DENVER | Transportation Thread

[glowrock]

Guys, I suggest we hold off on the budget numbers until RTD comes out with a new cost estimate based upon the current commodities and labor costs. My guess is that the overall cost has probably dropped by close to $1 billion, given that prices on many items are about now about half of what they were last summer!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Eliminate the NW Rail, because there is no longer an existing, approved, viable technology for operating on those existing rail lines and no funds for upgrading them to electric. $900 million is now gone from the FasTracks estimated cost.

What about Longmont? Well Boulder would still be getting the BRT, so why not run some of those very buses making the BRT run between Denver and Boulder, run all the way to Longmont on an express bus stretch with only one stop between the two cities?

What about the communities which would have been served by the rail? Why not run a circulator bus from their location, to the nearest US-36 BRT station? Feed those BRT stations with other bus routes and synchronize the transfers (like on the SE Corridor).

Plus, if the Front Range High Speed Rail ever gets funded (it's only a matter of time), superior rail service would result. If Boulder is already served by BRT and Commuter Rail, how would it win over support for a high speed rail line to go through there too? Three modes of mass transit for Boulder to Denver? No, not gonna happen.

-Cut NW Rail, save $900 million.
-Build maintenance facility at Fox Street location, save $100 million

That drops FasTracks estimated cost from $7.9 billion, to $6.9 billion, of which RTD has funding or expects funding for $5.8 billion. Also, a PPP with the Gold and DIA commuter rail lines should bring in ~$1 billion in private money. That bumps projected FasTracks available funds to $6.8 billion, leaving only a $100 million shortfall.

Except as soon as you do that there's a ballot measure in November to to repeal FasTracks. Would RTD really want to face that ballot proposal while going to voters to ask for additional money? Is the risk of a total implosion worth that?

Eliminating any of the lines is political suicide at this time. While asking for a sales tax extension or expansion is probably going to be more palatable.

There's got to be a solution that doesn't involve a cutting the line.

[bcp]

going to longmont really sems ridiculous at this point...

rail to boulder? makes sense and i would be that they have higher numbers than expected....you can always do BRT from longmont to bouler.

[Octavian]

The fact that there's not a single manufacturer in the world for the type of vehicle RTD wants to use on the line seems pretty devastating from my point of view. Maybe you could give those communities who would lose service a tax rebate.

[SnyderBock]

No, because they aren't loosing service, they would still be getting the BRT in THEIR corridor.

repelling FasTracks because they eliminate the NW Rail for reasons that no existing technology allows for it to actually operate because of the bankruptcy of the only manufacturer--well that doesn't seem likely. They are not going to pull funding on an approved project which has already had hundred of millions spent on it and significant pieces already under construction. Especially considering that corridor will still be getting a mode of mass transit (hence will still be served).

The communities wanting a rail station could have a circulator bus station connecting them with the nearest BRT station on US-36. They would also be positioned to get a possible future high speed rail line stopping at that very circulator bus station. IMHO, that would actually be a far, far superior outcome for those communities, than from what is proposed currently.

I think the NW Rail corridor should be handed over to the Front Range High Speed Rail program.

On the other hand, the US-36 BRT is dependent on additional highway funding from the CDOT and always has been according to the agreement. If the CDOT doesn't fund it's portion, it doesn't have to get built. Maybe that is what should be canceled?

Obviously the best option would be to cancel both the US-36 BRT and the NW Rail DMU and replace them with a single EMU line up the US-36 ROW

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Obviously the best option would be to cancel both the US-36 BRT and the NW Rail DMU and replace them with a single EMU line up the US-36 ROW

I would support that 100.1%! Except, this seems like the least likely option to happen.

[wong21fr]

Can the EMU reach Longmont if it heads up the US-36 ROW?

I'd support consolidating the lines to either EMU or BRT (a distant, distant second) if they still provide service to Longmont.

[sashyenka]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I would support that 100.1%! Except, this seems like the least likely option to happen.

I sort of wish this is what the original plan to serve the NW area had been. A person can dream, right?

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Can the EMU reach Longmont if it heads up the US-36 ROW?

I'd support consolidating the lines to either EMU or BRT (a distant, distant second) if they still provide service to Longmont.

It actually can turn east at Boulder and get to the freight rail ROW to serve Longmont, BUT it would require the turn occur at the same location as the station. It was deemed to sharp a cure for station platforms to work properly. This is actually the main reason they eliminated that option.

But the solutions to that problem now seem easier than the possible solution to these new (unforeseen problems with the BRT/DMU combo).

1.) They could take the line subway just before the Boulder Station and swing it out westerly for a nice wide turn prior to the station, straightening out as the train came into the station. This concept would also work as an elevated structure. They never considered these options, because they assumed it woudl be too costly. In retrospect, the ever inflating cost and issues with the BRT/DMU option are far more costly now.

2.) It was determined that electrifying the line all the way to Longmont (~41 miles) woudl be too costly, with too little added ridership for the extra Boulder to Longmont segment to justify electrification. This is a valid point and may still hold true.

3.) To solve this issue, they could run locomotive diesel commuter rail (like the SkiTrain) from Boulder to Longmont and then EMU from Boulder to Denver, thus making the Boulder Station a transfer/hub station for Boulder, much in the way Union Station is for Denver.

4.) The final option woudl be to do as described in option 3, but instead of locomotive commuter rail from Longmont to Boulder, RTD could implement BRT simular to what's proposed for US-36. So cancel teh US-35 BRT and NW DMU and replace them with a US-36 EMU to Boulder and a BRT from that Boulder multi-model station, to Longmont.

[SnyderBock]

Alright, I threw together how RTD might be able to replace the US-36 BRT and NW DMU with a single line using EMU. This line would end in Boulder, not Longmont. But service from Longmont would be provided with BRT, which would also serve Boulder's other two transit stations, then go down to the end of line EMU Station in South Boulder. From there, one BRT would continue south a little ways and turn off to the Louisville Park-N-Rise and planned transit station.

Essentially, Boulder would become the hub for this BRT system, whereas Denver would be the hub for the EMU line serving Boulder. Boulder and RTD could expand this BRT/Express Bus system to other nearby communities, over time. All these BRT/Express bus routes woudl feed into Boulder's own multi-model transportation hub, with the end of line EMU to Denver also serving it. Boulder could integrate it's bike path system into this hub as well.

I also threw out some OPTIONAL Express bus routes RTD might consider on North I-25 and/or connecting the NW, North and East EMU lines with an express transfer bus. These are optional and I simply included them on the map to consider. It might make the DTC and DIA more accessible to people from along the North and NW Corridors. These woudl be fairly low ridership (I'm sure) and a very limited service only a few times a day.

Here is my new plan for the NW Corridor!

[1Post2]

You wouldn't want to end the EMU at table mesa. Lots of people would appreciate not having to change modes just to get to downtown Boulder. Politically, it would also be a problem given the huge planning proccess (on the public and private side) long underway for the new boulder train station.

Given that people can currently hop an express bus to get from Longmont to Denver, it doesn't make much sense to expect a mode change to do the same post-fastracks. The whole route should be either BRT or EMU.

[The Dirt]

This whole corridor never made any sense to me. What was the point of having two modes of commuter transportation within the same corridor? Hmm... I think I'll take the bus today, but take the rail tomorrow. Huh?! I think this must have been a political compromise to get everyone on board. Some wanted bus, others wanted rail, and both do serve slightly different areas in different ways. You would see TODs pop up around the rail, but nothing around BRT for example.

Judging from the surveys, it seems that people are willing to pay more for the system at large. So, the best strategy would be to tackle it that way. The second option should be to give the US-36 commuters the option to scrap the rail option, and do a payment deferment to create the first leg of a Front Range commuter line. Tell them that the money they paid in taxes will go towards that - instead of getting Fasttracks, they will get to be the first leg of the Front Range train.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by 1Post2

You wouldn't want to end the EMU at table mesa. Lots of people would appreciate not having to change modes just to get to downtown Boulder. Politically, it would also be a problem given the huge planning proccess (on the public and private side) long underway for the new boulder train station.

Given that people can currently hop an express bus to get from Longmont to Denver, it doesn't make much sense to expect a mode change to do the same post-fastracks. The whole route should be either BRT or EMU.

Feeding people into Table Mesa multi-model station from all over Boulder and Longmont, where they can make transfers to the EMU or any other BRT line serving the station may not be all that bad. If you just want people to drive to the station, park and then take the train, then why does it matter if they have to drive a little but farther to Table Mesa?

But if this feeder bus system is extensive, people may not need to drive at all. Just a timed transfer from the bus at Table Mesa, to the EMU or other bus route they need to take to get where they are going. Saving them the need to drive at all, basically saves them a transfer (from their car, to a parking stop then onto the transit medium).

If they want to extend the EMU into downtown Boulder as some later extension, they could do that. For now, to save money, I suggest this plan be considered.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

RTD's FasTracks EMU commuter rail line are going to have peak time headways of 7.5 minutes and off peak of either 15 minutes or 30 minutes (depending on which line and section of the line).

Peak headways:
7.5 / 15 minutes

Off-peak headways:
15 / 30 minutes

But those are far better headways than most all other commuter rail lines in the nation. ElectricRon is correct with his statement, but it doesn't actually apply to the FasTracks commuter rail lines, unless they actually build the NW Corridor (it would apply to that corridor).

But light rail was eliminated from the Airport line in the final elimination, because it was over 20 miles long, didn't have very many stations along the line (light rail is best for a lot of stops, commuter rail is better for fewer stops and higher speeds between stops) and also EMU's will provide more room for luggage, as people will use it to get to and from the Airport. Also, it was originally thought the east line would be running inside UP ROW.

The North line was within the 15-20 mile range best for light rail, but it's also inside existing freight ROW. Back when teh SW Light Rail was built, that was ok, but now the railroads won't allow non-FRA compliant trains in their ROW (because of lawsuit). Now I thought Colorado passed a law taking liability away from the railroads, so they could allow light rail in their ROW's, but the railroads have been extremely resistant to FasTracks, almost to the point they consider RTD to be a competitor to them, even though they don't provide passenger service anymore. New ridership projections and the fact FRA-compliant DMU's don't exist anymore, means the North Metro will likely be EMU now (meaning another cost increase from teh $7.9 billion estimate--another reason to do away with the NW DMU line to save all the other lines).

To achieve these shorter headways, they must be planning on double tracking most of these EMU lines. 20 minutes is a usual limitation for single track lines.

It's not true that the only FRA complaint trains are built by Colorado Railcar. Colorado Railcar was the only American manufacture.

SMART (SomonaMarinAreaRapidTransit) is looking at both non-FRA compliant and FRA compliant DMUs. Although the decision hasn't been made, they have found suppliers. Here's the link to their DMU train choices under consideration.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/SMART-14JAN09_Revised.pdf

FRA Compliant Heavy DMUs:
1) Bombardier M7 Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design base: LIRR M7 (FRA compliant), Diesel electric drive, No cost estimate available.

2) Nippon Sharyo Designed for Commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, New Design, Diesel hydraulic drive, No cost estimate available.

3) Rotem Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design based on TTA project, Diesel hydraulic drive, ROM cost estimate $8 to $9M. Note: In August 2006, Triangle Transit (formerly Triangle Transit Authority) announced that it would not file a “New Starts” report on the Regional Rail Transit Project with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Federal FY 2008.
Triangle Transit, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), NC Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Alliance will work with the community as we rethink transit in the Triangle.

4) Siemens No information available (Siemens exhibits interest in building FRA-compliant DMU)

5) CAF No information available (CAF offered an FRA-compliant DMU to NJT)

All the potential FRA Compliant DMU designs with drawings or photos have high floor doors. Meaning the stations will require low platforms with high blocks or high platforms for ADA access.


Non FRA Compliant Light DMUs:
1) Alstom Coradia Lint 41 Compliance UIC; EN 15227 Germany, no US application

2) Bombardier Talent VT 643 Compliance UIC, Germany, Ottawa Canada, no US application

3) Siemens Desiro Compliance UIC (CPUC with waivers), Oceanside, CA: 12 vehicles, Temporal separation

4) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance UIC, FRA alternate, EN15227, Austin, TX: 6 vehicles, Temporal separation

5) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance CPUC, Camden, NJ: 20 vehicles, Temporal separation

6) Breda IC2 Compliance UIC, Proposed for U.S.

All will require some sort of separation from freight rails. Ottawa's Bombardiers tracks no longer carry freight while the DMUs are in service. Canada doesn't fall under FRA regulations, although North American rails have similar laws for combatibility. Therefore no temporal separation exceptions were needed from the FRA.

[Teshadoh]

Boulder would not support making Table Mesa the transit hub. One reason there isn't enough room, it's actually cornered within a freeway interchange & Table Mesa. Second reason is Boulder has invested a lot into it's future TOD where the transit station is supposed to go on Pearl & 30th. That is also amost central location to serve Boulder, Longmont & eastern Boulder County.

Now - I agree that I too find it cost prohibitive to build two transit modes to serve Boulder. I do understand the rationale - BRT would serve commuters along 36 & the commuter rail line would provide a more traditional transit spine to serve Boulder County. But there are many skeptics in Boulder County about the idea of trains running through sleepy suburbs like Louisville.

But I'm not sure how much ROW would be necessary for a train to run along 36, especially if you keep the HOV lanes. It might be too tight. But if there is enough room I would run the train up Foothills Pkwy to the transit station. From there link up BRT lines to Longmont as well as future lines east to Lafayette or Erie. Longmont would be better served by a future Front Range rail line connecting it to Fort Collins & Denver to the south.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by electricron

To achieve these shorter headways, they must be planning on double tracking most of these EMU lines. 20 minutes is a usual limitation for single track lines.

It's not true that the only FRA complaint trains are built by Colorado Railcar. Colorado Railcar was the only American manufacture.

SMART (SomonaMarinAreaRapidTransit) is looking at both non-FRA compliant and FRA compliant DMUs. Although the decision hasn't been made, they have found suppliers. Here's the link to their DMU train choices under consideration.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/SMART-14JAN09_Revised.pdf

FRA Compliant Heavy DMUs:
1) Bombardier M7 Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design base: LIRR M7 (FRA compliant), Diesel electric drive, No cost estimate available.

2) Nippon Sharyo Designed for Commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, New Design, Diesel hydraulic drive, No cost estimate available.

3) Rotem Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design based on TTA project, Diesel hydraulic drive, ROM cost estimate $8 to $9M. Note: In August 2006, Triangle Transit (formerly Triangle Transit Authority) announced that it would not file a “New Starts” report on the Regional Rail Transit Project with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Federal FY 2008.
Triangle Transit, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), NC Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Alliance will work with the community as we rethink transit in the Triangle.

4) Siemens No information available (Siemens exhibits interest in building FRA-compliant DMU)

5) CAF No information available (CAF offered an FRA-compliant DMU to NJT)

All the potential FRA Compliant DMU designs with drawings or photos have high floor doors. Meaning the stations will require low platforms with high blocks or high platforms for ADA access.


Non FRA Compliant Light DMUs:
1) Alstom Coradia Lint 41 Compliance UIC; EN 15227 Germany, no US application

2) Bombardier Talent VT 643 Compliance UIC, Germany, Ottawa Canada, no US application

3) Siemens Desiro Compliance UIC (CPUC with waivers), Oceanside, CA: 12 vehicles, Temporal separation

4) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance UIC, FRA alternate, EN15227, Austin, TX: 6 vehicles, Temporal separation

5) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance CPUC, Camden, NJ: 20 vehicles, Temporal separation

6) Breda IC2 Compliance UIC, Proposed for U.S.

All will require some sort of separation from freight rails. Ottawa's Bombardiers tracks no longer carry freight while the DMUs are in service. Canada doesn't fall under FRA regulations, although North American rails have similar laws for combatibility. Therefore no temporal separation exceptions were needed from the FRA.

Hey great find! If RTD got a "temporal" waver from the FRA to run trains on the BNSF line, would BNSF agree, or would they require that any trains on their line be FRA compliant?

I think it's still a risky proposition for RTD, since (if FRA compliance is mandatory), finding another maker of DMU's is speculative. RTD won't be making a large order. It's a single line. And the DMU's considered for SMART were all "Design Studies." Maybe if the SMART folks trail blaze for RTD, and one of the manufacturers commits to making DMU's for their line, RTD will be in better shape.

[1Post2]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

If you just want people to drive to the station, park and then take the train, then why does it matter if they have to drive a little but farther to Table Mesa?

That's not what I want. I'm saying that people traveling between downtown Denver and Downtown Boulder would have to switch from train to bus under your proposal, which is less convenient than the system we have today. Same thing for traveling between Longmont and Denver.

(Personally, I don't think Fastracks should serve Longmont at all, and we should just keep the L express bus route that we have now that could travel directly south from longmont until it hits the BRT lanes along 36 in the future. This is merely because the express buses today travel directly to Denver, but post-fastracks the BRT/rail will go to Denver via Boulder, which is a huge detour. Needless to say, this is all politics. Longmont voted for Fastracks with the understanding that it would get something.)

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

But if this feeder bus system is extensive, people may not need to drive at all. Just a timed transfer from the bus at Table Mesa, to the EMU or other bus route they need to take to get where they are going. Saving them the need to drive at all, basically saves them a transfer (from their car, to a parking stop then onto the transit medium).

People aren't less likely to drive if the train station is at table mesa versus the proposed station closer to downtown Boulder on Pearl, if that's what you're saying. The opposite is much more likely.

Even if you connect all of Boulder's feeder bus lines to Table Mesa, there's still problems, location-wise. The current transfer station is the Boulder Transit Center, in downtown Boulder at 14th & Walnut. Table Mesa is on the southern outskirts of town. Your proposal in Boulder would be like Denver making all of its bus and rail lines meet up at some station in the southern suburbs instead of downtown at Union Station.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Octavian

Hey great find! If RTD got a "temporal" waver from the FRA to run trains on the BNSF line, would BNSF agree, or would they require that any trains on their line be FRA compliant?

I think it's still a risky proposition for RTD, since (if FRA compliance is mandatory), finding another maker of DMU's is speculative. RTD won't be making a large order. It's a single line. And the DMU's considered for SMART were all "Design Studies." Maybe if the SMART folks trail blaze for RTD, and one of the manufacturers commits to making DMU's for their line, RTD will be in better shape.

Dallas's Dart and Fort Worth's T are also looking at ordering FRA complaint DMUs in the near future for the ex-Cotton Belt Line. So, it's not like RTD will be stepping out on a limb alone.

I don't have the slightest idea how busy the rail line to Boulder is. If it's not too busy, like one or two local trains a day, BNSF may allow temporal separation. If there's through freights on this line, forget it. I just wanted to point out that Colorado Railcar wasn't the only possible manufacture for that type of train.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by electricron

I don't have the slightest idea how busy the rail line to Boulder is. If it's not too busy, like one or two local trains a day, BNSF may allow temporal separation. If there's through freights on this line, forget it. I just wanted to point out that Colorado Railcar wasn't the only possible manufacture for that type of train.

Judging from personal experience, I'd say no more than 2 a day, however trains sometimes stop completely for hours around the US-287/US-36 overpass. I think it backs up into a side line where the freight cars get unloaded, but this sucker has held me up in traffic on several occasions.

[SnyderBock]

Bumped down to next page