DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Okay, so we spend $200m on bus infrastructure, and $800m toward research on how to power those buses with hydrogen (or smugness, if we can harness and store that for use in buses ), or some other "sustainable" way to spend the money.

Not sure if anybody read Vince Carroll's rant against NW Rail in the Denver Post editorials today (entitled "Express Line to Insanity"). In it, he mentions this:

To their credit, elected officials in the corridor are at least open to exploring a version of this idea — even if they ultimately insist on rail at any cost. Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor tells me that one of the options they've asked RTD to analyze is spending $894 million (the previous estimate for the rail line, you'll notice) on "bus rapid transit service improvements on U.S. 36 plus bus rapid transit through Boulder, and along the Longmont Diagonal, Highway 287 from Longmont to U.S. 36, and Highway 42 to Louisville."
Local officials want to examine the impact of expanding bus rapid transit on mobility, travel times and economic development, and to compare it with rail, he added.


This seems perfectly reasonable to me. All of that should be studied.

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll#ixzz1jSYvE9KI

[TakeFive]

It has been awhile haha. Came over and pretended I was a sponge just soaking up all the great comments and info and data. Took me three days of non-stop reading....

But I've got a better idea......... naturally. Actually I'd like to play a different game and if nobody wants to play that's OK.

I'm the Big Picture type. That bunt_q would ever accuse me of overlooking a couple of very minor facts is likely accurate.

So on to inconvenient truths, politics, and only the very practical...... or Not.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm the Big Picture type. That bunt_q would ever accuse me of overlooking a couple of very minor facts is likely accurate.

It's sad that you would think an awareness of or a fondness for the big picture, and a fealty to details and facts, are mutually exclusive.

...

Watching that new Atlas Shrugged movie. Figured it might be worth a buck at the Redbox. It's cheesey, but there's a ton of good Colorado mountain scenery around the "John Galt Line."

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Bingo... we've got a winner!

Bits and pieces of ESI's more than enough for me. I'm all too happy to rely on others for necessary details. But I can look at a map, so I did.

Credits to bunt_q initially, the NW Line is currently a meth users dream. The whole Boulder/Boulder County question is nothing but a big quagmire as all the fun and very good comments demonstrate.
It could take years to finally determine what is best and what is wanted and doable.

When I look at me maps I find that Broomfield down into Denver is NOT in Boulder County. So for the upcoming election just exclude Boulder County. Or as an alternative have them vote (separately) on a smaller increase
for easily identifiable stuff. This prevents Boulder/County from any unnecessary leverage and blowing things up from "within" the family.

[TakeFive]

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:

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.

Since I had suggested as much (on the other thread) I was delighted to see SnyderBock add the detail and superb arguments. I enthusiastically endorse this idea. Meh... all the agitation over ROW.
Are we not managing to build miles of EMU and Light Rail along railroad ROW in very urban Denver?

When I look a me maps it's easily to visualize Broomfield into Denver as part of the extended metro area. For Fastracks maybe add one more piece/station.
Given that the numbers further out are currently weak the line can be extended as feasible as SnyderBock asserts.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So for the upcoming election just exclude Boulder County. Or as an alternative have them vote (separately) on a smaller increase
for easily identifiable stuff. This prevents Boulder/County from any unnecessary leverage and blowing things up from "within" the family.

Ignoring the legal difficulties of not holding the election in only part of the RTD... My instinct was to reply "but it'll never pass without Boulder." Then I thought, I should check first; I really don't know how much of an influence Boulder had in the original Fastracks election, so why not take a look. Here are my findings:



Conclusion: It looks like Boulder County was worth about 1 percentage point overall. At that time, not much influence at all it turns out. But I'm not sure how important that 1-point would be in a sure-to-be-closer election.

...

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Are we not managing to build miles of EMU and Light Rail along railroad ROW in very urban Denver?

Sure, but there's a lot more ROW to work with down here. If you can find us another railroad to work with that has a usable ROW leading to Boulder, other than the BN, you'll be a hero to the whole metro area.

(Someone else mentioned the UP line - the one the Ski Train used to run on. But if you look at it on a map, it runs south of Rocky Flats, and doesn't turn north until it's west of Hwy. 93. It would an absolutely nightmare to get into Boulder from the south starting at Hwy. 93 & Hwy 72-ish. Narrow ROW, open space, Rocky Flats. Not to mention, you'd have huge grade problems south of Boulder, near the road to Eldo. I'm pretty sure that is a non-starter, even for Boulder, no matter how badly they want a train.)

[TakeFive]

Perhaps not so fun a discussion on this thread but I'd like to look at a couple of real world realities since ultimately that's where we'll have to play.

RTD is back to a confused state of needing to make some hard and fast decisions in order to have an election this year.

One line of thinking (the one I support) is to have a Combo tax of transit and roads where there is only one vote up or down. Another idea would be to separate out one from the other and hope they both prove popular.
A combo vote would likely encourage RTD to ask for less than .4% and match or make both .25% each of increased sales tax.

Know Thine Enemy

First, it is entirely possible (as I've previously suggested) that while we were napping the the political winds have changed. Sure, rail transit has great popular appeal....... as a concept, and as part of the solution.
But there is the reality of high capital upfront costs (not to bother with how subsidized it is after it's built).

The Mayor of Broomfield (to repeat myself) has transportation near the top of his concern list. Not the NW rail line but Roads and Highways. I'm sure he's not alone.
The temptation to separate an RTD tax from the road tax could be a regrettable one.

The transit haters etc. love to Divide and Conquer or more apt, divide in order to conquer.

"We can't afford NO MORE TAXES."
"Well we do need help for road improvements."
"Maybe vote for one but certainly not both."

Know Thine Enemy!

[bunt_q]

I wonder if transportation period - transit or roads - is really on the minds of voters right now. "Growth" is probably about 25th on the list of concerns for most people right now. And I think willingness to pay for things like roads tracks pretty well with concerns about growth. Traffic is down from 2003 levels (because employment is down) when we held the first vote. If they want to sell the combo package (which I think is a good idea), it's going to have to be based as much on the obsolescence and deterioration of our roads, etc. Always a harder case to make for non-geeky voters. And the opposition has it much easier too. "Trains don't work" was never going to work as well as the newer "no higher taxes in a struggling economy" refrain will.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

As in $2 billion in cost? Because that's what the BNSF alignment is looking at now. Back then, the BNSF costs estimates were more like $680 million.

How can the BNSF corridor cost nearly $2 billion, when the ROW is already there, it will be sharing existing track and simply need double tracking added in places (or as BNSF now claims, the entire length needs double tracking, which is total BS, since all freight rail will operate at different times of the day, from all commuter passenger rail).

For $2 billion, RTD could nearly build a high speed rail, along side US 36 and/or BNSF ROW, from DUS to Boulder. I'm fine with no train, but all indications are that Boulder is not going to agree to this. The BNSF ROW is not realistic, imho. The first segment of the NW Rail will be built as part of Eagle P3. If it must be extended, why shouldn't RTD look at legally acquiring their own ROW, either along side BNSF rail and/or US36 ROW or a combination of the two? RTD already proved they could acquire their own ROW for the East corridor, at a lower cost, than Union Pacific was planning to charge them. So there is a precedence.

As far as the grade issues, it sounds like the 5% grades are only when coming into the Table Mesa Station. This could be handled by either stomping the line short of this steep grade (ending in Broomfield, for example), or by using EMU's which power all axles, instead of only half of them. Such EMU's are currently in use already, in Germany. Siemens would surely be able to accommodate that order and possibly Hyundai-Rotem as well.

Another possibility, would be to put the NW Rail on hold. Then as part of a CDOT project, extend it to Boulder as a HSR line. That would create another market, to the BRT. However, for that to work, there would have to also be Denver to Colorado Springs HSR and possibly Denver to Vail HSR.

So another option may be to cancel NW Rail "as is" and then try to re-invent it one day, as part of a Front Range HSR system.

However, I do like the idea of simply expanding and inproving BRT as a Boulder hubbed system, giving Boulder a starter Streetcar line and constructing more bike infrastructure in Boulder. Even under this plan, I think RTD/CDOT should look to extending the North Corridor Commuter Rail to Longmont and eventually plan to extend it to Fort Collins.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Then I thought, I should check first; I really don't know how much of an influence Boulder had in the original Fastracks election, so why not take a look. Here are my findings:

Conclusion: It looks like Boulder County was worth about 1 percentage point overall.

You are amazing even if annoying (hehe).

Interesting stuff. Of course my thinking went to the fact that if Boulder/county was to be all pissed off then their vote wouldn't be a plus.

[lostknight]

Take this from a Republican who has had odious conversations with Democratic leadership in Boulder:
1) Boulder generates a ginormous amount of the political spending for the DNC and candidates state-wide. A huge amount of their volunteer labor comes from Boulder. That reason alone will prevent a ballot measure that doesn't follow the original compromise that led to FT passing in the first place. Especially when you realize how close the national political picture is, and how much of a stronghold Boulder is in a battleground state.
2) Boulder would throw Longmont over in a heartbeat if they thought it would benefit them, but...
3) The Superior, Lafayette, Louisville and Longmont areas are growing insanely quickly. Boulder wants to remain a "hub" to those cities rather then having them pulled into Denver's orbit. A compromise that enables that will be welcome.


One random thought I have kept wondering in my own mind (there is probably a great reason why) is that there is considerable abandoned trackage along the Union Pacific’s Boulder Branch that was abandoned from Valmont out towards Erie. I wonder if it would be feasible to use that trackage, extend from Valmont up through pearl, and then run down to 287 (hitting Louisville, Lafayette) and then south to the I-36 corridor avoiding the Davidson Mesa that makes a I-36 alignment impossible. Failing that possibly refurbish the whole route, and tie up north. It's further out of the way, but the cost would be significantly lower.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Watching that new Atlas Shrugged movie. Figured it might be worth a buck at the Redbox. It's cheesey, but there's a ton of good Colorado mountain scenery around the "John Galt Line."

Seriously?

[Launch 12]

As a resident of Boulder County, I would much prefer a train that goes from Denver to Boulder to just BRT improvements - if they can really call it BRT, which it really isn't. However, recognizing the multiplying contraints for train service, there should be serious consideration of at least buying up some of the BNSF ROW up to the Church Ranch & US 36 intersection in Westminster and extend the northwest line to that location, if possible. That way the train line would be accessible to many in the northwest suburbs right off US36 and would be a viable train option as compared to the worthless stub at 72nd/South Westminster where access is not convenient and at its distance from downtown Denver, most would likely just choose bus or drive into downtown. I'd rather have a close train in 2020 than no train in 2020.

[EngiNerd]

This just goes with all the discussions going on.

Latest construction cost estimate for FasTracks: $7.8 billion

Denver Business Journal by Cathy Proctor, Reporter
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 9:24pm MST

The latest construction-cost estimate for the Denver area's FasTracks transit project is out, and it's $7.8 billion, up from $6.9 billion in last year's estimate by the Regional Transportation District .

But there's no gap between FasTracks' estimated costs and projected revenues, which were presented to RTD board members Tuesday, because the estimate assumes that RTD in November will ask for — and voters will approve — a 0.4 percent tax increase to help pay the cost of FasTracks.

....

About 85 percent of the latest estimated cost increase stems from a near doubling in the projected cost of the Northwest FasTracks rail line compared to last year, Reed said.

....

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/01/18/latest-construction-cost-estimate-for.html

[Wizened Variations]

RTD, as a governmental entity, must build more expensively (or not build at all). This is not to condemn RTD, for as metropolitan transportation governmental entities go, RTD is rather efficient. Rather, due to the time between conceptualization, garnering money for environmental and engineering studies, acquiring money for the buildout, and, building out, 'rats' have plenty of opportunity to buy strategic pieces of property, pay off appropriate politicians for zoning favors, and, for picking final design variations that increase the values of their properties.

I suspect that most of us know this.

The problem with building commuter line to Boulder is BNSF. The Company literally has had decades to get their 'ducks' in a row. I suspect that corporate leaders view the line purely in terms of how much money can be made via what they might call "The RTD Gambit.'

This reality applies to all potential ROW alternatives that RTD might desire in the the current economic, political climate.

Anyone that has spent any time near very profitable rail lines such as the rail lines accessing coal deposits in Wyoming has seen just how fast and cheap second, and, even third paralleling railroad tracks can be laid down. In addition, those that have watched those lines evolve note that the lines aesthetic design is subservient to engineering function.

If BNSF had reason to double track the Boulder to Longmont Corridor and to put in several long sidings- say 3 or 4 miles apiece between Boulder and Federal Street, I suspect that their inhouse rail maintanence teams and their long term contractors could build it for 50% of what RTD would itemize for building tracks alone. In addition, if BNSF felt that both lines should be electrified, catenaries and their supports could be built for at least 50% less than RTD could do.

Likewise, if either BNSF or UP felt that passenger rail transport could be sufficiently profitable lines from Denver to Greeley via the UP, or the Joint lines to Pueblo- could be upgraded and put into production in a shorter period of time than RTD or other governmental entities could even complete impact statements.

So, the only way to get either BNSF or UP to play the game in favor of passenger transportation is apply so much political pressure that the companies would HAVE to compromise. For example, threaten railroads with re-regulation on a federal level.

Otherwise, RTD is the canary and BNSF and the UP are cats with bird feathers in their mouths.

No logical argument, just business as is.

[TakeFive]

Wizened.... very astute, interesting and apt.
EngiNerd.... good info update.

RTD is between a rock etc. Boulder, right or wrong, as well as the county must be on board with whatever they decide. It seems that some level of realism has set in but all "solutions" are awkward.

One clear possibility is that all parties over-reach and the vote goes down in flames in this political climate. True, "Politics is the art of the possible" according to Otto von Bismarck,
but then someone else suggested that If politics is the art of the possible then "We're toast."

[TakeFive]

Denver's getting a brand new (toy), rail transit to its airport.

What would Cirrus think about a rail transit line that didn't end up at the airport?
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/19/does-an-airport-line-have-to-reach-the-airport/

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Denver's getting a brand new (toy), rail transit to its airport.

What would Cirrus think about a rail transit line that didn't end up at the airport?
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/19/does-an-airport-line-have-to-reach-the-airport/

If you're actually asking the question, Cirrus blogged on that on his site: http://beyonddc.com/

[TakeFive]

To be honest I'd never ventured to his blog site before. Guess he had an opinion alright. Pretty cool site actually... did you see all those trees over Colorado.
Could you tell where Denver's "plant a tree" programs have worked? (If so you're better than I)

Hadn't been to TransportPolitic in awhile so it was merely an accident of timing. With Denver and their "new" airport, I assume it was planned to accommodate future transit.

They did have a lively discussion where some from the Bay Area are convinced it was a disaster to have run the Bart to SFO instead of having an interface with an airport specific system.
Phoenix is currently building a people mover that will interface with their light rail and for this area I think it was the best way to go.

Cheers

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Could you tell where Denver's "plant a tree" programs have worked? (If so you're better than I)

I can show you a few blocks where I dug a bunch of holes! No tree bunt plants dies, and if does, it's the resident's fault. (I plant trees with Denver Digs Trees in the spring - never enough pickup trucks in the big city. Hauling trees makes me feel better about my 14 mpg.)