DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

nm

[bunt_q]

I think it's fair to say that RTD was just taking orders in submitting that application. It shows a good faith effort to keep Fastracks moving forward, and shows it to a feisty jurisdiction that needs to see RTD trying its best.

The reason the newspaper gave for us not winning the grant was the lack of seniority in our congressional delegation. It's not politically correct at the moment to say that any project isn't strong on the merits. That would undermine the regional coalition.

[Cirrus]

The reason it wasn't funded is it was too large a request. Nobody - nobody - got more than $20 million, regardless of the merits of their proposal or the seniority of their delegation. The money simply wasn't there for such large projects to be funded.

And here's the thing: That was predictable. Anyone who paid any attention to TIGER1 and TIGER2 would have been able to predict that a $66 million request was too high to even be considered serious.

Yes, politically you've got to apply for something. But you pick something that has a chance in hell of winning.

[bunt_q]

I know...

But Aurora's is next in line.

And you have to build to the next station.

I don't know, but it may have been just that simple.

EDIT: Sort of like how we're probably going to build the station in Longmont a decade, maybe more, before we even figure out how to fund that line. Why? They're next in line. Welcome to the fine art of regionalism. Thank you, Hick, for turning a good idea into a mandatory brainless reflex. It's bridge-to-nowhere governance.

[PLANSIT]

Where does it say they asked for $66 million? I see a project total, but not a request amount.

[bobg]

They did request 66 million. I was not aware of the awards given out in Tiger where so low and competitive.

Either way RTD is definitely playing politics when requesting the grant in advance of the vote because even if they did award that much money and their wasn't much competition they likely would still get a no on this. This way they can demonstrate to the voters they are trying everything possible on all corridors (although I still do not think they have applied for anything on the central extension, or southwest extension).

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bobg

They did request 66 million. I was not aware of the awards given out in Tiger where so low and competitive.

Either way RTD is definitely playing politics when requesting the grant in advance of the vote because even if they did award that much money and their wasn't much competition they likely would still get a no on this. This way they can demonstrate to the voters they are trying everything possible on all corridors (although I still do not think they have applied for anything on the central extension, or southwest extension).

How much were they matching?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

How much were they matching?

Not sure, but I imagine it was the minimum 20%. The fact is, it was just too much. They were asking for more than 10% of the national total.

EDIT: Actually, I think the way the grant app was written included the CDOT/RTD "multimodal" part from Nine Mile to Illiff (that leftover money from Eagle P3 that was split around). So the match was actually probably very high, depending on how you counted it toward the overall Segment 1 (to Florida). But percent of local match wasn't part of the evaluation criteria, and partnership was only a secondary factor.

Still, though... wrong time, wrong program, for a large capital project. Look at what did win (http://www.dot.gov/tiger/docs/FY2011_TIGER.pdf) and I think it's clearer what they were targeting.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not sure, but I imagine it was the minimum 20%. The fact is, it was just too much. They were asking for more than 10% of the national total.

EDIT: Actually, I think the way the grant app was written included the CDOT/RTD "multimodal" part from Nine Mile to Illiff (that leftover money from Eagle P3 that was split around). So the match was actually probably very high, depending on how you counted it toward the overall Segment 1 (to Florida). But percent of local match wasn't part of the evaluation criteria, and partnership was only a secondary factor.

Still, though... wrong time, wrong program, for a large capital project. Look at what did win (http://www.dot.gov/tiger/docs/FY2011_TIGER.pdf) and I think it's clearer what they were targeting.

So, it was political. Like: "Hey look, we tried, but sorry, we didn't make the cut." Nothing wrong with that.

CCD had two applications. Federal and MLK. Nil.

But Colorado, as a whole, has gotten quite a bit of money through these livability/tiger/community planning grants. So, not a big surprise most were left out of this last round.

[PLANSIT]

Looking at Tiger II awards, ATL received $47 million out of $600 million for Streetcar. So asking for $66 million isn't that crazy. It wasn't probable, but you HAVE to try.

[bunt_q]

Cirrus can speak intelligently on what a "reasonable" expectation for TIGER III would have been, I can't. But it seems everybody knew these would be smaller grants all around.

I don't disagree with you, just because it was political doesn't make it inherently bad. But RTD, by virtue of being a popular transit agency, probably had the best chance of any Colorado entity of winning something. Maybe they should have found some $10-$20 million bit somewhere and requested that. It isn't like there aren't plenty of unfunded needs everywhere you look (even if it wasn't Fastracks-related - RTD still has a rather sizable bus company to run). Pedestrian/bicycle improvements at stations, or some such small-but-difficult-portion to fund. Asking for a mainline segment, with a low probability of winning, is sort of greedy. My personal approach would be to ask for the prize I can win, not the prize I'd love to have. But alas, hindsight is 20/20.

Another one... remember all the talk early in Fastracks about "Fastconnects" - the bus improvements throughout the metro area. What happened to that? Seems like a good, smaller project. Hits multiple areas. Targets an important transit demographic that's been particularly hard hit in this economy (and is of special importance to the administration). Would have been more unique, that's for sure.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Cirrus can speak intelligently on what a "reasonable" expectation for TIGER III would have been, I can't. But it seems everybody knew these would be smaller grants all around.

I don't disagree with you, just because it was political doesn't make it inherently bad. But RTD, by virtue of being a popular transit agency, probably had the best chance of any Colorado entity of winning something. Maybe they should have found some $10-$20 million bit somewhere and requested that. It isn't like there aren't plenty of unfunded needs everywhere you look (even if it wasn't Fastracks-related - RTD still has a rather sizable bus company to run). Pedestrian/bicycle improvements at stations, or some such small-but-difficult-portion to fund. Asking for a mainline segment, with a low probability of winning, is sort of greedy. My personal approach would be to ask for the prize I can win, not the prize I'd love to have. But alas, hindsight is 20/20.

Another one... remember all the talk early in Fastracks about "Fastconnects" - the bus improvements throughout the metro area. What happened to that? Seems like a good, smaller project. Hits multiple areas. Targets an important transit demographic that's been particularly hard hit in this economy (and is of special importance to the administration). Would have been more unique, that's for sure.

Oh I definitely agree. I think there were much better projects to go after money for.

No one knows what happened to FastConnects. You can't find information on it anywhere. RTD hasn't spoken a word about for years. In the meantime, they continue to cut service.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Looking at Tiger II awards, ATL received $47 million out of $600 million for Streetcar. So asking for $66 million isn't that crazy. It wasn't probable, but you HAVE to try.

Asking for something you know you won't get isn't trying. It's wasting time and money.

In 2010 there was $600 million available in total. Atlanta was by far the biggest winner; they got $47m. After that there were two awards in the $30m range, and 4 awards in the $20m range. And then 35 awards in the less than $20m range (not counting the even smaller planning-only grants).

In 2011 there was $511 million available. It is very well-known that USDOT likes to spread the TIGER wealth around via a lot of grants rather than one or two big ones, so the likelihood that the largest award would be as big as last year was very remote.

And then there's geographic distribution, which has always been an important consideration for TIGER. Atlanta was a big winner in 2011 in part because it the was the biggest metro area to not get anything at all in 2010, so it was in a sense their "turn". Denver, on the other hand, was one of the few cities to get money in both previous rounds of TIGER, so it was Denver's "turn" to not get anything. The likelihood that it would not only receive a grant, but that the would be the largest overall in TIGER 3 was politically zero. The only chance Denver had in TIGER 3 was for a smaller-than-average grant, certainly not the largest.

And that's not all. USDOT held a number of webinars and helping sessions, to answer questions and make sure people knew what to expect from the TIGER program. They were very clear that they were looking primarily to fund projects in the $15-25 million range. It would be understandable to go a little above that, but $66 million is three times the suggested maximum. RTD's grant writers either didn't attend any of those webinars, or ignored the advice. Either way it was a bad move.

In short, it was 100% predictable that Denver was not going to get $66 million from TIGER 3, completely regardless of the specifics of the request. The odds were zero.

PS: I *promise* RTD has an unfunded project somewhere that's less than $15 million, which would have been my target if I was on its grant-writing staff.

[SnyderBock]

The NW Rail is now estimated to cost $1.4 billion (if started on current schedule) and possibly escalate to $1.6 billion -- or more -- if delayed by several years (which is very possible).

This causes me to wonder about alternatives to the BNSF DMU corridor. For starters, Phase 1 to South Westminster is still on schedule, funded and being completed as part of the Eagle P3 portion of FasTracks. This Phase 1 is not dependent on BNSF and will also be electrified (EMU). Extending this EMU line out, in Phases, over the coming years/decades, along a path of new ROW (instead of BNSF), may be worth considering.

Another option might to be a full build out of this EMU line to Boulder as Phase 2, once more funding is secured. In other words, forget BNSF. That was only pursued, because the projected cost of obtaining all new ROW and electrifying all the way to Boulder, was determined to be too high and it left Longmont and Louisville out of the rail station picture. That cost advantage, now seems to be gone.

Here's my proposal...

Phase 2 NW Rail should be restudied, so determine the feasibility of obtaining all new ROW (through emnient domain), along a newly defined corridor, which more closely parallels the US 36 Bus Rapid Transit line/stations, to provide as many BRT/NW Rail shared transfer stations, as possible. Then expand the role of the US 36 BRT line, by feeder buses from Louisville, Longmont and other nearby communities, to the US 36 BRT lanes to the nearest transfer station with NW Rail. Then extend the BRT from Boulder to Longmont and fund studies to define the feasibility of a future extension of the North Corridor EMU line to the Longmont Transit Station. That would give direct service from Longmont to Denver via the North Corridor EMU and direct service from Longmont to Boulder, via the BRT extension. It would also make the Longmont station, the focal point of a future state Front Range rail line between Denver and Fort Collins.

Here is what I have in mind:

[bunt_q]

Where are you going to get a continuous ROW, other than the railroad corridor or US 36 itself?

Sounds like you need to go back to the original MIS (major investment study) from the 1999-2001 time period. Then the first draft EIS, and just read your way forward (up until the point the highway and rail plans were split apart).

Needless to say, I don't think you're going to find a cheaper rail option, and if you move it out of the BNSF corridor there'd be no more point in doing both rail and BRT.

The US 36 plan is a classic camel. It's almost laughable really, there are no good options remotely within our price range. (I am assuming Snyder is talking all new ROW, where we want it to be, all through eminent domain, all electric...the $4 billion+ 20-more-years, it'll never actually happen, dream option.)

[SnyderBock]

Not $4 billion dollars...

All new ROW along US 36, using eminent domain to acquire any property in its wake, between the 71st/South Westminster station and the Table Mesa Station. That's not a terribly long corridor, less than 25 miles and not fully developed right up to the highway, the entire length. Being electryfied, the grade issues along US 36, will no longer be an issue. Which was one of the main reasons for the current alignment.

See my map I threw together? The EMU would only go to Table Mesa (terminus). BRT would be ran from Boulder to Longmont, from Boulder to Louisville and from Boulder to Denver. Then, at some point in the distant future (in coming decades, as funding is found outside of FasTracks plans), extend the North Corridor EMU to the Longmont Transit Station, but as a DMU extention which would be eventually extended to Fort Collins (CDOT ran project, in other words, not RTD). This could possibly be accelerated by a joint venture between CDOT and RTD to get a State tax proposal passed for both Highways and Rail.

[bunt_q]

Why would you run rail and BRT in the same ROW? Just choose. Either would be more than adequate technically for the demand.

Read the MIS, everything you're describing was in the original alternatives set.

[SnyderBock]

And I'm suggesting it's time to go back to it. The costs of the current plan, have now grown to a point, that these alternatives I'm describing now, would be competitive in price, and thus worth reconsideration.

The reasons to run both BRT and the EMU, are as follows:

1.) To to use the BRT to "feed" passengers into the EMU stations
2.) Use the BRT as a Boulder hubbed system, feeding commuters in and out of Boulder, and the US 36 Rail as a Denver hubbed system to feed commuters in and out of Denver.
3.) Transform the US 36 corridor, into a truely multi-model transportation corridor.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

1.) To to use the BRT to "feed" passengers into the EMU stations
2.) Use the BRT as a Boulder hubbed system, feeding commuters in and out of Boulder, and the US 36 Rail as a Denver hubbed system to feed commuters in and out of Denver.
3.) Transform the US 36 corridor, into a truely multi-model transportation corridor.

Multi-modal only works if the modes are doing different things. What you're saying makes no sense.

If we move away from the BNSF, the only right of way available is US 36 (or else way out of our budget). The BRT is, obviously, going to be in the US 36 ROW. If they are running next to each other, they are competing modes. That's insane.

If you just want to run rail to Boulder, then BRT from there, fine, done right, I could get on board with that. But then you have four problems that I see:
(1) the political problem - Longmont gets the shaft,
(2) the easiest right of way is actually the Boulder-Longmont segment, which reinforces problem (1),
(3) The other L-towns (where a lot of traffic to Boulder originates) are not directly along US 36 and also get the shaft - the whole reason for the split in the first place was the political compromise; the camel, and
(4) the forced transfer massively lowers new ridership. All Longmont is getting at that point is, at best, slight improvements to what they already have, which is pretty damn good bus service throughout Boulder County (if everybody up there gets the same thing, it might be more politically tenable).

And even then, US 36 rail is still much more expensive than the current option.

If we're going back to that and re-evaluating, then in comparison between US 36 rail and US 36 BRT, BRT will win, hands down. That is an ideal BRT corridor, for a number of reasons:
(1) it is already an incredibly strong bus corridor,
(2) if your rail option in confined to a highway right-of-way, especially a park-n-ride based one, your ridership advantage using rail technology is almost nullified, and
(3) most importantly, you are forcing a transfer in Boulder. BRT would be a one-seat ride.

Factor (3) alone would put BRT over the top (real BRT - forget this off-ramp stuff, if we're re-evaluating from the start, then we have budget to go back to the real BRT option).

That's why we got the compromise we got. Because for ego ans sex appeal reason, folks up there wanted a train. And the only way the train made any sense at all was to use the existing rail right-of-way.

I emphasize, real BRT. You may not have ever seen real BRT. But done right, it's actually quite nice. Even preferable, in my opinion, to a diesel commuter rail.

This is how a one-seat ride from Denver to Downtown Boulder/East Boulder/Longmont/etc. could work in the highway ROW (you could even run once hourly direct buses to Lafayette, Louisville, etc. if you wanted, and if that sold the deal politically). Not my best pictures ever, but here:



Regular platforms:





In a station:



In the city (ideal, but unnecessary in Boulder/Longmont):







Wayfinding, just like a train:





Vehicles - this is very basic, could use this, have a mix (local/express), or go much nicer:



Alas, I think it's probably too little too late. Nobody is realistically going to reevaluate the US 36 corridor now. Which is a shame. May break Fastracks II at the ballot, who knows. If we're willing to lay off thousands of teachers after a rather tame opposition to a tax hike (last year's election), we'll certainly vote down an arguably bad transit hike (resulting from arguably poor management of the first tax hike) that will face fierce nasty opposition.

[Brainpathology]

I'm exposing perhaps an unforgivable ignorance here, but how would the BRT to Boulder work? How is it not true BRT? What are we actually building?