DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Because a bus every 20 minutes is not frequent enough for people to feel comfortable hopping on and off. 15 minutes is about as much as you make people wait without forcing them to live their lives by a schedule, which dramatically reduces ridership. And even then, 15 minutes is the lowest end of what's acceptable.

Instead of one good line you have two bad ones. Getting a lot of service to Table Mesa PnR isn't the goal. The goal is penetrating that high level of service into downtown and CU, which you don't get with long headways.

The BRT has always been discussed as 3-minute headways. Unless we get dedicated lanes, we'll have to split routes or face a stack of BRT buses on Broadway.

The "Cirrus hook" (chuckle) was a way to find ROW for a dedicated lane into central Boulder.

Realistically, though, we're probably looking at doing both. If 4 buses/hour go the traditional South Broadway, and 4/hour go the 30th (or 28th) route, presumably into downtown Boulder from there (unless they want something to north Boulder, but that's details for later)... That's still 12/hour on the "main" Cirrus Hook - 5 minute headways, potentially.

We could run two routes into Boulder at 10-minute headways (6/hour), and still have 8 buses/hour (7.5 min headways) on a main route. If we're really looking at 20 buses/hour to meet demand, we have a lot of options.

Boulder has put an awful lot of time into their "Transit Village" though... tough to see them giving up without a fight. Which is ironic, because Boulder doesn't need transit to make that village, or any other village, for that matter. Boulder has held back demand for so long, literally anywhere you allow development, you'll get it. You could do half a dozen BRT-centered transit villages, because they don't really need the transit at all.

God, I wish somebody would present Boulder with what a good bus option could look like. I actually get excited thinking about how many buses (good buses, too, if we wanted) could be pumped all over that city. But this "we deserve a train" thing is powerful. Trains are sexy, buses are not. Trains go on the system map, buses do not. But that's surmountable with a half-decent presentation.

EDIT: We still have to address the unidirectional HOVs in Denver, though. I don't blame folks for being leery of that stretch from US 36 to Union Station in the off-peak direction. I'm not even sure which is the off-peak direction there anymore - it's pretty consistently bad in both directions. Boulder does deserve *some* good transit, and if it winds up being a bus, Boulder deserves that on both ends. If it means a new ramp, at least, so buses can access DUS in both directions at all times, so be it. Bus priority lanes in the off-peak direction, maybe? I don't know. But it needs to be looked at if we're going to make one transit mode really good.

[Cirrus]

There's a highway shoulder, right? Let buses use the shoulder in the off-peak when conditions in the main lanes are bad. Minneapolis does it extensively and it works great.

It's not as good as a real bus lane, because you can't go at full speed on the shoulder, but 40mph on the shoulder is still a lot better than being stuck in a traffic jam in the main lanes.

[The Dirt]

Great idea! The shoulders on 36 would need an upgrade as they are nonexistent, narrow or very slanted. This would include more bridge work for 36 and cross streets like Sheridan, Old Wads, and Wads. Was that ever in the budget for the BRT or are these separate projects?

[Teshadoh]

Okay, 15 minutes, 10 or 5 minutes I admit I don't know or wasn't thinking. All I know is it would still be an improvement over what exists. Nonetheless, planning downtown Boulder as the primary destination node for a transit network is still a mistake in my view. Sure, there are plenty of people going there or coming from there - but even that would be a step down from existing bus service. The 3 major bus routes to Boulder serve UC & eventually downtown, & east Boulder (office parks).

Also - & I apologize for being uninformed - is one of the issues regarding BRT being there is not a reserved bus lane on 36 planned? If that is the case, why is BRT even being mentioned when really it is just the existent express bus service? I still hope the BRT lanes would be interior if they aren't.

Also, if all 3 bus routes still hit Table Mesa even if the bus is not destined for the passengers destination they could still transfer from what should be expanded local bus service. Besides, Table Mesa is merely a stone's throw from the campus.

[Teshadoh]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There's a highway shoulder, right? Let buses use the shoulder in the off-peak when conditions in the main lanes are bad. Minneapolis does it extensively and it works great.

It's not as good as a real bus lane, because you can't go at full speed on the shoulder, but 40mph on the shoulder is still a lot better than being stuck in a traffic jam in the main lanes.

I've seen that in places in metro Atlanta as well.

bunt_q - I would agree realistically any plan won't happen if it doesn't include the Transit Village. Likely any BRT line would go straight to Table Mesa or Transit Village & from there I would hope additional local bus routes would ferry people to work / home. Unfortunately I could see that as major road block to people using BRT if it doesn't take them at least 'near' their destination. I personally think there should be a BRT lane on Foothills Pkwy with stops at the major cross-town bus routes (Dash, Jump & overlapping with Bolt) for transfers.

[bunt_q]

You guys see this from the Post today (I think from the Daily Camera):

Boulder County believes it holds key to any FasTracks rail vote

BOULDER — Boulder County may hold the key to the success or failure of a possible ballot measure this fall that would raise money for the beleaguered FasTracks rail-transit program, Boulder officials say.

And they're ready to make sure the city gets its due in exchange for helping the measure along.

Recently revised cost estimates for the Boulder County portion of the metro-wide rail plan now come in at $1.7 billion, up from the previous estimate of $894.4 million. In an effort to get the project back on track, the Regional Transportation District is mulling whether to ask voters this fall to approve doubling the current 0.4 percent sales tax for the project.

Members of the Boulder City Council see that as an opportunity to get certain assurances that the U.S. 36 corridor and the Northwest rail line to Boulder and Longmont would get a fair share of the funds.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19732868

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Teshadoh

Also - & I apologize for being uninformed - is one of the issues regarding BRT being there is not a reserved bus lane on 36 planned? If that is the case, why is BRT even being mentioned when really it is just the existent express bus service? I still hope the BRT lanes would be interior if they aren't.
.

HOT lanes yes (to Superior, I think Boulder blocked them past that).

But the stations are still on ramps. So lots of exiting, stopping, and weaving. Not real BRT.

We were discussing real BRT as a possible alternative to the apparently-dying rail. A single compromise "good" solution rather than two now-unaffordable half-options.

[Cirrus]

Does the HOT lanes plan fail to include special HOT lane exits? So even the toll-paying SOVs will have to weave into the main lanes to exit?

[Teshadoh]

Thanks Bunt_q, as many times as i review the Fastracks website for information, it seems most often I never find out what most interests me. That would be the big case though I can see Boulder's thinking - they want rail so badly they are thinking sabotaging BRT is their way of getting what they want. Not to say I'm a big BRT supporter, but I'm also a realist, & whenever I see the comments sections - such as the article this morning you posted about people declaring they will not support ANYTHING but 'high speed rail', my eyes go rolling.

In that case - I would concur what Cirrus suggests. Improving the shoulders along US 36 with pullover lanes for accidents to allow buses. Would that mean more people riding transit? Probably not. There is a brick wall in front of a lot of people's mentalities regarding the bus, & without rail they will refuse it. I'm not even talking about SUV driving conservatives but the doo-gooder Outback driving with the "Free Tibet" bumper sticker Boulderite.

[bunt_q]

I think Cirrus was only talking about using the shoulders for the portion of I-25 between US 36 and Union Station, where the HOVs aren't available in the off-peak direction. There should eventually be HOVs (HOTs, really) all the way up US 36 to Superior (westbound) and starting at Foothills (eastbound). At least, that's the latest I've seen.

Cirrus, I'm not sure, but as far as I know the HOT lanes will just be striped off like the existing section to Federal, and yes, traffic will have to weave to exit. I suppose you could argue it's a Boulder-to-Denver highway, and the intermediate exits are...less critical. But yeah, not ideal.

Going to have to do some homework, make sure I'm still discussing the latest and greatest.

You're right about a brick wall in people's minds about buses. That's to be expected, I think. How many people in Colorado have ever seen a bus that doesn't suck? I wonder about diesel rail - the only train most folks here have seen is a light rail. What are they going to think when their train doesn't run silently?

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You still haven't said where you'd do it though. Or addressed how a very expensive EMU is superior to a BRT if you're doing it in the highway right-of-way. I am getting the impression you just have a fetish for EMU.

Not at all, I think you're just being a little hard headed. The NW Rail was chosen to be DMU because of three reasons:

1.) It needed to share BNSF ROW and BNSF wouldn't approve overhead caternary in their ROWs.
2.) The Boulder to Longmont portion, would add suffiecient length, to make the cost of full electrification, very high.
3.) The BNSF corridor, is very curvy and indirrect, so as to bypass steep grades. This strengthens DMUs viability, in this corridor.

However, there are some issues...

1.) There are not currently any FRA-compliant DMUs available. The Silverliner V's being used in FasTracks EMU lines, are being planned to to also have an FRA-compliant DMU version at some point.
2.) The current costs of the NW Rail Corridor are now over $1.7 billion and likely to climb to $2 billion, or more.
3.) US36 BRT, is really only partial BRT and wont ever perform as true BRT.
4.) NW Rail Phase 1 will be constructed and it will be EMU, not DMU. This Phase 1 spur, will need to be extended by at least a few stations in the future, to make the line viable to operate. BNSF Corridor is all but out of teh question, with their rediculous costs. New ROW will be needed to extend the NW Rail EMU, even if it's just by one or two stations per phase.

Eventually, it could be extended all the way to South Boulder's Table Mesa Station. It doesn't have to be extended all the way to Table Mesa. I'm simply saying they should extend it in phases, over time, by a station or two at a time. Maybe one day, it will get all the way to Table Mesa in south Boulder. Maybe that won't happen until the year 2075; I don't care. It could be extended, one station at a time, which would allow for full TOD infill to be built around each station, before the line is extended to the next station.

Lets face it, at $2 billion, the NW Rail could be built in all new ROW and be constructed as full HSR. That's not an exageration. So it would be foolish to build it as currently proposed.

So I say:
1.) Cancel NW Rail Phase 2.
2.) Expand the Boulder hubbed BRT/Rapid Bus system, to Longmont, Louisville and any other feasible locations.
3.) CDOT and RTD work together, to make the DMU extension of the North Corridor to Longmont, to be built before 2030.
4.) Extend the NW Rail EMU line, one station at a time -- after TOD completely fills in the existing station -- before extending the line to the next statiion. This might mean extending the line by only one or two stations, per decade.

[bunt_q]

You still haven't said what ROW, though...? There's no advantage to doing that rail if you're doing it in the highway ROW. Because we *could* make the BRT a real BRT. And have a one-seat ride.

Where are you talking about putting this hypothetical EMU line? (Where you can get ROW.)

Oh, your (3) and (4) above are both incorrect. On (3) - it could, if we designed it that way. And (4) - where is your evidence that Eagle P3 took on a money-losing project? The next 2-3 stations in line have almost no ridership. That's exactly why they stopped it where they did.

So where is this right of way? A $2 billion (or $1.5 billion) EMU in the highway right-of-way, presumably terminating in south or east Boulder, would be the stupidest thing imaginable.

[SnyderBock]

The ROW would be determined by studies, not by me. They could acquire any ROW RTD determines to be the best and do so for less than BNSF wants to charge RTD to use that ROW. And since I'm proposing extending the NW Rail by one or two stations per decade, the exact route they take, could easily evolve over time.

On my #3, it hasn't been designed that way and they have already completed Phase 1 and starting phase 2, so they would have to not only re-design phase 3, but then re-design and reconstruct phase 1 and possibly phase 2. I don't buy it, not going to happen. US 36 will never be true BRT.

Eagle P3 took on the NW Corridor spur, only because overall they still profit and RTD made them tack that on, to get that corridor started. The fact that RTD wanted it to be EMU, not DMU, also suggests RTD people have been considering a no-build for the rest of the NW Rail and then one day looking to extend the NW rail Phase 1 EMU. I don't think this caught RTD by surprise and I think they are and have been considering something very simular to what I am describing.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The ROW would be determined by studies, not by me. They could acquire any ROW RTD determines to be the best and do so for less than BNSF wants to charge RTD to use that ROW. And since I'm proposing extending the NW Rail by one or two stations per decade, the exact route they take, could easily evolve over time.

There is no right of way. Not cheap, easy to acquire without years in court, right of way. And not cheap right of way. That's what I am telling you. We are way past "studies will determine" - those studies have been done.

One or two per decade is a bad way to do things from a financing standpoint. Unless you have some sort of creative funding source, that means multiple elections, it's just not ideal.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

On my #3, it hasn't been designed that way and they have already completed Phase 1 and starting phase 2, so they would have to not only re-design phase 3, but then re-design and reconstruct phase 1 and possibly phase 2. I don't buy it, not going to happen. US 36 will never be true BRT.

You could completely re-do the BRT for half the cost of what you're proposing. And the highway improvements still haven't been done. Easy to do. A few bridges and park-n-ride modifications is cake compared to start-from-scratch ROW acquisition and planning a new rail corridor that would easily be in excess of $2 billion (you're talking EMU as far away as the airport, without the easy ROW).

If you know of a way to do rail cheaply, I'm all for it. But over those distances, with a forced transfer on the Boulder end, you're going to have to do better than 5,000 riders to justify $1 billion+. So many better things we could do with that kind of money.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Eagle P3 took on the NW Corridor spur, only because overall they still profit and RTD made them tack that on, to get that corridor started. The fact that RTD wanted it to be EMU, not DMU, also suggests RTD people have been considering a no-build for the rest of the NW Rail and then one day looking to extend the NW rail Phase 1 EMU. I don't think this caught RTD by surprise and I think they are and have been considering something very simular to what I am describing.

You have no idea what you're talking about here.

[Cirrus]

Let's take the Boulder discussion in another direction.

The hook plan is a way to improve the BRT, but it doesn't satisfy the desire for rail service. Practically speaking, we may need to buy Boulder off somehow if we want to cancel the commuter rail.

But for goodness sake, the commuter rail is projected to have lower ridership than the Skip. It's such an incredible waste of money that it would be worth throwing large sums elsewhere if we could bribe Boulder into giving up its commuter rail.

So what can sell to Boulder in place of an ineffective train to Denver?

Option 1 - Streetcar

Remember the Boulder Breeze streetcar idea? It seems to be dead in the water these days, but it could be revived. The beauty of the idea is Boulderites still get their train, it just happens to be a different one than they originally signed off on. And it could be the first phase of a future light rail system to the L suburbs.

The negative here is that obviously the streetcar isn't a priority, or they would have done more planning by now. Boulder's cycling die-hards may oppose it.

Option 2 - Appease the Cyclists

What if we gave Boulder $100 million for improvements to its cycling infrastructure. Hell, make it $200 million. Cancel the train, but in exchange you get every bike project you've ever dreamed of. Think they wouldn't drool over the prospects? Think it wouldn't result in some great stuff? That's a bribe that would buy off everyone in town.

But would the rest of the region revolt?

Any other bright ideas?

[bunt_q]

Sounds good. We should add, it's not just Boulder that needs buying off, it's also going to be Broomfield (possibly), Louisville, and Lafayette (assuming whatever happens on US 36 is good enough for Superior).

Before we move on completely, a little excerpt from the DEIS on our options for rail. If we want to force a train of some sort, I think we stick with the BNSF right of way and either eat the costs and low ridership, or look at ways to improve that corridor (2 new tracks in the ROW and vastly improved service quality, perhaps.) Anyways, this:

Similar to the US 36 MIS (RTD 2001), it was determined in the early stages of the US 36 DEIS/BE planning process that any type of commuter rail transit within the US 36 ROW would be prohibitively expensive and complex to construct. The US 36 ROW alignment would result in greater ROW acquisition costs, more impacts, and increased design and construction challenges than a commuter rail application in the BNSF Railway Company ROW alignment.

Additionally, due to the higher costs, impacts, and design and construction challenges, use of the US 36 ROW for any or all of the commuter rail would provide only minor travel time savings over the BNSF Railway Company ROW alignment. Therefore, a commuter rail alignment in the US 36 ROW for all or a portion of the corridor was not carried forward in the US 36 DEIS/BE.

Edit: I'm picturing the Fastracks Memorial Velodrome, complete with retractable dome roof, for Boulder's bike bribe. If we want to toss in $60m so CU can build a baseball stadium, I'm all for that too. Surely baseball at CU would have a healthy economic impact for Boulder.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Not at all, I think you're just being a little hard headed. The NW Rail was chosen to be DMU because of three reasons:

1.) It needed to share BNSF ROW and BNSF wouldn't approve overhead caternary in their ROWs.
2.) The Boulder to Longmont portion, would add suffiecient length, to make the cost of full electrification, very high.
3.) The BNSF corridor, is very curvy and indirrect, so as to bypass steep grades. This strengthens DMUs viability, in this corridor.

However, there are some issues...

1.) There are not currently any FRA-compliant DMUs available. The Silverliner V's being used in FasTracks EMU lines, are being planned to to also have an FRA-compliant DMU version at some point.
2.) The current costs of the NW Rail Corridor are now over $1.7 billion and likely to climb to $2 billion, or more.
3.) US36 BRT, is really only partial BRT and wont ever perform as true BRT.
4.) NW Rail Phase 1 will be constructed and it will be EMU, not DMU. This Phase 1 spur, will need to be extended by at least a few stations in the future, to make the line viable to operate. BNSF Corridor is all but out of teh question, with their rediculous costs. New ROW will be needed to extend the NW Rail EMU, even if it's just by one or two stations per phase.

SMART (Sonoma-Marin County) and GO (Toronto) are buying modern FRA compliant DMUs from Nippon Sharyo (Sumitomo Corporation of America). The costs are very reasonable and will meet EPA Tier 4 requirements, so they won't become obsolete early in life.
SMART is spending $3.2 Million (streamline nose) for each, GO is spending $4.4 Million (streamline nose) or $3.6 Million (blunt nose) for each.
RTD is spending $2.3 Million for each Silverliner V EMU. I assume RTD will be spending at least as much, if not slightly more.

DMUs will cost between 1 to 2 Million $ more each than EMUs. Depending upon the length of the rail line, and the number of trains required, either could ultimately be cheaper than the other over time.

But the idea there isn't a FRA compliant DMU available now is wrong. Maybe at the time of the study, but not now.

[bunt_q]

So I'm looking at the HOP map, wondering if there was some way to go beyond just the Pearl Street idea for a streetcar, and possibly even replicate the HOP route with a streetcar. To really appeal, I think you'd need to hit Downtown, the Transit Village (and 29th St), and obviously CU, and do it on main streets where the new mode was actually an in
improvement. But that looks mighty tough.

Going back to the Hook. You did that to minimize time on Broadway. But do we even need to deal with South Broadway/Table Mesa for our regional rapid buses? Surely there's a way to slip the BRT off at Baseline (new ramp, new lane with priority, something, without interfering with the bike infratructure), then up Broadway by the campus using the existing stations. And on into Downtown Boulder and RTD's station, which got left off the Hook.

East branch of the BRT does 28th, to 29th, to the transit village.

The two are connected with a Breeze-like streetcar. Gives you two options into downtown Boulder. Serves Central Boulder extremely well. Doesn't do much for South or North Boulder, but who in Fastracks is getting great service everywhere?

For Lafayette/Louisville, I think the Dash and Jump are almost as good as we can get for connection to Boulder. I do think a direct bus - one route for both towns, or two, from their downtowns to the BRT is required at a minimum. It's not ideal, but between Boulder's stellar buses and a one seat regional rapid bus to Denver, they'd still be the best connected towns of 15k around.

I'd venture a 2-3 mile streetcar at $100m. Real BRT easily $400-$500 million. Still room to expand internal rail in Boulder, there just aren't many good routes. Pearl obviously. 30th (has to go east, that's where all the development opps are), Colorado (thru campus), Broadway back? What's the grade on the Broadway hill, is it over 9%? I'm not sure a modern streetcar could do that. Maybe a semi-circle, terminating at CU, and forget the Broadway side?

Sorry for mistakes and no maps - on my phone.

[bobg]

I was browsing the final environmental evaluation because I was curious as to whether or not they studied replacing BRT/HOT on 36 with EMU/LRT (I don't think they did).

They did however study adding additional ROW on top of the BRT and running a DMU along 36 (Alternative E). That Alternative was eliminated due to the additional ROW costs but it was also eliminated because:

"Additionally, Alternative E – Highway Corridor (US 36/SH 119) is not practicable because
the steep grades required are not technically feasible for commuter rail vehicles, whether
they are DMU, EMU, or LHC. DMU and LHC vehicles can only run on a maximum 2.5
percent grade and EMU can run on a grade up to four percent for 2,500 feet. The five
percent grade for the highway near Table Mesa Drive exceeds the maximum grade for
DMU, EMU, and LHC vehicles."

Not sure if the technology has changed but it seems like EMU would have a hard time making it to Table Mesa without bypassing that hill on the entrance to Boulder. That bypass I would imagine would add significantly to the ROW acquisition costs.

As far as bribes to Boulder go I think we need to focus on making it true BRT and if theirs money left over from the original NW rail estimate than put it in a lock-box for better transit infrastructure in Boulder/Broomfield/North Jefferson counties. Promising them something RTD may not be able to deliver again would be tar and feather time for the RTD board.

The news articles did a piss poor job of explaining what BRT is and for the most part just called it expanded bus service. I honestly think the city of Boulder is rational enough (did I just say that?) that if they see what true BRT is they will not be so opposed to dropping the rail in favor of that.

Additionally, the NW rail preferred alternative was such a horrible solution that I have a hard time believing any reasonable person would use it over the bus (other than because they just prefer trains). It was only slightly faster than the BRT, much less frequent (peak 3 min vs 30 min), and with a few exceptions served the same areas. If that gets communicated to the voters it may make it easier for them to digest.

[wong21fr]

It kind of feels as if we're devoting too much time in trying to bribe Boulder and ignoring the surrounding communities with this modification. Yes, BRT is the way to go versus the NW Corridor boon-doggle, but the solutions that we are coming up with are focused on connecting Boulder proper. It may be enough to buy off Boulder for a tax-hike this time, but it ends up screwing over the surrounding communities that are going to end up being the larger voting blocks compared to Boulder sooner rather than later (I'm thinking about an eventual FasTracks II in 15-20 years). Longmont has to get something out of this, either BRT connecting into the US-36 BRT or maybe putting cash towards bringing the North Corridor into Longmont (which would also get the ball rolling on commuter rail up to Fort Collins).

The issue I could see is dissuading the public perception that Boulder and the surrounding areas aren't good enough for fixed-rail transit. Like it or not, people are fixated on fixed-rail versus bus and I'm not going to give the residents of Boulder the credit that they can see the cost-benefit advantage of BRT. This is the same town that thinks it will be better off with a stand-alone electric and gas utility that will be powered by the smugness extruded by the residents.