DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 72

BarbulaM1 · #**1421** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

^You assume that Calatrava's design will actually come in at that cost.

I'm positive that the DIA expansion will be whittled down as well as the cost of the original vision steadily climbs up and up. Starchitects aren't exactly known for being cost conscious and sticking to a budget.

DIA has quite a bit of their own money and are not exactly known for being all that cost conscious, but their investments have largely been very sucessful.

Brainpathology · #**1422** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I don't know. You would think the fact that they just eliminated a $50 million parking garage (or are about to), would have more than compensated for any project cost fluctuations. Especially considering they also scaled back Kinetic plaza to nothing more than a glorified pedestrian bridge, cut a couple elevators from the design and two trav-o-lators, eliminated all private financing and risk, are building a canopy without a roof over most of it, put all the rail lines at-grade (when they were originally to be below-grade within project's current budget)... Did I miss anything? Oh, they opted for the cheapest use for the plaza space in front of the historic Union Station structure.

At this point, it's not really looking like a whole lot for nearly a half billion dollars. Far less than the Calatrava designed DIA station which will be built for near the same half billion dollar price range.

At some point construction and cuts will meet and we'll find out that the project is actually finished one day. Hopefully it's after most of the structures are watertight and tracks are in place. I'm looking forward to walking from 17th street around Union Station along crushed granite sidewalks and railroad ties to the light rail station in 2016.

Brainpathology · #**1423** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 5:20 PM**

Is no one suggesting the "extra" 300 million be put back into the central transit neighborhood? To maybe put a roof over the train room or the welcome arch or maybe some sort of "un-cuts" elsewhere around US-ish?

pablosan · #**1424** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

At some point construction and cuts will meet and we'll find out that the project is actually finished one day. Hopefully it's after most of the structures are watertight and tracks are in place. I'm looking forward to walking from 17th street around Union Station along crushed granite sidewalks and railroad ties to the light rail station in 2016.

This is very funny.

The Dirt · #**1425** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Is no one suggesting the "extra" 300 million be put back into the central transit neighborhood? To maybe put a roof over the train room or the welcome arch or maybe some sort of "un-cuts" elsewhere around US-ish?

This is the best idea I've heard so far.

Brainpathology · #**1426** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

This is the best idea I've heard so far.

Which is exactly why it won't be done.

Seriously though where can this be suggested? I know RTD was asking for ideas about what to do with this money....

bunt_q · #**1427** Posted **Dec 16, 2010, 10:59 PM**

It's not money RTD found in the seat cushions. It's what's leftover for Fastracks after the corridors that we know are happening are subtracted from the total RTD has to work with. The only question is how best to apply it to the other corridors (get the studies done, throw a little to each for small improvements, all tossed at one, etc.). Using it for Union Station urban design improvements isn't realistic, and would just mean that Fastracks Part Deux requires a bigger number.

Brainpathology · #**1428** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's not money RTD found in the seat cushions. It's what's leftover for Fastracks after the corridors that we know are happening are subtracted from the total RTD has to work with. The only question is how best to apply it to the other corridors (get the studies done, throw a little to each for small improvements, all tossed at one, etc.). Using it for Union Station urban design improvements isn't realistic, and would just mean that Fastracks Part Deux requires a bigger number.

Yeah I know where they money is coming from. I'm just thinking maybe preserving good projects that have already started would go farther to convincing people we need to extend or increase funding mechanisms than continuing to build stripped down minimalist corridors everywhere. At what point will the projects become similar to too little butter spread over way too much bread?

bunt_q · #**1429** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 1:26 AM**

I figured you got where the money came from, but some of the others...

Anyways, that's why I'd pick another corridor, dare I say it, probably 225 (or the Boulder BRT; still not sure where that is in the big CDOT/US 36 picture), and just do it. Might still be too expensive, in which case I'd hit the SW and SE extensions.

The rest of the corridors... well, maybe it'd ensure some political support for round 2 if some communities get nothing.

Brainpathology · #**1430** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 1:30 AM**

It it was a choice between I-225 and Union Station I think I'd have a hard time deciding

But damn..

SnyderBock · #**1431** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Is no one suggesting the "extra" 300 million be put back into the central transit neighborhood? To maybe put a roof over the train room or the welcome arch or maybe some sort of "un-cuts" elsewhere around US-ish?

I think that's a good idea. It would be the best possible use for at least a portion of those funds, because it will ultimately serve all the rail lines and bus routes, not just one of them. Improving Union Station improves the entire system and all it's lines/routes. Even if they only expand Union Station's budget by $10-$20 million, it might be enough to preserve some important features now threatened from being cut.

bunt_q · #**1432** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 1:46 AM**

Well, that's not really a choice for me. Because I think the viability (politically) of the big project is still the first priority. And I fear putting too much money into Union Station would alienate some of the burbs. The priority has to be finishing the system - and doing whatever we can with the $300m to get us closer to that, while maximizing the chances of round 2 passing - because that'll pump thousands more folks into downtown. That's the ultimate boost for Denver. As for the urban design elements and Union Station overall - hugely important, obviously - but there's always a chance the CC of Denver can help there. Even if it's not now, then later. You can always upgrade a plaza. But without the rest of the system, what's the point? I think that gold-plating anything (and some people would consider a fountain a luxury, not a necessity) now, while other areas get nothing, would be terribly short-sighted. Secure funding for the whole project first. And that requires regionalism (and stomaching a whole lot of urbanist-ego that we all share).

Cirrus · #**1433** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 2:07 AM**

Agreed. Ultimately, the most important thing is getting as many people onto the transit system as possible. That means building the maximum number of stations across the maximum geography.

The best way to maximize future investment in the system will be to get lots of people personally invested in its success. More riders = more demand for future expansion.

wong21fr · #**1434** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 2:57 AM**

I'm with the politically viable choice. While Union Station could use $300 million to get some additional pretty enhancements, the priority is still the unfunded corridors. Getting the coverage is far more important than a pretty hub and I have a lot of hope that Denver will foot the bill to enhance the station in the mid-term.

The Dirt · #**1435** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 4:43 AM**

Alright, if we're going for political viability, then I vote for the money to be used for a stub line for the North corridor. Here are my arguments:

1) This is the only line that is not currently being built.
- The NW line is getting a stub through Eagle P3, and I-225 is already being served by a stub line, so this is the only line that's left
2) Stub lines might actually promote economic growth within the inner suburbs first, rather than waiting to build the full line, and spreading the economic benefit along the entire corridor, which may end up favoring the outer suburbs.
3) RTD would be able to make the argument that despite the economic difficulties, it was still able to begin work on all proposed corridors.
4) Keeps the north metro cities invested in the line, rather than backing out completely.

Seeing as the entire line is estimated at about $650 million, it seems that $300 million could at least get them to Commerce City or 88th, which means that Thornton gets served.

wong21fr · #**1436** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 4:12 PM**

^Really the only two options for the $300 million is the I-225 line or the North line. However, if the new ridership figures that DCROG released could be used, that $300 million could be leveraged with federal funding to build the entire I-225 line.

The NW line is a non-starter for this funding. It would be a real waste to put so much money on the most inefficient line and doing the SE and SW stubs would only invite a lot of political animosity.

Cirrus · #**1437** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 4:38 PM**

Here's the list of unfunded segments, according to the pdf:

Code:

CORRIDOR			COST
I-225 to Aurora City Center	$220m
SW extension			$150m
SE extension			$150m
Central	extension		$55m
North to 72nd Ave		$245m
Northwest to 72nd		exceeds available funds
Boulder BRT			$168m

You can automatically cross off the NW line. I think you cross off the SW and SE extensions too, since those lines already extend far into the suburbs. That leaves these:

Code:

CORRIDOR			COST
I-225 to Aurora City Center	$220m
Central	extension		$55m
North to 72nd Ave		$245m
Boulder BRT			$168m

I'd rank them in this order of importance:

1. The North corridor is at the top since all the others have service on them already. This is the only corridor where the possibility exists for really screwing over the locals by not giving them anything. That would not be advisable.

2. The Central corridor is important from a system connectivity perspective, if nothing else.

3. The Boulder corridor will get good ridership, but the rail line is funded and existing RTD bus service to Denver is pretty good already. This is a hard line to cut. You could make an argument it should be higher than Central, but the presence of so much other stuff in the corridor means it has to be below North.

4. The I-225 extension is only getting you three more stations on an existing line. It's pretty comparable to the SE and SW extensions, and it's on a corridor that was never all that great to begin with. This one screams low priority to me.

Coincidentally, you can do my first two priorities for almost exactly the amount RTD has available, so I'd say do that. Use your $300 million to build the first segment of the North corridor and to finish the Central. Since there's not enough money available to build both North and Boulder, that makes the decision to pick Central over Boulder as the #2 priority easier.

EngiNerd · #**1438** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 4:45 PM**

I think the I-225 corridor extension is only worth it if it goes the full route from I-25 to I-70, otherwise its just an extension of a route that not viable to begin with.

pablosan · #**1439** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 6:28 PM**

I think it is essential that the North Corridor as well.

taylor23 · #**1440** Posted **Dec 17, 2010, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's not money RTD found in the seat cushions. It's what's leftover for Fastracks after the corridors that we know are happening are subtracted from the total RTD has to work with. The only question is how best to apply it to the other corridors (get the studies done, throw a little to each for small improvements, all tossed at one, etc.). Using it for Union Station urban design improvements isn't realistic, and would just mean that Fastracks Part Deux requires a bigger number.

My seat cushion comment was a joke, not very good one obviously.