DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Have you ever ridden the regular B bus before? What we're doing will make every stop look like the Superior stop (or the Flatirons stop).

It's better than the old way, where the bus exited and had to go drive 10 minutes out of the way to the park-n-ride. But the bus will still exit the highway, stop on the ramp (the two sides of the highway connected by a ped bridge), then get back on the highway - including the red light at the interchange at some of the stations. Then the bus will have to weave its way back over to the HOV lanes. In other words, *not* BRT. Just a better regional bus.

Most of this is already done, actually. It's just extending HOV lanes now. That's why you haven't really heard about it, it's not even an RTD thing, it's in CDOT's court.

[taylor23]

If we wanted to focus solely on getting rail to Boulder why not take a NW route out of Denver? Last year I rode the Zephyr to California and it takes a NW route through Arvada crossing highway 93 close to highway 72. That ROW already exists so just use that. Once to 93 head North along the highway. This is all open space so no buildings to condemn, just environmentalist to appease. You could then have a South Boulder PnR on the edge of town. If (and I know this is a big if because I don’t know how you could find the ROW) continue up highway 93 there could be stops at CU and the Pearl Street Mall. The biggest drawback to the current NWR plan is it does not include the two main reasons for going to Boulder.

Longmont could be served as SnyderBock suggested by an extension of the North line. They already announced when the ROW was purchased for the North line that ROW all the way into Boulder was also included.

[bunt_q]

Bascially, if you had a proper BRT, there'd be no more need to run express buses than there is a need to run express trains on the light rail today. As long as there's an obvious need for a BX, BF, BV, etc., it's a pretty good indication that you're not running train-like local bus.

Not that we couldn't/wouldn't run different routes on a real BRT. But you'd expect the different routes to reflect different ends-of-line, not just to avoid intermediate stops.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Have you ever ridden the regular B bus before? What we're doing will make every stop look like the Superior stop (or the Flatirons stop).

It's better than the old way, where the bus exited and had to go drive 10 minutes out of the way to the park-n-ride. But the bus will still exit the highway, stop on the ramp (the two sides of the highway connected by a ped bridge), then get back on the highway - including the red light at the interchange at some of the stations. Then the bus will have to weave its way back over to the HOV lanes. In other words, *not* BRT. Just a better regional bus.

Most of this is already done, actually. It's just extending HOV lanes now. That's why you haven't really heard about it, it's not even an RTD thing, it's in CDOT's court.

Wow.. I really had no idea how non-optimal both Boulder modes were.
These public projects are where I really don't like "better than what we have". That's ok for Four Seasons, Spire or any other uninspiring design in the private sector. But really.. when the whole region pays, it should look/work as well as possible. Actually it would be IDEAL to work and look as well as imaginable, but I don't even think I'd be able to sleep through a dream of that reality without waking up laughing.

[taylor23]

Originally Posted by 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?

The way I understand it the current plan will require a lot of crisscrossing traffic at each stop as the bus tries to get over to the side of the highway from the HOV. Real BRT has center loading stations like in the pictures that were posted.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Wow.. I really had no idea how non-optimal both Boulder modes were.

You guys must think I just like to bitch. You don't hear me complaining about the airport line, do you? (At least, until we start talking about adding two stations in the weeds of Aurora, but RTD's stance is correct in that one, so I don't have to say much.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by taylor23

The way I understand it the current plan will require a lot of crisscrossing traffic at each stop as the bus tries to get over to the side of the highway from the HOV. Real BRT has center loading stations like in the pictures that were posted.

Damn, I've been under the perception that the stations were supposed to go along the US-36 median.

This really is a deluxe Express system, not a half-ass BRT system.

[Cirrus]

And of course let's not forget, these "BRT" buses will run in mixed traffic just like regular buses once they get to Boulder. The only real improvement inside Boulder is the frequency of buses.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

And of course let's not forget, these "BRT" buses will run in mixed traffic just like regular buses once they get to Boulder. The only real improvement inside Boulder is the frequency of buses.

Also a problem for the rail, though, since it doesn't really penetrate into Boulder. Either mode requires a bus in mixed traffic (or a park-n-ride transfer) at the Boulder end. A one-seat ride is still preferable to a transfer, I think.

Penetrating Boulder with quality transit is much, much more difficult.

[Cirrus]

Agreed. Putting bus lanes on 28th Street and then Canyon would be easy enough and would get you downtown, but you'd miss those two all-important Hill/CU stops.

You could squeeze a single reversible peak period bus lane on Broadway. There's plenty of room, if you can get land from the University to do it. But it would be such a hugely expensive and intrusive project that I doubt anyone would have the stomach for it.

You might try 28th Street to Colorado Avenue to Broadway, through CU, but the time savings there wouldn't be that great. Possibly not enough to account for the lost ridership from South Broadway.

[Cirrus]

Here you go. Call it the Cirrus Hook.

Put bus lanes on 28th Street and Canyon, so the only mixed-traffic portion is that one mile along Broadway. If two lanes for buses on each street is too much to ask for, one peak period reversible lane would do in a pinch.

By serving all three Boulder destinations (downtown, CU/Hill, and 28th Street) with one route, this also eliminates the confusing split where half the buses go up Broadway and the other half go up 28th.

This probably does add some time to the trip length for the CU people, since they'll have to double back a bit. But they're the least likely to care, and for everyone else this is better.

[sashyenka]

I think the "hook" idea is great, it has the potential to better serve CU students at later hours...I just wouldn't want to be anywhere near Broadway if something like that started construction. Holy crap, the traffic.

A little note though, the city of Boulder is redoing Broadway from Regent to Euclid, including the removal of Euclid on campus and changing that intersection to a "T" intersection, if I recall correctly, so you'd have to retool the loop. Perhaps you could just have it loop all the way through campus onto Colorado, then 28th — that way, you really are serving the CU students better, because it would access more of the campus. Trying to get from the Regent stop or Euclid to buildings like Hale or the Engineering Center or Duane Physics is a nightmare.

[bunt_q]

Presumably there'd be a stop on 28th behind the engineering center, so the east side of campus would actually be the best served by this system. And for students who don't mind a long walk (or bike sharing, or some sort of circulator), they wouldn't even have to ride the hook. I walked from engineering to econ every day, so I know it's do-able.

As for Euclid going away... There will still be service access throughout campus, I assume. Just not general traffic. I bet CU could find a bus turnaround, or as you mentioned, allow a cut-through back to 28th, easily enough.

We've struggled for years to find a good branding for for RTD's system... and "light rail" isn't going to cut it much longer. But at least the BRT is taken care of. We can just call it "The Cirrus" after its end-of-line hook.

[Cirrus]

1. The hook idea wouldn't produce any construction on Broadway. The underlying point of the plan is to avoid Broadway as long as possible in order to minimize the negative effect of running on it without bus lanes. If we were going to reconstruct Broadway anyway then there'd be less need for the hook, because we'd just rebuild it with bus lanes the whole way down to Table Mesa. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

2. Why in heaven's name are they removing Euclid? What's the benefit? Anyway, it doesn't make much difference here. Any block will do to turn around.

3. I'm not sure what benefit running through campus really gets us. Presumably you put a station at 28th and Colorado, so that can serve folks on the east side (and provide a more express station in general for CU). Meanwhile, a big one-way loop like that would be harder to understand for users, and running on Colorado would be basically unworkable on football game days (it's already a nightmare for the HOP).

4. Actually, that theoretical station at 28th and Colorado begs the question of whether we need to get all the way to University Hill at all. If 28th/Colorado can attract the CU crowd, maybe we could end downtown and be on bus lanes the whole way. Impossible to know without a lot more study. My suspicion is even with 28th/Colorado a lot more people would use the Hill stops.

5. Realistically, penetrating Boulder is going to be a next generation problem. Like getting rail to Cherry Creek, it's probably just not something we can solve this round. Nobody is going to want to start over with planning to make a relatively minor change like this one. But somebody will eventually have to solve this.

[taylor23]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

2. Why in heaven's name are they removing Euclid? What's the benefit? Anyway, it doesn't make much difference here. Any block will do to turn around.

Not sure if access to Euclid is being permanently removed or not but they are currently building a pedestrian underpass and bus pullouts at that location.

[wong21fr]

The Denver Business Journal reports that the FHA has approved the EIS for the North I-25 Improvement Project with a projected cost of $2.18 billion (in 2009 dollars) with roughly $650 million identified and a $1.5 billion funding gap. Though this thing is a ways out at this point, 2035 to 2075 phasing, due to financial constraints it lends more projects for a sales tax push for transit infrastructure in the near future and getting it completed sooner rather than later. It shows the importance of Longmont as a commuter rail transfer station and Union Station getting even sexier with another commuter train and two new regional bus lines. It also shows that CDOT is finally thinking about transportation as a whole rather than just highways.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2012/01/feds-approve-plan-to-improve-i-25.html

A map of the preferred alternative for the improvements from CDOT's EIS:

[Cirrus]

2035-2075? That means this is a useless study that will do nothing but collect dust. At best it will "help inform" a future more meaningful study.

The absolute fastest you can get a multibillion dollar project going is maybe 5 years. More generally it takes about 10. But if your project is more than 10 years out, it means you're not working on it right now, which means it's not a real project. You can maybe get away with saying something is 20 years out if you're consistent that it's your next priority down the pipeline, but anything beyond 20 years is too far out to be taken seriously. Too much can change in that timespan.

The only infrastructure project in the world that I would accept a 2075 timeframe for and still think of it as even remotely acceptable were if someone proposed a space elevator. That might take that long.

But adding some transit to I-25? A 63 year timeline just means they have no actual intention of ever doing it.

[wong21fr]

^The first phase is projected to be completed by 2035 using existing and identified funding and would include the commuter and express bus lines along with ROW purchasing for the the commuter rail portion. The I-25 improvements would be a small portion of the express lanes and some interchange replacement. It's the completely unfunded portions that push the timeline out to 2075. But, this proposal does serve to get the ball rolling on how to raise the money and it's a damn-sight more realistic than other plans for adding transit to the Front Range.

The EIS does state that the timeline would be moved up if additional funding becomes available, but they made the assumption that nothing would be forthcoming with the timeline. CDOT also delayed the commuter rail portion as it hinges on the NW and North Corridors being completed first and those are kind of up in the air at this point.

[taylor23]

Originally Posted by taylor23

The mountain biking trails near my home has a cool sign talking about the old rail line connecting Denver to Boulder. I like this route a lot better than the plans for the NW Rail Line. If only this infrastructure still existed today…

Here is a picture taken with my iPhone.

I tried to post this a while back but couldn't get the picture to show up correctly. I finally figured out what I was doing wrong so here it is...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

2035-2075? That means this is a useless study that will do nothing but collect dust. At best it will "help inform" a future more meaningful study.

The absolute fastest you can get a multibillion dollar project going is maybe 5 years. More generally it takes about 10. But if your project is more than 10 years out, it means you're not working on it right now, which means it's not a real project. You can maybe get away with saying something is 20 years out if you're consistent that it's your next priority down the pipeline, but anything beyond 20 years is too far out to be taken seriously. Too much can change in that timespan.

The only infrastructure project in the world that I would accept a 2075 timeframe for and still think of it as even remotely acceptable were if someone proposed a space elevator. That might take that long.

But adding some transit to I-25? A 63 year timeline just means they have no actual intention of ever doing it.

As long as every preferred alternative to come out of every EIS in the state includes EVERYTHING on the table, they are all going to have 60 year timelines. Because there's isn't money to do every option in every corridor.

I had no idea when we were decided to do rail and highway together for T-REX, and it was hailed as the grand compromise, that that project would then become the only acceptable template for every project to follow.

I-70 west - can't choose between highway improvements and a top-notch train; preferred alternative: both.

US 36, can't choose between buses, trains, and automobiles; preferred alternative: all of the above.

I-25 north, can't choose between trains, highways, HOV/toll lanes, and commuter buses; preferred alternative: all of the above.

It's no wonder the timelines are so far out. Those three alone are $25 billion+, and everybody thinks they should go first. And the Hickenlooper-approach to governing means you don't make anybody mad, so we have to find a way to satisfy everybody at once.

This IS NOT GOVERNING, what we're doing. Governing is about making choices. This is the Iraqi approach to governing - we want everything (stomp your feet), and if we can't have everything (wave your hands), we won't (thumb in face) do (shake thumb again) anything (cross arms and harumph)!

Or perhaps it's the everybody gets a medal for participating on field day, and nobody is ever goes home disappointed, approach.


EDIT: Tell you what, if the first step in the 'weaning us off the automobile process' was that, in order to fund alternatives, you had to also continue funding highways at the same pace for a while, it sure would've been nice if we had got started a decade or two before the rest of the world decided to join us on the stage. Two more decades like the 90s and we might have gotten there without needing "austerity."