DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

At some point you have to suck it up and pull the trigger, whatever the price at that moment... futures aren't always going to be an advantage.

[SnyderBock]

You guys don't get my point. Speculative buying of commodities in hedge funds and futures is the only thing which caused these historic highs in prices. The data is in, as these prices rose, demand was already in decline and production was increasing. That should have meant lower prices, yet they climbed to historical highs. The only market force which was driving prices up, was coming from investment firms pushing commodity hedge funds and investments in futures.

What you are suggesting RTD should have done to avoid this problem, is actually the cause of the whole problem. Just leave the damn markets alone already. If it could actually be proven they were doing this on purpose (which they knew good an well if they pushed it hard enough, it would drive up prices and that's what they did, was push it hard), well that is actually illegal according to US federal law.

As I mentioned, these investment firms and banks doing this, were the very institutions behind the mortgage crises and the main beneficiaries of hundreds of billions of tax payers dollars--to be used with little oversight.

Do you guys see the implications of this? I did not make this up. Obviously these companies are operating with little regulation and paying lobbyist to keep them cosher with the Senators in Washington.

[wong21fr]

^So? It's not like you uncovered some dark conspiracy.

[enjo13]

If it could actually be proven they were doing this on purpose (which they knew good an well if they pushed it hard enough, it would drive up prices and that's what they did, was push it hard), well that is actually illegal according to US federal law.

I think your right about the cause (the data is pretty clear at this point), unfortunately it was all most likely quite legal. There a few different laws in play here, but they all have a component of conspiracy to them. Meaning that everyone involved had to be implicitly cooperative. That wasn't really the case. These commodities did move up sharply on higher demand, and the investment firms simply rode it higher. It was a pretty obvious investment to make, China and Brazil have been building at an incredible clip after all.

A lot of these firms lost quite big on the whole deal as they didn't take their profits quickly enough. When the general market crashed the speculative money was pulled out (at HUGE discounts) which left a lot of funds holding the bag.

[Octavian]

I was looking at this company's website. Looks like a pipe dream, but one of their proposed projects is a maglev from DIA to Vail (although they don't mention it on the site). They have some renderings of what looks to be DIA though they don't name the site. Not a real proposal, but interesting for curiosity's sake.

http://american-maglev.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=88

[SnyderBock]

I agree with you enjo, I don't actually think it was a cooperative effort of dozens of investment firm CEO's and Senators, as some huge conspiracy to make money. I don't believe the conspiracy theory. But it does make me wonder about the level of regulation in place. It makes it obvious to me that such a conspiracy might have actually been remotely possible to pull off--and that's not good. It shouldn't even be possible. I find it reckless for investment professionals to have been pushing these commodities as secure, high yield, low risk investments. What happened with commodities and homes, is almost the same type of thing which happened to stocks in the 1920's. Regulation is what fixed that issue with stocks. So at this point, I am not opposed to greater regulation.

As far as RTD buying futures... It seems like now is a far better time to buy up all their materials for all the FasTracks lines, or at least the first two or three lines. I'm sure their budget isn't structured to allow them to do that at this point. They are structured to pay for these corridors over a long period of time. With the Federal money now secured for the West Corridor, RTD might be able to start buying some materials for the East Corridor and/or Union Station.

However, I am not totally convinced prices are at the bottom. Projects funded before this crises are still going up, still consuming materials. As these projects draw near completion and few others go up after them, demand will decline farther and prices will drop lower.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

I was looking at this company's website. Looks like a pipe dream, but one of their proposed projects is a maglev from DIA to Vail (although they don't mention it on the site). They have some renderings of what looks to be DIA though they don't name the site. Not a real proposal, but interesting for curiosity's sake.

http://american-maglev.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=88

Interesting, yes... But why does their proposal appear to bring mag-lev into the existing Jeppessen terminal, instead of the to-be-built new terminal for mass transit, adjoining the existing terminal to it's south? It really doesn't look like they have done their homework to me.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Interesting, yes... But why does their proposal appear to bring mag-lev into the existing Jeppessen terminal, instead of the to-be-built new terminal for mass transit, adjoining the existing terminal to it's south? It really doesn't look like they have done their homework to me.

I wonder how the maglev pricing price/per mile compares to the current light rail model?

At $20M per mile, it comes up a lot cheaper than it costs to put in roads and bridges, etc..

I would love to see something like this go into the mountains. Imagine getting to Summit County in about 20 minutes!! It would be like riding a roller coaster through the mountains, but practical nonetheless

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I wonder how the maglev pricing price/per mile compares to the current light rail model?

At $20M per mile, it comes up a lot cheaper than it costs to put in roads and bridges, etc..

I would love to see something like this go into the mountains. Imagine getting to Summit County in about 20 minutes!! It would be like riding a roller coaster through the mountains, but practical nonetheless

Check out the Rocky Mountain Railroad Authority thread. There is a study coming out in June to assess the feasibility of just that.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Octavian

Check out the Rocky Mountain Railroad Authority thread. There is a study coming out in June to assess the feasibility of just that.

MagLev in a brand new ROW, in brand new tunnels, is going to cost more than $120 million per mile. Golly, that's what it's Sound Transit has experienced with its Sound light rail transit, with all it's milage of tunnels and aerials. Don't forget, MagLev will have to grade separated along its entire route.
To add, there will not be that may roller coaster ups and downs either, you probably see tunnels vs going up, and high viaducts vs going down. I'm pretty sure the environmentalists will oppose most of the viaducts.

Here's just a few photos of new high viaducts in Europe:




I don't think we'll see many of these tall structures in wilderness areas of the Rockies.

[Ilsaz]

That is a good post, Electricron. However I think the reason we won't see such high viaducts and tunnels is because of the cost, not resistance from environmentalists.

I consider myself an environmentalist first and foremost. And there is nothing I see in those photos that I would get in a tizzy over. Sure, there are those who think any development, any encroachment on nature, would be a bad thing. But most environmentalists are like me and, thankfully, a bit more pragmatic.

The biggest problem with those high viaducts isn't environmental: it is aesthetic. Aside from hindering the view of lovely valleys, the footprint of the rail line, suspended far above the valley floor where the buffalo roam (so to speak), is minimal. Again, zero would be ideal, but tunnels and viaducts is a much better workable solution to me more highways and more lanes.

[bcp]

if "zero" is ideal then lets just keep making tons of single passenger trips, sitting in traffic, and burning oil

[Ilsaz]

I don't see what you are saying BCP. I can see that you are trying to make some point in connection with my desire to minimize the human impact on our ecological commons to something as close to zero as possible. And surely you are joking about burning more oil and sitting in traffic in single-occupancy vehicles. But I don't get it.

No green that I know would be OK with more car trips. Clearly, working toward zero and sustainability means more transit and rail lines.

Again, I don't believe it isn't going to be earth-friendly people that oppose moving traffic onto rails. It is going to be right-wing, free-market ideologues who would stand against the massive government funding or borrowing that would be necessary to pay for this.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by electricron

MagLev in a brand new ROW, in brand new tunnels, is going to cost more than $120 million per mile. Golly, that's what it's Sound Transit has experienced with its Sound light rail transit, with all it's milage of tunnels and aerials. Don't forget, MagLev will have to grade separated along its entire route.
To add, there will not be that may roller coaster ups and downs either, you probably see tunnels vs going up, and high viaducts vs going down. I'm pretty sure the environmentalists will oppose most of the viaducts....

I don't think we'll see many of these tall structures in wilderness areas of the Rockies.

Originally Posted by Ilsaz

That is a good post, Electricron. However I think the reason we won't see such high viaducts and tunnels is because of the cost, not resistance from environmentalists.

I consider myself an environmentalist first and foremost. And there is nothing I see in those photos that I would get in a tizzy over. Sure, there are those who think any development, any encroachment on nature, would be a bad thing. But most environmentalists are like me and, thankfully, a bit more pragmatic.

The biggest problem with those high viaducts isn't environmental: it is aesthetic. Aside from hindering the view of lovely valleys, the footprint of the rail line, suspended far above the valley floor where the buffalo roam (so to speak), is minimal. Again, zero would be ideal, but tunnels and viaducts is a much better workable solution to me more highways and more lanes.

Viaducts are precisely what won I-70 in the Rockies awards among environmental agencies. Viaducts protect the environment, they do not harm it. At-grade construction is what rips a swath through the environment, scaring it and impeding wildlife from natural migrations. Only in urbanized areas, are viaducts frowned upon by environmental impact studies and that is not because of wildlife, it is because people dislike them in general. In populated areas, viaducts can create dead spaces, cast shadows and be eye sores if not expensively designed to look good.

[bcp]

my point was that the environmental position of 'zero' is paradoxical when it comes to transit - not building the viaducts required for maglev might save a few squirrels, but it ultimately promotes MORE car driving which has a signficant bigger impact over time. hence, the paradox.

rest assured, if the gov't wants to spend billions on mag-lev then "free market idealouges" (interpret as "job creators") will happily take on those contracts to do the work.

[The Dirt]

Wow... this thread is about to crash and burn.

I think what Ilsaz was trying to say is that environmentalists would like viaducts because they're much better than at-grade roads. Radical environmentalists that do not like any development wouldn't like viaducts, but they wouldn't like any alternative. I happen to be an environmentalist and I think that viaducts are great (in a mountainous setting).

[SnyderBock]

I don't consider "radical environmentalists" to be "environmentalists." I consider them to be "radical fundamentalists" with closed minds with an inability to think for themselves on a subject by subject basis. Instead they think what their group thinks; which of course is radical thoughts with "zero room" for compromise. Fundamentalism remains societies greatest hurdle to overcome. This is my personal opinion on the subject.

Now I think some fundamentalists are not a problem for society, because they are contempt to live their way in their community with little care or voice as to what other populated regions do. I think this is great. They are not trying to force their ways onto all others, and all others are not opposed to them living free, they way they choose. So to clarify, it is not "all fundamentalism" which is societies greatest hurdle. It is "radical fundamentalism" which wish to impose their ways on others. I also believe it is a threat to society, freedom and free thinking for society to impose their collective ways onto fundamentalists.

So you see, I think a balance, unity, freedom of thought and lifestyles, along with mutual respect is possible and does exist--in fact. But it is societies greatest hurdle to overcome radical fundamentalism, weather it be left wing or right wing on the political spectrum (or any other wing hat may exist). These opinions are probably why I consider myself to be politically independent.

But back to subject, I do not think viaducts will be of environmental concern and any such force which does will be greatly out-voiced by those whom favor viaducts. The main voice against viaducts will be in the form of people whom think they are too expensive (as has been mentioned by others). I also think we need to try and keep this thread on topic. Viaduct across the Rockies hardly has anything to do with Denver Light Rail.

[Octavian]

As one of the radical right wingers who favors TABOR and is so often trashed on these boards, let me say that I would vote for a sales tax increase (as allowed by TABOR) to finance high speed rail construction to the ski resorts if CDOT or others comes forth with a Fastracks-like plan.

[The Dirt]

Snyderbock - agree.

[Ilsaz]

Again, I'm totally on the same page with everyone here. Viaducts and tunnels in mountains are way better than more cars.

I feel like I speak a foreign language sometimes. It's my own fault, I know, I know.

Thank you, Dirt and Snyder and BCP.

* * *

Rail is good. I think the current administration's plans to invest in infrastructure can only be good news for us.

Keep up the good work in this thread, I appreciate the heads up and overviews of many of these complex transit issues.