HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5141  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 9:22 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,317
Not seeing anything to convince me it's in the works. Maybe the framing will get the Vinyl as well? I don't know.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5142  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2013, 10:02 PM
Interzen Interzen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: La Alma/Lincoln Park - Denver, CO
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT View Post
Not seeing anything to convince me it's in the works. Maybe the framing will get the Vinyl as well? I don't know.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is an old picture and the coverings are incomplete. There will be fabric on the entire outer canopy sheltering the two outer platforms. The middle two platforms will be completely sheltered under the suspended, center draining, glass canopies that are just starting to be installed in the pictures. There will be no need to stretch material over the center arches because the glass beneath will span the entire width. You can see that they had just finished one row of hanging framework for the glass when the picture was taken.

At least I hope that's the plan. I know they aren't covering the center structures in fabric.

Last edited by Interzen; Jun 13, 2013 at 10:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5143  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 2:59 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interzen View Post
I think it's pretty obvious that this is an old picture and the coverings are incomplete. There will be fabric on the entire outer canopy sheltering the two outer platforms. The middle two platforms will be completely sheltered under the suspended, center draining, glass canopies that are just starting to be installed in the pictures. There will be no need to stretch material over the center arches because the glass beneath will span the entire width. You can see that they had just finished one row of hanging framework for the glass when the picture was taken.

At least I hope that's the plan. I know they aren't covering the center structures in fabric.
The thing is, I think what we see, is what we are getting. Check out the rendering, you can see the clear vinyl or glass covering over the one side, but nothing elsewhere.

__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5144  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:04 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
The thing is, I think what we see, is what we are getting. Check out the rendering, you can see the clear vinyl or glass covering over the one side, but nothing elsewhere.
We've already had this discussion. Rendering are intended to be artistic, not literal. What good would a rendering be that showed all of the covers, and nothing of what is underneath them? So, any architect worth his salt, would probably elect to show some covers, but maybe not the ones in the middle, where the focus in meant to be on the platforms.

Am I sure that's the case? No. But the absence of platform canopies in a rendering is most certainly NOT definitive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5145  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:18 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,718
^
Agreed.

BUT, the fact that the 1 glass canopy shown in the rendering is over the same platform as the 1 that's being built now is, at least, an unusual coincidence.

Also, the white tubing structure clearly isn't necessary to support the glass canopy, since the canopy extends out north from the train shed beyond the tubing. So why have the tubing? Either it's purely decorative, or it will hold up a canopy of its own. If it will hold up a canopy of its own, why bother with a redundant one for Amtrak? I could speculate that maybe Amtrak requires some specification that the original canopy wouldn't have met.

I think it's reasonable to ask the question, but it's too early to freak out. I'd still lay better odds that there will be a cover than not.
__________________
writing | twitter | bluesky | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5146  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:35 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,317
Cirrus nailed it. To me, it's a tad strange that the rendering matches exactly with what's currently being constructed. Too much of a coincidence for me. But, I hope I'm wrong. I want to be wrong.

And if you're going to cover the framing in the center platforms, why build the transparent canopy that's halfway underneath? Makes no sense.

That being said, I know for a fact RTD staff read this forum and this thread. Let's ask them!

What say you RTD?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5147  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:45 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 2,003
Also, I know its just a rendering, which I wouldn't normally say is anything definitive, and that they want to show off the platforms below. BUT...even the renderings that are taken from the pedestrian level show there to be no canopy (and have shadows in for the framing), why wouldn't they even show it in that rendered view?

Like others said above, hope they just are not showing it in the renderings.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5148  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 5:07 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,988
Everything with the canopy is pretty much symmetrical north to south. It would seem ridiculous to half-ass it and just cover one side of the platforms especially with all the money we've invested.

In this rendering they just look like grates and not glass. So this is definitely going to be a wait and see what we get deal.

__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5149  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 11:43 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,357
I have it on good authority that both sides of both platform canopies will have the same covering as is being installed along the Amtrak platform. Also, while it may appear to be glass, it is actually a transparent fabric, ETFE.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5150  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 5:39 AM
Denver Dweller Denver Dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 828
Study maps high-speed rail routes

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5151  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2013, 10:28 AM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Dweller View Post
I didn't major in math or anything but unless my zero's are wonky that cost per mile on the click through map is in thousands correct? so 14.9 billion at 7.13 million per mile? That gives you about 2050 miles worth of funds which when you take into consideration stations and the money you'll have to spend convincing people you're not insane for putting 50 miles of the system in to serve 100k people in the south seems about right (the article says there will be between 176 and 216 miles depending on alignment). Certainly more plausible than 71k per mile which at 14.9 billion nearly gets you to the moon on rail. (which incidentally is a Route RTD will actually have before this gets built).

Also why does EVERY scenario include routes up the mountains? No option at all to start from Ft Collins to DIA to COS? See how that goes and then expand. And honestly if you want to make rail travel in Colorado improve instantly spend several million and restore Amtrak service from Trinidad to Denver or just start a state service there. (Actually not restore... I don't believe Amtrak ever had that route) Is that too practical? The easiest way to make sure this system NEVER gets done is to choose one of the 5 options in that report.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.

Last edited by Brainpathology; Jun 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5152  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2013, 4:08 AM
LAM's Avatar
LAM LAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
I didn't major in math or anything but unless my zero's are wonky that cost per mile on the click through map is in thousands correct? so 14.9 billion at 7.13 million per mile? That gives you about 2050 miles worth of funds which when you take into consideration stations and the money you'll have to spend convincing people you're not insane for putting 50 miles of the system in to serve 100k people in the south seems about right (the article says there will be between 176 and 216 miles depending on alignment). Certainly more plausible than 71k per mile which at 14.9 billion nearly gets you to the moon on rail. (which incidentally is a Route RTD will actually have before this gets built).

Also why does EVERY scenario include routes up the mountains? No option at all to start from Ft Collins to DIA to COS? See how that goes and then expand. And honestly if you want to make rail travel in Colorado improve instantly spend several million and restore Amtrak service from Trinidad to Denver or just start a state service there. (Actually not restore... I don't believe Amtrak ever had that route) Is that too practical? The easiest way to make sure this system NEVER gets done is to choose one of the 5 options in that report.
I don't know? I think Scenario 1 is pretty reasonable - although expensive. I agree they should just put the mountain route on hold for now though. As much as I like it, it is mostly for tourism and not commuting. Even if the were to promote more mountain living (commuting), there is a limited number of people that can really enjoy those long winters. Otherwise there would be more large mountain communities. The north/south route is for commuters and would likely get better usage. I'm not too sure that a regular speed rail to Trinidad would really garner much usage. I presume it would be to meet up with the Amtrak line to LA. But, maybe if it hooked up with New Mexico's Rail Runner (or road runner) at Santa Fe, it might help. Although, then it just becomes another tourist route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5153  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2013, 4:21 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Dweller View Post

More Colorado humor.

The unbelievably simple graffic with Union Station in the Center, to start... If all implied was so simple.

Scarios 1,2, and 5 go through DUS.

In Scenarios1 and 2 the north-south connection towards Colorado Springs goes through DUS?/Lodo? That option- effectively destroyed by the DUS complex layout*- would involve many billions just to go the couple of kilometers through the DUS Complex (now being rapidly 'nailed shut' by commercial and residencial build out.)

Will new freight lines be built at tax payer expense for UP and BNSF to bypass metro Denver (except for late night windows for coal trains, etc., to supply local Denver users)? That would resolve the north south issue. However, how many billions of dollars over and above the costs of all the simplistic schemes illustrated would such a bypass involve? After all, UP and BNSF will view this as an income making opportunity, not as a sacrifice required for public need...

Scenarios 2,3,4, and 5 implicitly recognize the cost of the stub station layout of the poorly executed Lodo complex, and, bypass the DUS complex to go south.

Where would the 'rail beltway' 'T' into the existing (mostly) double tracked southbound rail connection to Colorado Springs? Would the new rail line follow E and C-470? If so, what would the costs be between I-25 and US 85, with it's abundant steep grades and low radius turns? If not on this route, where would the alignment go, south of E-470? Would new right of way be purchased parallel to Colorado 83 and where would this line 'T' into the existing trackage in (or near) Colorado Springs? How many billions would this cost?

*********

IMO, discounting the silliness of the I-70 HSR (develope existing tracks on the Moffat tunnel route to handle pendulum bogied trains, electrify the route, use regenerative braking to feed a battery car, etc.), that north-south HSR through Denver needs to bypass Lodo, to provide SAME SEAT transport and far faster through metro Denver transit times. A 2nd, large rail station will need to be built north of downtown (not at DIA, but a shorter commute time wise from Denver), a solution that has been done multiple times to correct downtown rail planning mistakes (and/or when tracks have to be placed through already developed downtowns) overseas.

The entire West HSR concept along I-70 is ludricrous. A new tunnel, incredibly steep grades on the approach from the West, and, few real uses beyond the seasonal ski industry make this a non-starter. Consequently, the idea will be discussed frequently and with apparent seriousness, as building a HSR along this alignment will never occurr and the concept is politically safe and cheap to talk about.



*few innocent parties here- this potential problem was expressed thousands of times by powerless people, and, now we are stuck with the future implications. This is tragedy that will affect metro Denver transport for many decades. And, of course, NO ONE is apologizing.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5154  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 4:22 AM
LAM's Avatar
LAM LAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizened Variations View Post
More Colorado humor.

The unbelievably simple graffic with Union Station in the Center, to start... If all implied was so simple.

Scarios 1,2, and 5 go through DUS.

In Scenarios1 and 2 the north-south connection towards Colorado Springs goes through DUS?/Lodo? That option- effectively destroyed by the DUS complex layout*- would involve many billions just to go the couple of kilometers through the DUS Complex (now being rapidly 'nailed shut' by commercial and residencial build out.)

Will new freight lines be built at tax payer expense for UP and BNSF to bypass metro Denver (except for late night windows for coal trains, etc., to supply local Denver users)? That would resolve the north south issue. However, how many billions of dollars over and above the costs of all the simplistic schemes illustrated would such a bypass involve? After all, UP and BNSF will view this as an income making opportunity, not as a sacrifice required for public need...

Scenarios 2,3,4, and 5 implicitly recognize the cost of the stub station layout of the poorly executed Lodo complex, and, bypass the DUS complex to go south.

Where would the 'rail beltway' 'T' into the existing (mostly) double tracked southbound rail connection to Colorado Springs? Would the new rail line follow E and C-470? If so, what would the costs be between I-25 and US 85, with it's abundant steep grades and low radius turns? If not on this route, where would the alignment go, south of E-470? Would new right of way be purchased parallel to Colorado 83 and where would this line 'T' into the existing trackage in (or near) Colorado Springs? How many billions would this cost?

*********

IMO, discounting the silliness of the I-70 HSR (develope existing tracks on the Moffat tunnel route to handle pendulum bogied trains, electrify the route, use regenerative braking to feed a battery car, etc.), that north-south HSR through Denver needs to bypass Lodo, to provide SAME SEAT transport and far faster through metro Denver transit times. A 2nd, large rail station will need to be built north of downtown (not at DIA, but a shorter commute time wise from Denver), a solution that has been done multiple times to correct downtown rail planning mistakes (and/or when tracks have to be placed through already developed downtowns) overseas.

The entire West HSR concept along I-70 is ludricrous. A new tunnel, incredibly steep grades on the approach from the West, and, few real uses beyond the seasonal ski industry make this a non-starter. Consequently, the idea will be discussed frequently and with apparent seriousness, as building a HSR along this alignment will never occurr and the concept is politically safe and cheap to talk about.



*few innocent parties here- this potential problem was expressed thousands of times by powerless people, and, now we are stuck with the future implications. This is tragedy that will affect metro Denver transport for many decades. And, of course, NO ONE is apologizing.
I suspect that the rail line in Denver would be mostly elevated. HSR in Japan is almost exclusively elevated. I think the routing would work out along the main highways. But I agree, I have no idea how they would integrate with DUS since they really did lock out any expansion capability. At least DIA has a bay waiting for them:-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5155  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 4:57 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,215
That's not true. There's a spot for an additional future line. The additional private line is for a Ski Train type of service that would be redundant with an HSR line so, that would be freed up potentially, as well.


Http://DenverInfill.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5156  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 2:40 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,125
Any complaint about Union Station being "ill-designed" regarding the ability to accept a future HSR Line is a farce that is put upon the public by the dastardly group known as "the crotchety old men who's opinions weren't listed too". They meet at the Valley Inn for breakfast on Wednesdays to eat eggs and bacon (despite high cholesterol) and reminisce about the path not taken. I believe the thorium reactor group also joins in.

Repeat after me: North/south HSR will require billions of dollars in funding due to the constricted nature of both the highways and rail lines running through the south portion of the Metro Area. It will require the relocation of freight line east of Denver. It will require massive grade separation projects. None of this would be preventable by additional ROW preservation at Union Station for a through station. A new platform/station annex at Union Station is the least of the HSR dream boy concerns and probably would be the least expensive component of the HSR fantasy.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5157  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 3:32 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,166
I couldn't agree more... just because ROW is preserved for a through station doesn't change the fact that there is simply no good way to bring it in from the south without using freight ROW. And if you're going to use freight ROW, you can simply "fishhook" the line around the Prospect neighborhood with negligible impacts on travel time. All this talk of a through station is a bit ridiculous if you ask me. Modern trains are quite capable of pulling in-and-out of a stub station without turning around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5158  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 5:05 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
A new platform/station annex at Union Station ... and probably would be the least expensive component of the HSR fantasy.
Or at least there would be some conspiracy to cover up the amount of money actually going into Union Station, so the rest of the state couldn't possibly be led to believe that big bad Denver is benefiting too much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5159  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 5:57 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,125
Since the West Line is the first line that was intended to substitute for a number of local and limited routes I suppose that the blowback should be expected. But, what people seem to want, the reinstatement of pretty much all discontinued routes, is asinine:

Activist group pushes for RTD Routes
By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post
June 17, 2013
Quote:
A group that advocates for working women is jumping into the controversy over the Regional Transportation District's move to dump or revamp bus routes in the western suburbs.

The group, 9to5, gathered 400 signatures in a petition asking RTD to restore full service to the 16L West Colfax Express bus service.

The 16L, along with several other bus routes, were canceled or absorbed by other bus lines when the W Light Rail line between Denver and Golden opened.
I know that a lot of this is driven by economics, the 16L was cheaper to ride to Golden than the light rail, and basic stupidity, people can't figure out how to transfer to get to the southern end of DT. But RTD needs to do a better job of messaging on where to transfer and ramp of the frequency of bus service between the Federal-Dectaur Station and Civic Center Station. Boom. Problem solved.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5160  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2013, 7:04 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Since the West Line is the first line that was intended to substitute for a number of local and limited routes I suppose that the blowback should be expected. But, what people seem to want, the reinstatement of pretty much all discontinued routes, is asinine:

Activist group pushes for RTD Routes
By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post
June 17, 2013


I know that a lot of this is driven by economics, the 16L was cheaper to ride to Golden than the light rail, and basic stupidity, people can't figure out how to transfer to get to the southern end of DT. But RTD needs to do a better job of messaging on where to transfer and ramp of the frequency of bus service between the Federal-Dectaur Station and Civic Center Station. Boom. Problem solved.
This is huge, and cannot be underestimated. And will be something that needs to be addressed if the 15 and/or 15L go away in favor of Streetcar.

I'm sure these issues have occurred every time a Line opens and bus service is discontinued.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:28 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.