DENVER | Transportation Thread

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Subway dreams aside, how about starting with articulated buses on the Mall Shuttle.

What's an EcoMark Mall Shuttle Bus capacity?

What's a standard artic (60') capacity? 115?

[Cirrus]

Here's a comparison of several buses, including capacity numbers.

Summary:

• Including standing passengers, regular 40' buses range from 70-90 passengers.
• 60' artics range from 93-140.
• There's also an 80' artic on the list, which can carry 185. I'm not sure FTA allows those in the US, so it may not be an option.

Since RTD is willing to forgo seats in favor of added standing capacity on the Mall Shuttle (as they should), look at the upper end of the capacity numbers.

That 140 passenger 60' artic would be perfect for 16th Street. It has 3 doors, is low-floor, and it's arranged with only 29 seats in order to maximize standing capacity. Perfect for a high-capacity short-distance shuttle. And it's pretty distinctive-looking, too. Here it is, the APTS Phileas 60:


Image by FaceMePLS

[bunt_q]

What's the engine in that one? At the end of the day the most important attribute of the mall shuttle is that it is silent. Not sure how many others remember back when the mall shuttles were still diesel but the day they went away the mall became infinitely better pedestrian environment.

I like the idea of maximizing capacity with the shuttles. We almost don't have a choice. But at some point we also need the option of an express version of the mall shuttle, and obviously that can't run on 16th St. It needs to be just as distinctive as the existing shuttle so either better than what was proposed for the circulator or some sort of rail option. But taking the mall shuttle from Union Station to Civic Center takes 20 minutes and that is unacceptable for what is supposed to be the last little bit of your transit trip.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Subway dreams aside, how about starting with articulated buses on the Mall Shuttle.

Looking at your linked .pdf it seems that the existing mall shuttles, and the new ones being tested, are pretty competitive. 4 doors, low-floor, 115 passenger capacity, hybrid electric drive, seems pretty comparable to the articulated models (though I'm not sure how that 115 passenger number was derived. Cattle-car loading maybe?).

Does anyone know what route RTD opted for the circulator in terms of vehicle?

BCP, the downtown circulator will have stops every 2-3 blocks. So, that will be nice. But, it will have to fight with all of that wonderful rush-hour traffic along 18th and 19th.

[Cirrus]

I haven't been to Denver since the new buses arrived, but my guess is they have almost no seats. If you took out the seats on the artics to a similar level, their capacity would go up even more.

The big advantages the Mall Shuttles have are 4 doors and quiet.

If you click my link from above and go down to page 24, you get the spec sheet for that bus I posted. It's hybrid-electric, so not fully electric but also not fully diesel, and it comes with a 6 door (3 on each side) option, which could work nicely on 16th Street.

Of course, RTD could also custom design their own bus for the shuttle, which they've done before. I don't know about the new ones, but weren't the old Mall shuttles custom?

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I haven't been to Denver since the new buses arrived, but my guess is they have almost no seats. If you took out the seats on the artics to a similar level, their capacity would go up even more.

The big advantages the Mall Shuttles have are 4 doors and quiet.

If you click my link from above and go down to page 24, you get the spec sheet for that bus I posted. It's hybrid-electric, so not fully electric but also not fully diesel, and it comes with a 6 door (3 on each side) option, which could work nicely on 16th Street.

Of course, RTD could also custom design their own bus for the shuttle, which they've done before. I don't know about the new ones, but weren't the old Mall shuttles custom?

Yes, the EcoMarks were built by RTD (Transteq).

Remember, new buses would need right-side steering as well. (I know this is custom, but just another nuance of the shuttles to think about).

[PLANSIT]

Best video I could find of new buses:

• Video Link

[Cirrus]

OK. If they're going to have to customize the things anyway, then it's not really any harder to customize a 60' version.

I also think they should consider only stopping every 2 blocks instead of every block, even if only at rush hour. It would help both speed and capacity.

BTW, I'm not saying the Mall Shuttle is bad or that they've been doing anything wrong. I'm just brainstorming how to squeeze more out of it for when we start dumping 200,000 FasTracks riders at Union Station every day.

[Cirrus]

Going back to the frequent bus service discussion we've been having off-and-on for months now:




In addition to the map (which I haven't made any progress on yet) I've also been thinking it would be make sense to give these routes a special brand and paint scheme. A lot of cities have something like that for special routes, including Boulder.

What do folks think of this, as a special brand for RTD's frequent routes?

[bcp]

every two blocks, along with solid light-timing would really, really help.

if the new circulator is getting compromised / changed...would be nice to put it on 20th street mainly (except getting into and out of DUS) and just do a loop (this way everybody between 14th and 22nd would be two blocks from a circulator bus at any time!)

[bunt_q]

Not sure I like the all-blue top. I think the blue stripe above the window, with a transition back to white on top.

MetroBus eh? You mean you don't like TheRide? I suppose we could just call it rubber-tired-light-rail.

For the record, I like the idea of special branding for frequent services. I like it a LOT.

[Cirrus]

Like this? I'm generally pro as much color as possible on buses. The front is all blue so you can see that it's a different color when you're a passenger waiting at the stop and the bus is coming up the street.




TheRide is OK, but I think we need a different name for a special brand. Metrobus sounds more regional, more important. If we put these routes on the FasTracks map, people will need an easy way to think of them as part of the regional network.

[PLANSIT]

RapidRide
MetroRide

[Cirrus]

I'd want to reserve the term "rapid" for BRT, or at least limited-stop.

I like MetroRide though.

[Zmapper]

No, not another 'Metro' brand. Surely some name more creative could be imagined.

According to the Wayback Machine archive of the RTD-Denver site, routes 3, 21, and 76 also used to have 15 minute service only a few years ago. It is troubling that while RTD charges ahead with new rail lines, bus service is being cut to the bare minimum.

[bunt_q]

I always remembered the 3 as a frequent service. Same with the Wads bus. But I haven't ridden them in years. It's sad to think that service was better a decade ago.

Cirrus - I like that color scheme better. Am I reaching too much when I think that it would be kind of nice for our premier urban bus services to match our growing white colored architectural theme we have going in Denver? But I get that more color is good too - I like this balance. (And not that the light rail trains are particularly attractive, but this bus would certainly match.). I do wonder if it looks too much like the regular buses though...

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

No, not another 'Metro' brand. Surely some name more creative could be imagined.

According to the Wayback Machine archive of the RTD-Denver site, routes 3, 21, and 76 also used to have 15 minute service only a few years ago. It is troubling that while RTD charges ahead with new rail lines, bus service is being cut to the bare minimum.

FasTracks funding can only be used for capital improvements and their subsequent O&M; it cannot be used to backfill funding shortages to existing transit brought on by reduced sales tax collections. Does anyone honestly think that the Denver Metro area would support a ballot question that would divert FasTracks funding from capital improvements for choo-choo's into keeping 15 minute service on the 76?

The commuter types who want the choo-choo to Boulder don't give a shit about the poor who rely on inter-city buses as the sole means of transportation.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

No, not another 'Metro' brand. Surely some name more creative could be imagined.

In this case something not too creative is kind of the point. We want people to associate these handful of bus routes with a term they already know means good transit service.

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

FasTracks funding can only be used for capital improvements and their subsequent O&M; it cannot be used to backfill funding shortages to existing transit brought on by reduced sales tax collections. Does anyone honestly think that the Denver Metro area would support a ballot question that would divert FasTracks funding from capital improvements for choo-choo's into keeping 15 minute service on the 76?

The commuter types who want the choo-choo to Boulder don't give a shit about the poor who rely on inter-city buses as the sole means of transportation.

My current thinking is that the next RTD tax should be dedicated exclusively to expanded bus and existing light rail service, with the current FasTracks tax dedicated to the eventual build-out of more rail lines. The goal should be to provide a bus every 10-15 minutes along ALL arterials in the Metro area, with a bus within a 20 minute walk overnight.

If you think this is too much, think again. Toronto has followed through on this approach to transit since the '60s, and currently has a 30% + transit mode share within the TTC service area. Toronto is known for a rather undersized rail network, though to its credit it does have a fairly large pre-war streetcar network.

A typical four-lane congested arterial street can move about 2000 people in private autos at average occupancy rates. If a route runs six times an hour (every 10 minutes) with standard 40' transit buses, at crush capacity the bus route moves roughly 5% of the total trips along the corridor. If transit even wants to capture more than slightly-above-zero percent of trips, it needs to run frequently.

Paul Mees has written two books about the success of Toronto, and how his city of Melbourne fails at transit even though the two cities are extremely similar. I am currently reading his first book (I read the second already), and I highly recommend that everyone read both of them. Many of the lessons that he applies to Melbourne are just as applicable in Denver.

[SnyderBock]

Canadians are culturally more transit embracing than Americans, or Australians for that matter. If RTD paid to ramp up all main arterial routes to 15-min headways, I fear it would waste fuel and wear down the buses faster. Perhaps if all electric or CNG-hybrid buses were used and infrastructure was put in place to make these routes more like streetcar routes or BRT routes, it would work.

What if RTD converted the heaviest ridership routes to streetcars and then re-allocated those buses to improving service on other routes?