classes, FRA track standards also provide for something called "excepted" track, which carries a 10 mph speed limit for freight but cannot be used by revenue passenger trains. FRA permits excepted track under very narrowly defined conditions.

Why the private railroad corporations will not maintain tracks above Class 5? Note: Most mainline tracks are maintained at Class 4 or less, with just a few miles maintained at Class 5.

First, we need to distinguish between the signal rules, which were implemented under the auspices of the ICC in the early 1950's, and the FRA track classes, which were instituted in the early 1970's. The signal rules are what really put a damper on high speed passenger running on many railroads, after several bad collisions in the 1940's. These rules basically state that any passenger train operating 80 mph or more (Class 4) needed to have something more than just wayside signals to control the train, such as automatic train stop, cab signals, etc. Several railroads already had some sort of system in place, and some upgraded core routes, but most simply imposed a 79 mph speed limit. The same set of rules also said passenger trains operating at 60 mph or more (Class 3) needed some sort of wayside signaling, thus trains were and are limited to 59 mph when operating in dark territory or against the current of traffic in signaled territory (limit is 49 mph for freights).

Frequency of track inspection depends on another FRA rule that categorizes track as either "main track" or "other than main track." Main track must be inspected twice weekly, with a minimum of one calendar day interval between each inspection. This standard applies to main track in all classes, 1 through 8. Class 9 mainline tracks require inspections three times each week, with a minimum of one calendar day interval between each inspection. Other than main track must be inspected monthly, with at least 20 calendar days between each inspection, again regardless of class. Excepted track have to be inspected monthly.

Adding signal systems to not so busy lines isn't going to happen, limiting passenger train speeds to 59 mph. Adding auto-control-stop systems doesn't exist anywhere besides Amtrak's Northeast Corridor today, limits passenger train speeds to 79 mph; although Congress passed an Act last year requiring them on all mainline tracks in America by 2015.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #629  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2009, 3:14 AM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Freight Railroad companies show little to no interest in diversifying into passenger rail service. Sure, they go into agreements to allow other entities to operate passenger rail on their lines, but they get paid money which helps them maintain those lines--so it's all about the money.

While their are many routes where simply upgrading existing freight rail woudl be ok, ultimately what it will take is teh relocation of freight rail operations to new tracks around heavily populated areas and then a complete overhaul of those inner-city lines and conversion to high speed passenger service.

This is fine for shorter regional service, say for example; Pueblo to Denver. For connecting longer bigger cities at farther distances via high speed rail is where there is a need for new lines being built from scratch. They may utilize railroad and highway ROW, simply to avoid taking land where ever possible and keep costs down, but they will not use existing rail. They will have to be built from the blueprints up, specifically to be high speed rail, just as they do in Europe. These trains will have to be able to travel at speeds of at least 150mph and preferably in excess of 200mph.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #630  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2009, 7:00 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
I am an optimist on intercity passenger rail traffic out West, and I agree with SnyderBock. IMO there are two sets of factors: 1st) the true cost of energy involving construction and maintenance of the road grid as well as other indirect costs, and 2nd) the availability of money. If the West is to continue to have a growing population and the average wealth drops per person then passenger rail transportation over existing right of ways makes economic sense. Growth can occur near intermediate stops between urban cores. For example, the UP link (a portion of which is mothballed by UP) between Phoenix and Palm Springs, California could, if connected by class 5 or 6 trains (thanks electricron) could develop a new denser urban pattern along it's route (with good air conditioning..). This creation of new TODs IMO would have a lower total cost than, say, increasing rail transit density within greater LA and adding dense TODs there. The West has many such locations. In Colorado, such growth could easily occur off of the right of way between Colorado Springs and Trinidad (this assumes the bulk rail freight traffic has been shunted east of the Front Range Corridor which could be done for less than RTD's planned connection between Union Station and DIA). Likewise, if the net cost of energy drops in terms of our spending power, and, the electric grid is developed to support an electric motor vehicle network, then, yes, high speed rail corridors are less likely to be viable out west, outside of California and a few corridors such as between Phoenix and Tuscon, and Portland and Seattle.

The issue boils down to our nation's future wealth: if we are to become poorer, defined both in terms of our ability to buy Chinese imports and the cost of resources over the next 20 years, then government at all levels will become more involved in transporting us. I suspect that a more European model where private and public money are both used in transportation will evolve, and, if so, an intercity grid covering much of the US makes long term sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #631  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 6:16 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,614
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
This is fine for shorter regional service, say for example; Pueblo to Denver. For connecting longer bigger cities at farther distances via high speed rail is where there is a need for new lines being built from scratch. They may utilize railroad and highway ROW, simply to avoid taking land where ever possible and keep costs down, but they will not use existing rail. They will have to be built from the blueprints up, specifically to be high speed rail, just as they do in Europe. These trains will have to be able to travel at speeds of at least 150mph and preferably in excess of 200mph.
Before you put ideas onto paper, your ideas look great.
But once you start to put them onto paper, your ideas look terrible, for several reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

(1) HSR is best suited for journeys of 2 - 3 hours (150-600 km or about 100-400 miles), for which the train can beat both air and car in this range. Building brand new long distance HSR routes significantly longer than 400 miles will not be an attractive choice.

Per Google Maps, Denver to Kansas City is a distance of 601 miles. It's 1002 miles between Denver and Chicago. It's 528 miles between Kansas City and Chicago. It's 382 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The planned California HSR project is barely within the 400 mile distance limit that makes HSR attractive to most business travelers. When considering building new 150+ mph HSR routes, one has to look whether it can be competitive.

(2) Most HSR lines avoid greater than 2% grades, using tunnels and high viaducts. Weaving rail lines through mountain ranges slows any train down significantly. Most Interstate Highways can have maximum grades up to 6%. That's three times what you'll want to use for HSR lines, therefore one can not follow Interstate Highways exclusively. Take the most recent example doing this, the New Mexico Railrunner extension into Santa Fe. This commuter line passenger rail uses the center of I 25 approximately 10 miles, but once it has to climb a higher grade, it leaves the I 25 ROW. I'm sure using Interstates through Kansas and Iowa prairies will be possible, but not in Colorado and Utah.

(3) Ranches and farmers are very protective of their lands, most will not like to see new HSR corridors splitting their lands.
In Texas, these same land owners killed TXDOT's planned Trans Texas Corridors. TXDOT is restarting all over again on planning and building future rail and highway projects.

I'm not against brand new HSR corridors, as long as the distances remain less than 400 miles. But the idea of linking two 400 miles HSR sections into one 800 mile distance HSR train route is very wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #632  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 11:23 AM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Before you put ideas onto paper, your ideas look great.
But once you start to put them onto paper, your ideas look terrible, for several reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

(1) HSR is best suited for journeys of 2 - 3 hours (150-600 km or about 100-400 miles), for which the train can beat both air and car in this range. Building brand new long distance HSR routes significantly longer than 400 miles will not be an attractive choice.

Per Google Maps, Denver to Kansas City is a distance of 601 miles. It's 1002 miles between Denver and Chicago. It's 528 miles between Kansas City and Chicago. It's 382 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The planned California HSR project is barely within the 400 mile distance limit that makes HSR attractive to most business travelers. When considering building new 150+ mph HSR routes, one has to look whether it can be competitive.

(2) Most HSR lines avoid greater than 2% grades, using tunnels and high viaducts. Weaving rail lines through mountain ranges slows any train down significantly. Most Interstate Highways can have maximum grades up to 6%. That's three times what you'll want to use for HSR lines, therefore one can not follow Interstate Highways exclusively. Take the most recent example doing this, the New Mexico Railrunner extension into Santa Fe. This commuter line passenger rail uses the center of I 25 approximately 10 miles, but once it has to climb a higher grade, it leaves the I 25 ROW. I'm sure using Interstates through Kansas and Iowa prairies will be possible, but not in Colorado and Utah.

(3) Ranches and farmers are very protective of their lands, most will not like to see new HSR corridors splitting their lands.
In Texas, these same land owners killed TXDOT's planned Trans Texas Corridors. TXDOT is restarting all over again on planning and building future rail and highway projects.

I'm not against brand new HSR corridors, as long as the distances remain less than 400 miles. But the idea of linking two 400 miles HSR sections into one 800 mile distance HSR train route is very wrong.
I agree.

Here's another suggestion. Kick Amtrak out of Denver Union Station. They're asking for extra long platforms, special refueling capabilities, they take up space, and in the future, they will complicate the operation of the East Line. All for 200,000 people a year served on 2 daily trains. The East Corridor will serve that many in a week. Who takes the train from Denver to either San Francisco or Chicago? They can get me to Chicago in 19 hours for the same price as a 2 hour flight.

DIA serves 50 million a year. To give you an idea of how much that is, that's twice as many as Amtrak served nationwide. If they left Denver, no one would notice. Keeping them here is a waste of space. I'm all about trains, but we would do better to save ourselves some money by not having to accommodate them, and take their space for regional rail to the mountains and up the front range, distances over which rail is competitive. Our Senators have it within their power to pull the plug. If Amtrak still wants to serve Denver, I suggest we just let them chug on through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #633  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 12:37 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
My mother is taking the train from Denver to Chicago this weekend. So somebody does it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #634  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 9:57 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Sure, when you keep looking at 150mph as high speed trains, less than 400 mile distances make since. But you fail to consider 21st century solutions to high speed rail. High speed rail built from scratch, as I suggest would not have 150mph speed limits, it would travel at a bare minimum of 250mph and very possibly in excess of 350mph. Maglev technology may top 400mph by the time this is ever built, maybe even approaching 500mph.

There are no distances on this continent which would be too long.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #635  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 10:10 PM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
A Transportation Enterprise

Denver mass transportation isn't just a public service; it's a business.

Posted: July 8th, 2008 05:26 PM EDT


I walked into Cal Marsella's office and barely had time to turn on my tape recorder before he began talking about his agency. It's not that he isn't willing to talk about himself, he just has so much energy and enthusiasm about the Denver Regional Transporation District (RTD) and its FasTracks program that he just can't wait to tell you about it.
FasTracks is RTD's 12-year plan that will add to the system 119 miles of commuter and light rail, 18 miles of BRT and a whopping 21,000 new parking spaces at rail stations along the new lines. Marsella breaks down the plan easily into its constituent parts, but the ones he's most excited about are those currently underway.
Denver's Dinosaur
RTD first explored the light rail realm with a small, five-mile section bisecting the downtown, then it opened up an 8.7 mile southwest corridor in 2000 and ridership went through the roof.
"We projected 8,400 riders a day," says Marsella, "We opened with over 12,000 and now we're up to about 18,000 on this line. We started with 14 vehicles and we had to order 12 more within four weeks of opening because we just got blown away."
Denver followed up this stunning success with its southeast corridor, better known by its name T-Rex (short for Transportation Expansion Project), which is on pace to open Nov. 17 this year, on time and on budget.
Originally the plan just called for a light rail investment, but a gubernatorial change created a desire to see expansion of the highways as well and soon a deal was struck between RTD and the Colorado DOT. Now this $1.7 billion project includes additional lanes on the highway, rebuilt bridges, utilities and drainage — oh yeah, and that little matter of 19.5 miles of light rail.
"The partnership was extraordinary," says Marsella. "We originally projected a startup date of 2008, but the bid came in 22 months earlier than we anticipated.
"And now we're beating that by a month. We're very pleased."
With public support fully behind it, RTD plans to expand the stations on the southeast corridor from three- to four-car stations and immediately exercised an option doubling its initial 34-car fleet.
However, the devil is in the details they say, and for T-Rex those details were a matter of parking.
"What people want, the product they love, is park-n-ride. They want to drive to the station and take the train. So we've really made extraordinary parking provisions for way over what the model would indicate because our experience says that we are underestimating parking demand."
RTD boasts parking facilities holding more than 2,000 cars, which belies the image of Denver being a town full of vehicles. So why is there such a demand for park-n-ride? Marsella thinks it's all about the details as well.
"It's the same everywhere, but the difference is that if you build a better mousetrap they are going to use it. This is a better mousetrap.
"It's a matter of adapting your product to what the public wants."
The next line will be light rail along the west corridor, followed by commuter rail from downtown to Denver International Airport and more commuter rail along a north metro corridor with more light rail going out to surrounding communities like Golden.
"We are capitalizing on the existing rail infrastructure and what we're doing is not using that track…we're building right next to it," says Marsella.
"Typically the railroads have enough right of way, we can buy our 40 feet or so that we need and build it right next to them. So we're not tearing up highways, we're not tearing up neighborhoods."
So how does all of this track come together in downtown? Marsella has a plan for that as well.
Travel by Train
Purchased four years ago, Denver's Union Station is something to see with its sign proclaiming "Travel by Train" for all to see. It is as beautiful inside as out with much of the original architecture still intact, plus Marsella gave me a tour of the facility and said RTD was working on replacing the light fixtures with copies of the original facility's fixtures.
"That was a risky investment," says Marsella. "It was in private hands and there were rumblings in the community that it was going to be developed into a downtown shopping center."
Marsella's worry came from a discussion with the mayor of Salt Lake City. Faced with much the same choice as RTD, but it didn't get the centralized station. Now the original building still stands, but all the tracks have been removed and replaced with a shopping center, completely nullifying its effectiveness as a transit locale.
Marsella went to the RTD board and convinced them to put up the $50 million to purchase the station and 19.5 acres surrounding it. Marsella would take shots from board members and public alike for purchasing what was considered a white elephant, but with the passing of the FasTracks measure to make RTD a regional rail system all that changed.
"The vision was that we needed someplace for everything to come together and there's no better place than that location," points out Marsella.
"So we went out on a limb and we bought it. Now everyone says, well, of course you should own that, it's the center piece of the system. But it was not that way when we bought it. That gets lost through history."
Marsella says the agency is now working on a master plan where all modes of mass transit will come together at Union Station, connecting the agency's mall shuttle, petty cabs, bus lines, light rail and commuter rail lines. Amtrak still has service to Union Station and Greyhound is looking at relocating to that site.
"It will be the western hub of the Midwestern United States right there at Union Station. It was a risky move by the board to go ahead and buy it, but we did it and boy did that pay dividends for us in the long run," says Marsella.
Free Transit
No matter where you go or what system you ride, there are always passengers who complain about ticket prices. Not so when it comes to Denver's Mall Shuttle service — it's free. And if Union Station is the transit agency's hub, this is the city's.
Cal Marsella has a picture hanging in his office with a throng of people all hovering around a couple of buses. You would think someone the likes of the Beatles were playing on those buses from the crowd size. It is actually a photo taken in October of 1982 on the opening day of Mall Shuttle service.
Receiving a grant from the FTA to create a pedestrian bus only mall, RTD built these CNG/Electric hybrid buses with fiberglass bodies from the ground up in Denver. And that's not all.
"The really neat part is we've built the entire transit system around that investment," says Marsella. "So the rail system, Denver Union Station and all of our bus operations all integrate perfectly with the Mall Shuttle. So it's really coalesced as a well-coordinated system."
The shuttle has been an immediate and thriving success with an average daily ridership of between 65,000 to 70,000 people. These ultra-low emission buses have become an integral part of the downtown area, says Marsella.
"It's become so inculcated into the fabric of downtown it's just as natural as taking an elevator in your building. We run every 70 seconds during the peak periods."
Did I mention that the shuttles running along this little over a mile-long run are free? Marsella knows that, but he also knows they are worth every penny not spent in the farebox.
"A lot of times when you model ridership you pay a transfer penalty. Here you don't pay a transfer penalty because it's not perceived as a transfer. [The Mall Shuttle buses] are so regular you'll see people pouring out of their bus at the Market Street station [one end of the shuttle run] and there is a Mall Shuttle taking off, and they just walk — they know there is another one on the way."
A Little History
Giving me a brief chance to ask about him instead of his system, Marsella was as open about his past as he was about his agency. Starting out as an intern for the state DOT while a student at the University of Connecticut, Marsella saw his internship blossom first into a summer job and soon into a growing love for a new industry.
"It was an emerging area, there were not a lot of people running to it, but I liked it," Marsella says, "And as fate would have it, they liked me. So they asked me to stay on part time while I went to grad school."
Marsella would stay on with the Connecticut DOT while he finished his graduate degree, until transit came calling.
"I got a call from the city of Hartford. The city called and I had done some work with them. They said hey we have an opening here. We are building and expanding our transit program and would [I] be interested in coming over and managing it."
Marsella would work for the Hartford transit agency for the next three years until transit came calling again. Marsella oversaw the 15-bus operation for elderly and handicapped with a reverse commute program taking people from the inner city out to suburban job opportunities.
In this time he had established a relationship with UMPTA (now the FTA), which kept sending people to this agency to view it, which Marsella found amusing.
"Being new I didn't really know what I was doing except running my program every day."
One of the groups sent by UMPTA to visit his agency was from the Dade County Florida transit agency. Having seen his system in action, they called up a week later and offered him the chance to do the same thing in a much larger area with a quickly growing transportation program.
Marsella would take that position and head up the Dade agency for the next 12 years.
"I basically managed their contracted services operation, fixed-route schedule and door-to-door for the disabled. A very sizable operation — $35 to $40 million a year — back when that was real money."
Leaving Dade in 1992, Marsella became a co-partner in a transit operation in Fort Meyers, Fla., of which he was a 25 percent owner. Doing that and consulting full time kept his hands full until he got a call from a search firm.
"[They said] there was an opening in Denver. They needed somebody who was entrepreneurial, who understands contracts, they have this contracting mandate and they would like to talk to you.
"One thing led to another, I interviewed and ended up coming here in 1995 and I have been here ever since."
Settling into Denver's Regional Transportation District over the next 11 years, Marsella put his stamp on the agency with his own style of transit agency management — a style predicated on running the agency like a business.
A Transportation Enterprise
Cal Marsella has plenty of reasons why RTD has become such a success, but the one he likes to point to the most is that he runs RTD like any other businessman would run his own company.
"This is not a social program," says Marsella, "This is a transportation enterprise and we operate it accordingly. And I think that builds a lot of support when you go to the ballot box."
Marsella points out that all of their building projects are on time and on budget and that the recent strike might have slowed down the system, but it didn't stop it. Denver's RTD has differentiated itself from other transit agencies through having the largest private fleet (48 percent) of any major system in the country. Marsella attributes that to a lot of their success.
"If you look at our costs per hour and compare it to the other transit properties, we're very low because we've been able to get cheaper costs through the contractors, but also because we contain our internal costs. So I do think that we distinguish ourselves by having the best business model of most transit properties around the country," says Marsella.
The business model he talks about is one wherein a private sector presence has been injected into the delivery marketplace. Marsella has been asked by other transit agencies how he accomplishes this, but he points out that it is their own failings and not a unique vision on his part that stymies them.
"They are having a hard time because they are so one-dimensional in their thinking and their experience. They can't really envision a multiple provider marketplace. But, personally, I think it's imperative that the whole industry moves in that direction. Because if it were my business, I would never want to be hostage to a one-dimensional system."
And Marsella notes that one need only look at major U.S. manufacturers like General Motors to see how this one-dimensional thinking has created a structure doomed to fail. In these megalithic companies thousands of lay-offs have become necessary to survive bearing the weight of contracts, pensions and health insurance plans that have become so massive they threaten to break the company's back.
"I look at places like Cleveland," says Marsella, "They recently laid off 300 people and they are cutting service because costs are continuing to increase on an uninterrupted rate and the only way you can continue to do that with a static revenue stream is to cut the product that you provide and that is just a bad model."
Other than a service reduction of unproductive routes in 2001, Marsella says that RTD has seen its costs increase at a much slower rate without any decline in service. In fact, in his 11 years at its helm, the agency has never laid off a single individual.
Privatization
Colorado instituted a mandate, which required RTD to contract out 20 percent of its fleet in 1992. With a good experience with this privatization of its fleet and an overall reduction in costs, RTD soon increased the amount of its contracted fleet to 30 percent and then to 35 percent with a subsequent state requirement. Now that requirement is 50 percent and RTD CEO Cal Marsella wouldn't have it any other way.
"I've always advocated for a diversified delivery system and we do it now to the tune of 50 percent," says Marsella.
According to numbers attained from RTD, the costs for the privatized portion of its fleet are $63.55 an hour while the unionized fleet costs are $85 an hour. And Marsella states that this $22 an hour savings is also without fuel tax, property tax, sales tax and vehicle registration fees, all of which the private companies pay for.
"We've been able to make tremendous strides in being able to make our contracts more business like. And we've been able to extract great cost savings because we have a private sector counterpart," says Marsella.
RTD has three fixed-route contractors — First Transit, Laidlaw and MV Transportation — and five paratransit contractors. Marsella says that having these other options for its service minimizes risks because if any one fails the others can back it up.
After the strike, which totally shutdown RTD's light rail service, Marsella said there was a great call to privatize at least 50 percent of that fleet as well.
"We're actually working on a plan to [privatize our light rail service]. Right now it is all internally operated. But when the union struck it was a good thing in a way because my board said we never want to be in a position where we are hostage to anyone. So they asked me to put together options for contracting a percentage of our rail service," says Marsella.
One of RTD's and Marsella's biggest hot buttons right now is the privatization of the rail fleet. He points to it as an example of a one-dimensional delivery system he intends to change as more and more of the system's rail lines open. As more and more people migrate to the rail stations, it will have a much larger impact on the system.
"You never want to put yourself strategically into a position where somebody can put a gun to your head and close you down," Marsella notes.
STRIKE!
As I prepped for this story the rumblings of labor unrest did begin to foment around RTD. Having seen what had happened with the New York MTA, I wasn't uncertain as to what would happen in Denver. And then it happened, two weeks before I was set to travel to meet Cal Marsella and tour RTD the union went on strike. But almost as soon as it had started, the strike was over.
It took Marsella and his team only a week to get a new contract signed and the union members back to work, but that isn't what he is most proud of. For Marsella, his crowning achievement during the strike was that the system never stopped running.
"Frankly, the strike was not real devastating to the region," Marsella notes. His team at RTD had a plan of action in place in case the union chose to strike and it moved swiftly to put the plan into place as soon as the workers walked.
"[The union] struck at 2 a.m. on a Sunday and we had the whole plan running like a top on Monday morning. That is a credit to the really good staff people here. We did a lot of homework," says Marsella.
That homework included designating which routes absolutely had to be maintained, preparing and posting alternate schedules and training its people on what they would be called on to do in case of the strike. Most importantly, Marsella notes that RTD successfully educated the public on what changes would be taking place due to the strike.
RTD's rubber tire service is 50 percent contracted out and this helped keep 43 percent of the fixed routes up and operating during the strike. Three of those contractors who stepped up to the plate in RTD's time of need were MV Transportation, Laidlaw and First Transit.
"The FlatIron Mall, located in Broomfield, has more than 150 employees that use RTD regional buses daily to commute to and from work. When the strike occurred, many of these employees were left without transportation. RTD and mall personnel requested that MV assist by operating modified RTD routes to provide basic commuter service for these employees. While this service met some basic needs for the passengers, we were pleased to see the labor situation resolved to get the regular drivers and service back on the road," says Keith Whalen, MV Transportation's executive vice president.
"RTD asked the private contractors to redeploy service to meet transit dependent ridership needs during the strike. RTD contracts 45 percent of its bus service and First Transit operates 40 percent of that amount of service. We were happy to help maintain service to the general public, but in particular to the transit dependent who needed bus service the most," says Nick Promponas, senior vice president, general manager, West Region First Transit.
Doug Gies, Laidlaw's area general manager, agrees, "We really appreciate our long-standing partnership with RTD and we work very hard to satisfy RTD employee and passenger needs. A high level of communication and trust has been established between RTD and Laidlaw and has allowed us to really tackle anything that comes our way."
Marsella admits that you never want to see a strike. They are disruptive to both the agency and the region it serves, but he also notes that it's part of the price you pay for running your agency like a business as he has done with RTD.
"There are times when the union would say we have to make a stand, well there are times when management has to make a stand — and we've done that," Marsella says.
A Superior Product
Transit finds itself at a crossroads in the modern era. With gas prices skyrocketing people are seeing transit as a viable alternative, but agencies are faced with those same gas prices themselves as well as trying desperately to gain federal funding, all the while maintaining their fleets and putting out not just a viable, but also an attractive product.
Marsella told me that he was approached at a marketing conference and told flat out that the problem with transit was that it is an inferior product. Transit asks its ridership to give up the ease and availability of their personal vehicles for a system that makes them face the elements, a longer travel time and the hassle of multiple connections.
Marsella says that what he is building with RTD's growing system isn't just a great agency — it's a desirable alternative.
"Many people take their cars from their home to their local station, but for the most congested part of your trip we're taking you on an absolute certain travel time," Marsella says.
"What would take you 45 minutes by car and the parking cost downtown is now going to be a 28- to 30-minute trip by train all day, every day.
"We need to start thinking in terms of repositioning the product we provide in the marketplace so that it is a superior alternative," he notes.
"It's very hard to sell a service that doesn't work as an alternative.
"We are actually able to increase the level of service significantly with every rail investment we make."
So when it's all said and done, what is the secret to the success of Denver's growing transit system?
Marsella points to the system map on his office wall showing the various FasTracks expansions and overall RTD growth plan and says, "We have a superior product — and people are beating a path to our door."





Last edited by Octavian; Jan 25, 2009 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #636  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2009, 10:51 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
Sure, when you keep looking at 150mph as high speed trains, less than 400 mile distances make since. But you fail to consider 21st century solutions to high speed rail. High speed rail built from scratch, as I suggest would not have 150mph speed limits, it would travel at a bare minimum of 250mph and very possibly in excess of 350mph. Maglev technology may top 400mph by the time this is ever built, maybe even approaching 500mph.

There are no distances on this continent which would be too long.
Except an airliner is still faster and if the ATC system is updated you would cut even more time off of air transit.

How about focusing on the regional corridors first?
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #637  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2009, 5:47 AM
BroncosCountry BroncosCountry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 42
I agree we should focus on the regional corridors first. But when we can get HSR to average 250 mph to Chicago, rail becomes more viable. The flight takes 2.5 hours plus getting there about 2 hours early to get through security, making it about 4.5 hours not including delays. Chicago by HSR at 250 mph would take 4.5 hours every time RELIABLY. Let's say the ticket is double what California's bullet train from SF to LA is supposed to be. Would you rather pay $100 for reliable train service or $550 for a plane that could be delayed by winter storms?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #638  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2009, 12:56 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
regional is good, but the problem becomes mode / technology...let's hope that systems are compatible so that over time we can end up with a regional network. it dosnt' HAVE to..but it sure would be nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #639  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2009, 1:42 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncosCountry View Post
I agree we should focus on the regional corridors first. But when we can get HSR to average 250 mph to Chicago, rail becomes more viable. The flight takes 2.5 hours plus getting there about 2 hours early to get through security, making it about 4.5 hours not including delays. Chicago by HSR at 250 mph would take 4.5 hours every time RELIABLY. Let's say the ticket is double what California's bullet train from SF to LA is supposed to be. Would you rather pay $100 for reliable train service or $550 for a plane that could be delayed by winter storms?
Depends, but what I'm pointing out that a lot of the inefficiencies in the air traffic network are due to outmoded transportation models and antique technology. If you modernize the system, which is being slowly done, you'll see a lot of the delays get clear up.

Of course, if you shit a portion of the trips over to regional rail that will also help.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #640  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2009, 1:46 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
That's what I'm thinking...
It would be nice for Colorado to build it's High Speed Rail corridors on I-70 and possibly I-25, using technology which will be compatible with a future national high speed rail system which won't be built for 35-50 years, at current pace. If all the regional high speed routes are built with the best technology now, it might become viable, much sooner than the 35-50 year estimate, to begin connecting the gaps together.

Air travel will still require getting to the airport early, passing security screening and weather delays and will continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

250mph transcontinental high speed rail promises to make long haul travel more convenient, more dependable, less polluting and more affordable for average income Americans whom can't afford a $500 airline ticket but a few rare times in their entire life.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.