DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Fritzdude]

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to dig a tunnel, or subway, down one of the "spines" of Denver, whether it be 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th, and not disrupt activity at the street level?

I'd love to know if they could just bore through the underground without inconvenience to us 'earth walkers'..

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to dig a tunnel, or subway, down one of the "spines" of Denver, whether it be 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th, and not disrupt activity at the street level?

I'd love to know if they could just bore through the underground without inconvenience to us 'earth walkers'..

It is possible to do the tunnel with boring provided the soil under Denver allows for it. Boring is coincidentally how Seattle did their transit tunnel. There's still some disruption with boring where access to the tunnel is needed either for transit vehicles, stations, ventilation, etc but nowhere near the level of disruption that occurs with cut and cover.

[PlattParker]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, except that would completely fail to serve the main spine of downtown, which is the whole point. I don't think it would be worth it if you weren't under 16th or 17th. Maybe maybe 15th or 18th, but even then you're getting to be too far to one side to properly serve half of downtown.

Any underground transit tunnel is a subway. The word is a descriptive term. The name Seattle happens to give its subway is irrelevant.

As for better examples, I think we're all ears if you have any. Please do tell.

When providing a better example, please also describe why Seattle's isn't a good one.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, except that would completely fail to serve the main spine of downtown, which is the whole point. I don't think it would be worth it if you weren't under 16th or 17th. Maybe maybe 15th or 18th, but even then you're getting to be too far to one side to properly serve half of downtown.

Any underground transit tunnel is a subway. The word is a descriptive term. The name Seattle happens to give its subway is irrelevant.

As for better examples, I think we're all ears if you have any. Please do tell.

When providing a better example, please also describe why Seattle's isn't a good one.

As far as better examples go, that should be up to you to find. You are the transit expert, I am just a computer science guy.

Here is a link that helps to explain part of the problem:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Bus-tunnel-epitomizes-transit-screw-ups-1183846.php

To summarize the point of that article. it sucked up dollars that could have been much better spent expanding their transit system. While their northwest neighbor Portland was building one of the most effective light rail systems in the country, Seattle was building a multimillion dollar under ground art gallery. While Denver was building a light rail system that allows me to take the train to my job in the DTC every morning, and to attend sporting events and dine downtown without worrying about driving home drunk, Seattle was paying to retrofit their boondoggle to allow for light rail to use it.

[Cirrus]

1. Sorry, if your claim is that my example isn't good, then the onus is on you to find one you like. My opinion is that Seattle's subway is pretty much ideal to what Denver will likely need in another couple of decades, and could realistically afford.

2. Seattle actually has higher per capita transit ridership than Portland or Denver. If you don't believe me I'll pull the statistics. Of course it's a bigger city, and I suspect (but can't prove) that Portland's number would be higher if we only counted the section of Portland west of the Willamette River. But the point is Seattle's transit system is outperforming Portland's according to the most widely-used indicator.

3. You may be right that it would have made more sense to build the subway after building a rail network instead of before, but that's irrelevant to using it as an example for Denver, because we're talking about doing it in Denver in the context of FasTracks being finished. We're talking about doing a Seattle-like subway *after* the rest of the rail network is in place, exactly as you suggest.

[SnyderBock]

I prefer the 17th Street alignment for a future subway. Right down the middle of the urban core. Runs right into Union Station, allowing for optimal Union Station integration possibilities. Avoids the 16th Street Mall, allowing for as much cut and cover construction as possible, without disruption to the 16th Street Mall.

The tunnel should be constructed for both bus and Light Rail. Any future Streetcar lines built in Denver, should be built to be compatible with RTD Light Rail infrastructure, including this tunnel, so that these streetcar lines may also use this subway to Union Station (if ever warranted).

The bus portion of the tunnel, should break off from the rail portion somewhere around Wazee and then run down 19th Street for access & integration with RTD's bus viaduct and Underground Bus Terminal (under construction at Union Station).

Rerouting all the city bus routes through the tunnel to Union Station, RTD could then implement a 14th/15th Street circulator free bus, to go along with the 16th Street bus and the 18th/19th Street downtown circulator.

[bcp]

i really hope this never happens...the cost and disruption and financing of this would string it out for decades...denver seems opposed, for reasons i cant figure out, at all costs to elevating trains in downtown.

i like the 17th idea...the street is WIDE, the buildings are tall, there is plenty of sunshine (odd that is so protected / precious here when it is so overly-abundant!), and the natural grade would bring it back to street level (i.e. connecting to colfax).

just a wild idea...from a guy who really loves chicago and saw how well it worked there. oh - one other cool thing they do in chicago is they elevate the trains in the ALLEYS...and then they just put the stations at major intersections - works great, looks cool.

[bunt_q]

Even if I liked the idea of elevated trains, which I don't, our alleys run the wrong direction.

[texcolo]

www.denverstreetcars.net

Denver already had an elevated train.

Why not put an at grade one-way loop, along 17th going towards Union Station and on 15th coming from Union Station???

[bobg]

Originally Posted by texcolo

Why not put an at grade one-way loop, along 17th going towards Union Station and on 15th coming from Union Station???

Some factors complicate feasibility, capacity, and efficiency of anything put at grade on 15th/17th. Anything at grade will run into limitations due to the traffic signals. The drivers right side of 15th and 17th are already fully utilized by existing buses during peak times. Last I heard the city was putting a bike facility on the drivers left side of 15th which would take away additional ROW. Not saying it could not be done, but whatever goes on those streets would likely be a more complicated and limited system than something grade separated.

If we are getting away from the realm of the ideal and into the realm of cost effective I think one thing worth exploring is an exposed trench on 17th. As has been noted 17th is a wide road. However, with the amount of traffic on 17th not sure if it's feasible to take away some parking/travel lanes (even though I would love to). Also with the amount of bridges and other infrastructure needed in a downtown environment to make a trench work I am not sure how much money that would save.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bobg

That's the crux of the issue the mall ride cannot be easily doubled in frequency. Last plan I read the best RTD and consultants could come up with was having the bus alternate stops on 16th to improve throughput. As a result RTD is more reliant on the 18th/19th street circulator to pick up the additional demand from Fastracks.

The question becomes once both of those circulators are maxed out then what? RTD/Denver/DDP might be able to come up with higher capacity vehicles, they might need another corridor with a similar circulator, or they may need to go bellow ground in order to mitigate impacts to the businesses/residents on the surface while they obtain the efficiency needed.

Eliminating the Subway option.

The cost of putting a subway line along a highly developed street in an urban core is huge. Multiple levels of steam (yes steam), water, sewage, and fiber optic lines make such construction in the $2 to $4 billion constant dollar per mile range. These lines serve multitudes of building tenants, who (at least in the opinion of tenants) pay high dollar for utilities essential to running their businesses.

For this reason, obviously, building underground is far cheaper in undeveloped land (imagine what building the Bus terminal at DUS would have cost if it had been built at, say, 18th and Champa, for example).

Also, building a cut and cover or the more expensive tunnel bore subway the length of 16th, or 17th or 18th Streets between Wynkoop and Colfax would be the most expensive to build per unit distance.

In addition, the distances as a function of riders and distance, is short, perhaps 1 mile (Union Station to Broadway under 17th Street as a median example).

Could the city of Denver rationalize the bonds required (all bets would be off if this would be an outright federal grant, LOL), say $2 to 4 billion in current dollars to build this 1 mile of subway?

I do believe, however, that given metro Denver will likely grow significantly in population, and, that this growth will be (by necessity, not choice) less auto-centric. I also believe that a significant share of the metro area's growth, say 5 to 10% will occurr within Denver City limits. So, if by 2040, metro Denver has 4,000,000 people, as many as 250,000 more people might live in Denver city proper. That would put Denver at 850,000.

"Downtown" will physically be far larger, with the Golden Triangle, Uptown, North Capitol Hill, the City Park Area, Wash Park-West, and down south Broadway to at least I-25 and in a broad swatch east of Broadway Street north to the Platte, assuming more of a moderate to highrise aspect (interspersed with 'classic' single family housing.) This is the future population that needs to be integrated into the current DUS Market Street corridor, and, for whom, a subway should also service.

The Mall Shuttle.

Should be replaced with street car functionality in downtown, but not necessarily on 16th.

Possibly a one way loop going north on 18th, off the Stout light rail line to Wynkoop, then looping south down the 16th Street Mall could be built for $1 billion (constant dollars).

Regardless, RTD and city planners understand that to increase passenger capacity 16th Street Mall would no longer run in both directions during peak hours, and, that a loop along a parallel street will need to be built (this would be built with mixed shuttle and POV traffic.)

Also, there needs to be more integrated mall shuttle vehicle storage to the 16th Street (and future) Shuttle Lines.

LIKE HOW ABOUT THE MARKET STREET STATION UNDERGROUND, with a Park above? (Could'nt resist- too practical...LOL)

[Cirrus]

Those cost estimates are too high. New York's Second Avenue subway (most expensive ever in the US!) is coming in at about $2.7 billion per mile, and its 7 line subway extension is about $2.1 billion per mile. And that's in New York, where everything is much much more expensive than in Denver, and where the subway platforms have to be a lot longer (and therefore more expensive) than they'd have to be here.

Also, that's for a pretty gold-plated subway. They don't have to be so expensive. The easiest way to make it much cheaper (other than having shorter platforms, which Denver would definitely do) would be to eliminate the mezzanine level, and put the train platforms just a single story below grade. This is where using 16th Street would offer a huge advantage, because you could build stations with center platforms (as opposed to side platforms) that could be accessed from the surface via portals in the middle of the street (as opposed to the sidewalk). I don't know exactly how many hundreds of millions of dollars that would save, but it would easily be in the multiple hundreds of millions range.

Also, it's not really the tunneling that drives cost, but rather is the stations. So the option I was talking about earlier to keep or lose that Uptown station would probably be a $200-300 million decision all on its own.

All together, I would be pretty surprised if it wasn't possible to build a 3-station, no-mezzanine subway under 16th Street for less than a billion dollars. $2 billion is the absolute high end, for a full-feature subway at almost New York cost. $4 billion is not realistic (using today's dollars).

You could do the no-mezzanine thing on another street if you had a wide enough median, or if you don't mind making people go up to the surface and cross the street in order to get from one side platform to the other.

[Cirrus]

RTD and city planners understand that to increase passenger capacity 16th Street Mall would no longer run in both directions during peak hours

This would irreparably harm the shuttle's functionality for non-commuters. I view that as a deal-breaker.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to dig a tunnel, or subway, down one of the "spines" of Denver, whether it be 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th, and not disrupt activity at the street level?

I'd love to know if they could just bore through the underground without inconvenience to us 'earth walkers'..

At the time the 16th Street Mall was installed, it was reported that it was constructed in a manner to allow a future subway to be built underneath the Mall.

(I assume that means that it was designed to allow for a bore method of excavation - as opposed to cut and cover . . . )

I've always thought that 15th Street would be better - given how it veers off of Colfax by Civic Center - and its proximity to the Performing Arts complex for a station along Curtis or Arapahoe.

However, BCP does make a good point about the disruptive impacts construction may have along 15th -

Perhaps a counter-argument would be that a subway underneath 15th would allow for reconstruction of 15th Street on the surface - which could be a positive outcome longer term for attracting development along that neglected part of the downtown core (a la the recently completed 14th Street treatment) . . .

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by docroc

At the time the 16th Street Mall was installed, it was reported that it was constructed in a manner to allow a future subway to be built underneath the Mall.

(I assume that means that it was designed to allow for a bore method of excavation - as opposed to cut and cover . . . )

I've always thought that 15th Street would be better - given how it veers off of Colfax by Civic Center - and its proximity to the Performing Arts complex for a station along Curtis or Arapahoe.

However, BCP does make a good point about the disruptive impacts construction may have along 15th -

Perhaps a counter-argument would be that a subway underneath 15th would allow for reconstruction of 15th Street on the surface - which could be a positive outcome longer term for attracting development along that neglected part of the downtown core (a la the recently completed 14th Street treatment) . . .

We are talking like 30-40 years from now right? Whatever happened to people just walking or taking their bike.

[Cirrus]

That's asking a lot for people who have already been on a train or a bus for half an hour.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Eliminating the Subway option.

The cost of putting a subway line along a highly developed street in an urban core is huge. Multiple levels of steam (yes steam), water, sewage, and fiber optic lines make such construction in the $2 to $4 billion constant dollar per mile range. These lines serve multitudes of building tenants, who (at least in the opinion of tenants) pay high dollar for utilities essential to running their businesses.

For this reason, obviously, building underground is far cheaper in undeveloped land (imagine what building the Bus terminal at DUS would have cost if it had been built at, say, 18th and Champa, for example).

Also, building a cut and cover or the more expensive tunnel bore subway the length of 16th, or 17th or 18th Streets between Wynkoop and Colfax would be the most expensive to build per unit distance.

In addition, the distances as a function of riders and distance, is short, perhaps 1 mile (Union Station to Broadway under 17th Street as a median example).

Cost alone is never a reason to avoid something. All the utility relocation is not insurmountable. The city has had to deal with utility relocation recently on a different scale with the 14th street initiative. For cut and cover you move the utilities to the side build the tunnel down the middle and when done move the utilities back (or leave them there). For boring you can generally go underneath the utilities and just have to worry about that when building the stations. Every city that has built/extended a subway has had to deal with that utility issue. Building a subway on undeveloped land while cheaper is pointless because you can easily secure ROW, and design it so that it has minimal impact on the future built environment (also uncertainty regarding ridership).

On the benefit side if we are talking a transit tunnel ridership is already high enough to make that highly utilized. As a function of distance of course it is short however that's where the transit bottlenecks, is near/at capacity, and slows down the most in Denver. In other words it's where you will get the most bang for the buck when you improve speed, reliability and capacity.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Could the city of Denver rationalize the bonds required (all bets would be off if this would be an outright federal grant, LOL), say $2 to 4 billion in current dollars to build this 1 mile of subway?

I do believe, however, that given metro Denver will likely grow significantly in population, and, that this growth will be (by necessity, not choice) less auto-centric. I also believe that a significant share of the metro area's growth, say 5 to 10% will occurr within Denver City limits. So, if by 2040, metro Denver has 4,000,000 people, as many as 250,000 more people might live in Denver city proper. That would put Denver at 850,000.

"Downtown" will physically be far larger, with the Golden Triangle, Uptown, North Capitol Hill, the City Park Area, Wash Park-West, and down south Broadway to at least I-25 and in a broad swatch east of Broadway Street north to the Platte, assuming more of a moderate to highrise aspect (interspersed with 'classic' single family housing.) This is the future population that needs to be integrated into the current DUS Market Street corridor, and, for whom, a subway should also service.

That's the thing a transit tunnel benefits those from Wash Park, City Park etc. equally and effectively (assuming they still need to go downtown which I think is a safe assumption). For local buses currently it takes close to the same amount of time for the 0 bus to go from Civic Center to Market St (approx 1 mile) as it does to go from Alameda/Lincoln to Civic Center (approx 2 mile). Same can be said for the 15 and other routes with similar distances in the city.

Additionally, regional buses like the B do not even attempt to distribute people through downtown, but a tunnel like this would enable them to do so without causing inefficiencies.

Of course the tunnel will have it's limits, and this is where we we would look to the mistakes Seattle has made and try to learn from them if we ever implemented this. Also some routes would be able to use it, and some would not.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

The Mall Shuttle.

Should be replaced with street car functionality in downtown, but not necessarily on 16th.

Possibly a one way loop going north on 18th, off the Stout light rail line to Wynkoop, then looping south down the 16th Street Mall could be built for $1 billion (constant dollars).

Regardless, RTD and city planners understand that to increase passenger capacity 16th Street Mall would no longer run in both directions during peak hours, and, that a loop along a parallel street will need to be built (this would be built with mixed shuttle and POV traffic.)

Also, there needs to be more integrated mall shuttle vehicle storage to the 16th Street (and future) Shuttle Lines.

LIKE HOW ABOUT THE MARKET STREET STATION UNDERGROUND, with a Park above? (Could'nt resist- too practical...LOL)

I get how the streetcar adds capacity, but I do not understand how making it one way and putting it in mixed traffic increases capacity. Especially find it hard to believe that will add capacity if the loop displaces the planned shuttle on 18th. Can you explain the rationale behind the loop adding capacity?

[bcp]

it's kind of amazing that elevating a train, which is so much easier and cost effective than tunneling/ cut-cover, however its done, doesn't get a "sniff"...but a lot of folks seem to think that someday we really need to have tunnels, despite the incredible cost and complexity. why is that?

if the point is grade separation, there are lots of ways to get that!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

it's kind of amazing that elevating a train, which is so much easier and cost effective than tunneling/ cut-cover, however its done, doesn't get a "sniff"...but a lot of folks seem to think that someday we really need to have tunnels, despite the incredible cost and complexity. why is that?

if the point is grade separation, there are lots of ways to get that!

I think it's a great idea down Broadway, you can even have the train run above the alleys in that corridor. Downtown? Not so much. Then we have to ask the question of which street gets semi-screwed with the elevated line and how does it terminate at Union Station if it's elevated?

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think it's a great idea down Broadway, you can even have the train run above the alleys in that corridor. Downtown? Not so much. Then we have to ask the question of which street gets semi-screwed with the elevated line and how does it terminate at Union Station if it's elevated?

I've always been against an elevated line as well but when I think about it long enough I don't think I should be so much. Why not screw 15th and 18th or 19th?.. these streets are kinda run down and it's about time to do a 14th st esque remodel in both places. Why not just put an el down them. I don't really see that the streets in Chicago are all that screwed... they are rough sure but expecting every street downtown to look like a postcard is a bit unreasonable.

And actually, they don't HAVE to look like a latticework spare parts steel blech like they now do in Chicago. They COULD look like the picture earlier posted from Germany... if it was done correctly here it would look, well, great. Meaning a correctly done elevated line would actually BE the 14th street like remodel of the street corridor that 15th and 18th or 19th need. The only elevated line I can think of here (besides Disney) DOES look ugly, but that doesn't mean it would have to here.

It could terminate at US at the light rail plaza wrapped around from 15th and the tracks and 18th or 19th at the light rail tracks. I'm assuming that it would be possible to elevate them enough at US to have them run over the existing light rail line (is this possible/legal... does it matter since it's never happening anyway?), ending at a mezzanine over the boarding areas that are there now (would require a remodel of the light rail boarding platform which would be easy since it looks like it was developed from IKEA anyway - in contrast to the plaza which I really do like. Not so easy would be getting past the pedestrian bridges I guess.

God help me I sound like Eeyore

[bcp]

it can all be figured out...and much easier than going underground....

i think bunt mentioned it earlier, using the alley's would not work downtown...agreed, but the streets are pretty darn wide already so there is room. outside of DT? alley's would work great if needed (oh i can hear people crying now about the noise and privacy issues....)

coming in to downtown...broadway is...7 lanes? yeah...there is room to lose one lane in the middle for the support posts.