DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Woot... Woot... By gosh by golly. Didn't know this thread had any activity. I love rappin' 'bout choo choo's. Gee... where to start?

For starters, I see that the Metro Mayor's Caucus prefers 0.3 or 0.4 percentage tax increase. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17223386
I'm with the Mayors, except in the interest of electability, I'd settle for an 0.25% increase.

Who knows what the dang thing will ultimately cost? As SnyderBock and Pizzuti have aptly discussed the variables make projections a total crap shoot. That's just the reality of things. Here we are bumping along the bottom but because we now live and must compete in a global economy the price of base metals has already gone back up to previous peaks. From here, it's a guessing game. It could easily end up costing closer to $10 billion to build out depending on the pace of build out and inflation.

What's most important..... let's get going.

[TakeFive]

RTD should establish build-out priorities as part of the tax increase election so that going forward there's voter clarity.

First..... should be the extension of 1-225 in a joint venture with CDOT to also widen the highway from Nine Mile up to Iliff. (I believe this has already been suggested by RTD.)

Second..... should be the extension of the NW line to Broomfield. Personally, I would like this extension to be EMU's. This corridor type of extension should meet with wide metro approval.

Third..... should be the construction of the North Line out to 104th (or 112th).

Fourth..... should be the extension of I-225 to City Center AND the extension of the SW Line to Highlands Ranch. We need to appeal to the "southern" voters, as well as the east metro voters.

The extension of I-225 will need to be coordinated with CDOT.... obviously. The NW and North line can be built more or less simultaneously. Once these two are well on their way, they can proceed to the extensions of I-225 and the SW lines.

And so on.....

[RTD]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

RTD should establish build-out priorities as part of the tax increase election so that going forward there's voter clarity

I have no such authority or influence in Denver

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I think that some of the value of the NW corridor is not so much that Boulder-Longmont are high-population centers but it creates a starting place to expand to Loveland and Fort Collins. If the Front Range Corridor goes forward and there is eventually a rail connection between Fort Collins and Denver, then instead of following I-25 all the way (which is too far east to go through downtown Loveland and Fort Collins), it connects through the NW line in Longmont.

People (mostly denverites) keep on writing off the NW rail every chance they get. A tax proposal that doesn't include Boulder will be a huge issue for that county, and likely doom any tax proposal, given it's slightly to the right of Mao status.

As for the alignment, remember that RTD also already owns the Valmont line, which they could use to bypass part of the congested I-25 route that they can't use (the mousetrap portion of I-25 can't be expanded, and doesn't have room along the right of way).

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by lostknight

People (mostly denverites) keep on writing off the NW rail every chance they get. A tax proposal that doesn't include Boulder will be a huge issue for that county, and likely doom any tax proposal, given it's slightly to the right of Mao status.

As for the alignment, remember that RTD also already owns the Valmont line, which they could use to bypass part of the congested I-25 route that they can't use (the mousetrap portion of I-25 can't be expanded, and doesn't have room along the right of way).

RMRA looked at the RTD alignment (NW corridor) and found it unsuitable for a front range alignment.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by lostknight

A tax proposal that doesn't include Boulder will be a huge issue for that county, and likely doom any tax proposal, given it's slightly to the right of Mao status.

Fastracks does include Boulder - the BRT line, which is what most Boulderites will actually be using, not the train.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Fastracks does include Boulder - the BRT line, which is what most Boulderites will actually be using, not the train.

Why wouldn't they use the train? When I lived in Boulder I took the train to Denver constantly...people were always talking about how excited they were for the train to reach them. Everybody indicated they would use it.

[bunt_q]

People were always talking about it because they have absolutely no clue what they're getting.

Everybody doesn't think about having to go way out to east Boulder, to Valmont and Foothills, to catch a train that takes 50+ minutes to Downtown Denver and runs on 30 minute peak headways (60 minutes otherwise). The EIS reflects this - RTD only expects 1,375 boardings/day at the Boulder Transit Village (2035).

Boulderites are savvy transit riders. It won't take them long to realize that the bus will run through the center of Boulder, where most of them are. It will run on 2 minute headways (4 minute off-peak). And will take 30-45 minutes, depending on where they board - faster than the train. Ridership projections reflect this - in Boulder proper, boardings for the bus are projected somewhere like 6-times the train boardings.

[wong21fr]

^Boulder ridership numbers for the NW corridor are so low that it would be nice if you could just cut Boulder out completely and head straight up to Longmont.

Maybe then the NW corridor could be billed as the initial leg of a Front Range rail line.

[Cirrus]

RMRA looked at the RTD alignment (NW corridor) and found it unsuitable for a front range alignment.

Don't they want to run it along I-25? Frankly, I question the judgment of anyone who thinks I-25 is a good rail corridor north of E-470. There is no possibility for anything other than park and ride stations anywhere south of Wellington. I don't care what problems exist with the RTD alignment. Whatever they are, they're more solvable than I-25, which is inherently a terrible place for a rail line.

I-25 isn't all that congested north of Denver anyway, so anybody who has to drive to a train station along it (which is everyone) would ask themselves why don't I just keep driving the rest of the way and not bother waiting for a train. And of course, they'll be right. If you're going to do I-25, you may as well save a few billion dollars and just make it a bus. Rail would be a complete waste of money.

Go where the people are or don't bother.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Don't they want to run it along I-25? Frankly, I question the judgment of anyone who thinks I-25 is a good rail corridor north of E-470. There is no possibility for anything other than park and ride stations anywhere south of Wellington. I don't care what problems exist with the RTD alignment. Whatever they are, they're more solvable than I-25, which is inherently a terrible place for a rail line.

I-25 isn't all that congested north of Denver anyway, so anybody who has to drive to a train station along it (which is everyone) would ask themselves why don't I just keep driving the rest of the way and not bother waiting for a train. And of course, they'll be right. If you're going to do I-25, you may as well save a few billion dollars and just make it a bus. Rail would be a complete waste of money.

Go where the people are or don't bother.

Been a while since you have driven from Denver to Ft. Collins during the week (and even weekends sometimes)? It gets pretty congested up on that route, mainly because of the semis. Though they are expanding most of it to 3 lanes each direction, which does help quite a bit.

I do agree with your comments though, no reason to have the rail alignment along I-25, only thing there north of Denver is hotels and gas stations for the most part.

[bunt_q]

The reason folks want the train on I-25 is simple - most people still view transit, and rail in particular, as a means to reduce traffic. Any benefits to urbanism, greater growth patterns, and/or the environment are secondary - certainly to non-planners, as well as many interest groups - and oftentimes just an afterthought. For reducing peak hour traffic - well, what's better than a train along the highway with large park-n-rides.

They'll ignore the traffic argument (because transit loses that one every time - it's tougher then to backtrack if you haven't already been promoting transit's other benefits). They'll then sell the alignment with the promise of TODs all up and down the Front Range. As if Dacono or Firestone have the capability to do a real TOD. But it's a clever way to turn good planning against good planning. And it's a win-win (except when promised changes to development patterns don't pan out, or don't pan out for decades). Folks are starting to get the transportation-land use connection. But who wants to be the one to start advocating for concentrating growth and density in old Boulder, Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland, or Fort Collins, when you could build a new TOD (or the promise of one) on the outskirts and do more for traffic (perceived) at the same time.

It's NIMBYism meets that old Onion article "85% of Americans Support Public Transit for Others"

[Cirrus]

it's a clever way to turn good planning against good planning

Sort of like promising that Pueblo Springs will be new urbanist.

A train on I-25 will make congestion worse in the long run, because the one land use change it will actually have will be to pull even more growth out of the established centers and closer to I-25. It will increase sprawl, which will increase congestion.

And all the while we'll be tooting our own horns for how smart we all are, like a bunch of Puebloans.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The reason folks want the train on I-25 is simple - most people still view transit, and rail in particular, as a means to reduce traffic. Any benefits to urbanism, greater growth patterns, and/or the environment are secondary - certainly to non-planners, as well as many interest groups - and oftentimes just an afterthought. For reducing peak hour traffic - well, what's better than a train along the highway with large park-n-rides.

They'll ignore the traffic argument (because transit loses that one every time - it's tougher then to backtrack if you haven't already been promoting transit's other benefits). They'll then sell the alignment with the promise of TODs all up and down the Front Range. As if Dacono or Firestone have the capability to do a real TOD. But it's a clever way to turn good planning against good planning. And it's a win-win (except when promised changes to development patterns don't pan out, or don't pan out for decades). Folks are starting to get the transportation-land use connection. But who wants to be the one to start advocating for concentrating growth and density in old Boulder, Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland, or Fort Collins, when you could build a new TOD (or the promise of one) on the outskirts and do more for traffic (perceived) at the same time.

It's NIMBYism meets that old Onion article "85% of Americans Support Public Transit for Others"

I could also see the regional rail as a big benefit to these smaller towns if they were to actually bring then train near the centers of towns like Firestone and Erie....they then could use using these stations to really form a town center around since those cities don't really have much of a "downtown" to speak of right now. Putting the stations close to I-25, they can create a TOD sure, but these TOD's will most likely never become town centers.

The only problem I see is that these towns are so spread out on either side of I-25 that it might make this cost prohibitive to accomplish.

[bunt_q]

True. And given that an alignment already exists through Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins, I'd still prefer to channel growth into those existing "real" centers, rather than build up the Daconos of the world. The ROW is there, make it work technically.

The only spur that I see being worth the cost is Greeley. And whatever you pick up along the way, however it gets tied in, great. It'd be nice if Greeley and Fort Collins connected, rather than a separate Greeley/Brighton line.

I wouldn't mind focusing growth along the west (by the train/existing centers) and east (Hwy 85). With revised zoning/land use policies, we could pull growth away from I-25, and turn it back into the inter-city route it used to be and should remain. Alas, Weld County is as backwards as they come.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

People were always talking about it because they have absolutely no clue what they're getting.

Everybody doesn't think about having to go way out to east Boulder, to Valmont and Foothills, to catch a train that takes 50+ minutes to Downtown Denver and runs on 30 minute peak headways (60 minutes otherwise). The EIS reflects this - RTD only expects 1,375 boardings/day at the Boulder Transit Village (2035).

Boulderites are savvy transit riders. It won't take them long to realize that the bus will run through the center of Boulder, where most of them are. It will run on 2 minute headways (4 minute off-peak). And will take 30-45 minutes, depending on where they board - faster than the train. Ridership projections reflect this - in Boulder proper, boardings for the bus are projected somewhere like 6-times the train boardings.

Which is why I prefer an extension of EMU's up to Broomfield. That area continues to build up. By the time this line could be extended, COP should have built and opened their 7,000 employee R&D/Training campus. Presumably, their development will lead to nearby densification.

It would also allow the NW corridor area to access train service out to DIA. Buses from Boulder could of course run to this station. This could be a good compromise for Boulder County/west Adams getting rail service.

[SnyderBock]

The freight rail company, BNSF, has said they would not approve their freight trains for operating under EMU catenary electrical lines. Beyond the Westminster station, the EMU's will actually share and run on freight tracks. So to extend the EMU's farther, either BNSF would have to reconsider and choose to allow that (which there really isn't a good reason for them not to), or RTD would have to acquire additional ROW and build all new track.

[Cirrus]

^
Those aren't the only two options. There is such a thing as a diesel passenger train.

Here are some nice examples.

[taylor23]

Not sure how long this has been up but the North Metro Environmental Impact Statement has been posted.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/nm_117

[The Dirt]

Can someone tell my why the North line and the East line aren't using the same ROW between DUS and I-70? As far as I can tell from the RTD maps, these are the ROWs that the lines will be using:

Red - East line to DIA
Blue - North line to Thornton
Purple - Northwest line to Westminster
Green - Gold line spur to Arvada

Why wouldn't the North line use the same alignment as the East line to about 40th and then split north, through the heart of Elyria Swansea (dashed teal line). First, RTD would be able to save money by sharing the ROW for over 1 mile. Second, this alignment would better serve residential neighborhoods in Elyria Swansea, rather than cutting through 2-3 miles of industrial land.