DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Projected 2035 Ridership:

North Metro - 14,300
I-225 - 19,200
Northwest Rail (to Boulder/Longmont) - 6,900

Colfax Stretcar - 38,500 (source Streetcar Feasibility Study, 2010. Two-thirds of those are new riders.)

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Projected 2035 Ridership:

North Metro - 14,300
I-225 - 19,200
Northwest Rail (to Boulder/Longmont) - 6,900

Colfax Stretcar - 38,500 (source Streetcar Feasibility Study, 2010. Two-thirds of those are new riders.)

Your comparing a streetcar to a commuter rail line?

You keep asserting that "ridership is a function of service" to justify taking Boulder's service, and spending it in the metro area. But the assertion does not hold. The service exists also because the demand is there for it, and the demand is there for it because of Boulder's transit policies, additional monies that the city puts in, and general political positions. The same positions you are attacking.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Projected 2035 Ridership:

North Metro - 14,300
I-225 - 19,200
Northwest Rail (to Boulder/Longmont) - 6,900

Colfax Stretcar - 38,500 (source Streetcar Feasibility Study, 2010. Two-thirds of those are new riders.)

This is what, I believe to be, a conglomerate of all the latest, most up to date, FasTracks corridors cost and ridership estimates, as well as planned frequency of service.


Central Corridor Extension
Vehicle Type: Light Rail
Length (miles): 0.8 new
Stations: 2
Parking: 1,685 existing spaces; no new spaces (parking will be shared with East Corridor at 38th and Blake)
Capital Cost: $67.3M*
2030 Ridership: 5,800
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 15 min (peak)/15 min (off-peak)


East Corridor (under construction)
Vehicle Type: Commuter Rail - Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)
Length (miles): 22.8
Stations: 6
Parking: 2,848 existing spaces; 681 new spaces; Total: 3,529 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $1.34B*
2030 Ridership: 37,900
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 15 min (peak)/15 min (off-peak)


Gold Line Corridor (under construction)
Vehicle Type: Commuter Rail - Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)
Length (miles): 11.2
Stations: 7
Parking: 711 existing spaces; 2,050 new spaces; Total: 2,250 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $590.5M*
2030 Ridership: 20,100
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 7.5 min (peak)/15 min (off-peak)


I-225 Corridor
Vehicle Type: Light Rail
Length (miles): 10.5
Stations: 8
Parking: 1,225 existing spaces; 1,800 new spaces; Total: 3,025 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $694.9M*
2035 Ridership: 34,200
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 7.5 min (peak)/10 min (off-peak)


North Metro Corridor
Vehicle Type: Commuter Rail - Diesel or Electric Multiple Unit (DMU/EMU)
Length (miles): 18.7
Stations: 8
Parking: 3,100 new parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $924.4M*
2035 Ridership: 24,100
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 15 min (peak)/30 min (off-peak)


Northwest Rail Corridor (phase 1, under construction)
Vehicle Type: Commuter Rail - Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU)
Length (miles): 41
Stations: 7
Parking: 3,975 existing spaces; 4,393 new spaces; Total: 8,368 parking spaces (opening day; U.S. 36 Corridor and Northwest Rail share parking at two stations)
Capital Cost: $706.9M*
2035 Ridership: 17,400
Proposed Frequency of Service: 30 min (peak)/60 min (off-peak)


Southeast Corridor Extension (planned extension of existing line)
Vehicle Type: Light Rail
Length (miles): 2.3
Stations: 3
Parking: 6,962 existing spaces; 2,000 new spaces; Total: 8,962 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $184.3M*
2035 Ridership: 14,800 (total ridership existing + extension: 56,800-64,000)
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 6 min (peak)/7.5 min (off-peak)


Southwest Corridor Extension (planned extension of existing line)
Vehicle Type: Light Rail
Length (miles): 2.5
Stations: 1
Parking: 2,597 existing spaces; 1,440 new spaces (1,000 opening day and 440 future); Total: 4,037 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $165.6M*
2035 Ridership: 5,700 (total ridership existing + extension: 23,900-26,100)
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail): 7.5 min (peak)/10 min (off-peak)


US 36 BRT Corridor (phase 1, 2 under construction)
Vehicle Type: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Length (miles): 18
Stations: 6
Parking: 3,826 existing spaces; 1,278 new spaces; Total: 5,104 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $208.5M*
2030 Ridership: 14,600
Proposed Frequency of Service: 2 min (peak)/4 min (off-peak)


West Corridor (under construction)
Vehicle Type: Light Rail
Length (miles): 12.1
Stations: 12
Parking: 646 existing spaces; 5,005 new spaces; Total: 5,651 parking spaces (opening day)
Capital Cost: $709.8M*
2030 Ridership: 29,700
Proposed Frequency of Service (Rail):
5 min (peak)/15 min (off-peak) - Denver to Federal Center
15 min (peak and off-peak) - Federal Center to Jefferson County


* inflated costs

[bunt_q]

Where'd you pull them from? (Denver Post or DRCOG I assume?)

I've gone round and round with RTD folks about this. These are the numbers from the model re-run last summer right? Yeah, they re-ran the model with new DRCOG employment/population figures, and ridership suddenly doubled or tripled in corridors that have seen growth stop since the model was run the first time. Lots of head scratching about that... The general party line is "well that's what the model shows"... But there's a reason RTD hasn't changed much of what goes out in public from the original Fastracks numbers. What has changed in the last 8 years that would make anybody think ridership will be that much higher? Nothing... I'll stick with the originals, just like most people are...

I do wonder, were the original figures low-balled, or are the new ones exaggerated? (nobody really knows)

I'll believe them when we're willing to stand by them on the website
http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_6

[Cirrus]

Growth modeling is a pretty mature science, but travel demand modeling is rapidly evolving. Without knowing a single thing about DRCOG's models, it's entirely possible that the old model was inadequate when it came to transit.

We're updating the COG model here, and the new one is about an order of magnitude more accurate for transit and bikes/peds than the old model. Much smaller and more precise analysis zones, many more trip categories, many more modal breakdown options.

If DOCOG went through the same exercise last summer then they could have seen similar results. So while it definitely raises an eyebrow, I wouldn't discount the possibility that the new model really is more accurate, and that the old model dramatically undercounted transit. I wouldn't necessarily take that as a given either, but it's at least theoretically possible.

[PLANSIT]

We just updated our transportation model (Cube) and as Cirrus has mentioned, it is much better at modeling alternative modes. We more than tripled our TAZs for this model, increasing accuracy profoundly. We've since finished modeling all of our scenarios and are confident the modeling done in this plan is more accurate than previous plans. I'm betting Cirrus is correct in assuming that DRCOG has gone through a similar upgrade.

[PLANSIT]

According to DRCOG's website, they have recently changed from Compass to Focus.

This link explains why they changed. (ppt)

This link explains the differences between Compass and Focus. (ppt)

Basically, it's far more accurate.

[bunt_q]

Sorry, I don't buy it. A better model, sure, but what empirical data have we had to calibrate it against, especially locally? So far, all we have is a gross assumption that it's better because the inputs and methodology are, well, better.

But let's stick with the NW Rail corridor for a moment. Projected ridership has increased from 6,900 to 17,400, an increase of 252%.

Let's look at what has changed since the first modeling, other than the model itself. None of the normal inputs have changed for the better.

Residential growth rates have plummeted. Still quite "good" compared to other states, but as low as Colorado has known since the 1980s, and roughly half the growth rate of the 1990s (which much of the Fastracks modeling was based on). And the NW corridor is certainly no star.

Employment growth, especially in the US 36 corridor, is downright abysmal. No game changers in the corridor, that's for sure.

So... we are to assume either that the change in modeling technique results in a 252% increase in projected ridership, with no change to travel times, headways, or any other system-factors, or that the fundamentals in the corridor have improved a whole lot, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Occam's razor, gentlemen. The simplest explanation is often the correct one. Projected ridership numbers - provided by an embattled transit agency, encountering obstacles completing a competing BRT line in the same corridor, currently lobbying for a yes vote for another tax increase - more than doubles on a line that hasn't been built yet in a down economy, with no explanation other than "improved modeling"... Really? That's not even a conspiracy theory, that's common sense.

Even if it's true, then it's still inexcusable that RTD underestimated by such a huge margin - if the rail was going to be so good, why the BRT also?

Funny, isn't it, that the West Corridor modeled ridership didn't change at all? That, or they did change, but we don't bother to re-run the numbers for corridors that are already funded.

[Cirrus]

Another potential explanation is that COG models have to use the regionally approved demographics/land use forecasts, which only get updated every few years. It's entirely possible (probably likely) the original model was using forecasts that didn't take FasTracks-oriented land use changes into account, and the new model is.

So not only is the new model more precise on it's own terms, it's almost certainly more accurate with regards to planned TOD. The Boulder Transit Village (for example) probably wasn't included in the original projections; how could it be, since it wasn't planned until after they came out.

Anyway, I'm not saying I think you're necessarily wrong. In reality it's probably a little bit of both. The original model was probably too low and RTD is stretching the new numbers as much as it can.

[bunt_q]

True, probably is a bit of both. Sad, really, RTD's backed into a corner now. Needs the higher numbers to justify the second round, since the best of the best are already funded. But if they're too high, the criticism after the fact will be merciless.

Boulder Transit Village? You didn't do that as a studio project, ~2001-ish? That better have been included. (All I remember is that I included a very large park-n-ride - I had a very RTD-ish frame of mind at the time - but it didn't help my studio grade any...don't remember it being too popular with the jury.)

[Pizzuti]

Maybe the cost of driving causes more people to use transit at the distance of the NW corridor.

I used to be a transit rider out of principle to "save the environment" so to speak. Then in 2008 I lived in North Boulder, and got an election-season job in the southern part of Denver and my vehicle was a clunker that I only used for very short distances, because it got like 13 miles a gallon. Gas was over $4 a gallon then. I calculated the cost of gasoline per day if I were to drive to be $25.

Sooooooo then I was taking transit for other reasons. It was around 2 hours each way of commute with 2 transfers but it cost me $8 a day.

I think people often have this assumption that Boulder is a town full of moralistic millionaires. That's not true at all; it's a town run by moralistic millionaires but who do you think works at the gas stations, restaurants, tourist-oriented retail and grocery stores? Census data indicates that 18% of Boulder households make more than $100K a year, which is indeed a little higher than the state average. But 22% make less than $20K a year which is significantly higher than the state average, the figure does not include students who claim residence elsewhere and are living off their parents' incomes, and they're doing it in a city with twice the home/rent prices.

I don't know exactly how they model potential ridership but I would think that including more data and getting better at your ability to analyze data, including community demographic information, makes a big difference compared to when you were going by population and development type alone. In a place like Boulder you get a huge bump that way.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Where'd you pull them from? (Denver Post or DRCOG I assume?)

I'll believe them when we're willing to stand by them on the website
http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_6

The 2035 Ridership Projections of 24,100, may also be found in the recently released, North Corridor FEIS report. The new model is not only more accurate, it is federally accepted.

The new projection model was a result of the fact, all previous projections RTD made, proved to be substantially low. Both the SW and SE LRT lines reached 20 year out projected ridership, within the first 4-6 years of service.

The new model takes into account land use pattern changes. The old model did not. This new model includes land use changes, which will be generated by the actual rail line (TOD's), the old projections did not take into account TOD's or any affect the rail line would have on future population growth, which in turn would affect projected ridership.

As for the I-225 LRT line, the main factor which boosted it's projected ridership, was the Fitzsimmons development. The original ridership projections for this corridor, did not take into account Fitzsimmons. Nor did it take into account TOD's which have grown all along the SE LRT line and will continue to grow along the I-225 line, in the future.

It is also worth noting, this:

But let's stick with the NW Rail corridor for a moment. Projected ridership has increased from 6,900 to 17,400, an increase of 252%.

Is not accurate, because the original ridership projection of 6,900 was a 2030 projection and the new projections of 17,400 is a 2035 projection. I assume ridership will grow between the year 2030 and 2035.

But once again, the old model did not take into account land-use pattern changes, TOD's as a result of the raid line or things such as increases in fuel cost. You have to admit, the old ridership projection for rail between Boulder-Longmont and Denver, did seem a little anemic, didn't it? The new projections seem much more realistic and practical, considering the land use changes occurring, the culture of people in the Boulder area favoring cutting edge, environmentally friendly transportation and the high volume transit usage already present in the corridor today.

I do believe these ridership projections to be accurate, or I would not have posted them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The new model is not only more accurate, it is federally accepted.

Oh. Well. That's good. Because the FTA has never signed off on a bad ridership projection.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The new model takes into account land use pattern changes.

What does that even mean? The old model included land use, just like the new one did. The inputs changed, that's all. (and the model, but still)

Fear not, they'll be wrong. Nationally, transit agencies have over-estimated more often than they've underestimated, the conservative anti-transit folks are correct about at least that much. RTD was actually unusual in that the SW did so much better than projected. The uglier Fastracks gets, the more I fear they are going to...push the envelope.

Not many lines with 30 min peak/60 min off-peak headways are big ridership engines. I know you're a natural booster... but a dose of healthy skepticism is in order here.

[SnyderBock]

I don't know if the new projections are too high or not. I do think the old ones were too low. These new projections may depend heavily on development, which could be delayed, as we often see happens with big TOD proposals. I think the projections will not prove to be more than 10% high, at the most. That's my best guess on the matter. Overall, I think the new model is more sound, as it takes into account land-use patten changes (not just land use). In other words, it's projecting future land use will differ from current day land use and the trend towards more urban/denser developments/TOD's, will continue to gain steam.

[Cirrus]

Boulder Transit Village? You didn't do that as a studio project, ~2001-ish?

Man. 10 years. We're old.

How did this happen?

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Man. 10 years. We're old.

How did this happen?

you keep not dying... it adds up after a while

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

you keep not dying... it adds up after a while

I blame doctors.

Seriously though, I wonder what sort of life it would take to feel like you actually had accomplished enough. It's a rare person who looks back and is satisfied. Charlie Harper (Sheen) is my hero, I think.

Ahem, light rail, yes. Just think, in 2021, we'll still be having this discussion.

[SnyderBock]

maybe they should try for a 1.0% sales tax increase, to build all of fasTracks by 2017. Plus a Colfax line, a South Broadway line (both hubbed at a rebuilt Civic Center Station) and a streetcar from Union Station LRT Terminal, into Hihglands all by 2027.

[glowrock]

Sure... District voters will just happily double their entire RTD taxes for FasTracks. I may believe most people in the RTD district are pro-transit, but I don't believe they'll approve a full percent sales tax increase!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Cirrus]

Now is definitely not the time for RTD to be adding corridors. Average voters may not understand or care about the difference between $6 billion and $8 billion, but simultaneously telling them you don't have enough money to build what they already voted for and that you want even more cash to build some new stuff most of them have never heard of (and isn't in their jurisdiction)... that's a recipe for pissed off voters.

I want all that stuff too, but asking RTD voters for it in this climate would almost surely backfire.