DENVER | Transportation Thread

[The Dirt]

Remember, we have to appeal to the same out of town idiots that think the C on the Colorado state flag stands for Chicago or the Cubs.

Also, getting rid of the I in DIA will better hide our airport's connection to the illuminati.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

DA, doesn't roll off the tongue very nicely. Dumbledore's army?

If we are being serious though, the only thing that would make this move acceptable is if it is a precursor to renaming the airport after a human. I am a big fan of naming things after important people. And DIA has become so commonplace, that would be hard to do now without first whittling away at its name recognition. So if it's a transition toward that, okay.

If it is just a plain marketing ploy, it is the stupidest-sounding thing I've ever heard of.

i worry it's the latter...and a bad ploy at that...and unnecessary and small town folksy BS (those days are over Denver).

[seventwenty]

Airport rebranding campaigns just strike me a waste of money, and I'm sad we're even talking about this topic. Where's our resident Boulderite to complain about how he's not getting a train?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Airport rebranding campaigns just strike me a waste of money, and I'm sad we're even talking about this topic. Where's our resident Boulderite to complain about how he's not getting a train?

We should rebrand Boulder. Boulder doesn't sound anywhere near soft enough for, well, Boulder.

[PLANSIT]

RTD seeks to break mall-shuttle contract with bankrupt bus maker

Read more: RTD seeks to break mall-shuttle contract with bankrupt bus maker - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_247589...ttle-contract-bankrupt-bus#ixzz2nxJSDgZW
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

The Regional Transportation District is asking a North Carolina judge to terminate its contract with bankrupt Charlotte-bus maker DesignLine.

RTD signed a $24 million contract with DesignLine earlier this year to build 34 next-generation 16th Street Mall shuttles. But DesignLine declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August and in October a U.S. bankruptcy court judge approved the sale of most of the company's assets to a California investor.

DesignLine is also the target of an FBI investigation over allegations that it installed used parts in new buses.

...

[PLANSIT]

Good place to post this. Take a couple minutes out of your day and complete CDOT's survey.

STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURVEY

[jimluk]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I love how nonsensically humorous (or is it humorously nonsensical) this thread has become. Speaking of naming, what is the commuter rail going to be called? The Rail seems appropriate.

Anyway, I'm declaring DUS a total failure (because of reasons, shut up).

MetroRailRide or something equally dumb, remember this is a town that still looks at you cross ways if you say you rode "the train" vs "light rail"

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Good place to post this. Take a couple minutes out of your day and complete CDOT's survey.

STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURVEY

A pretty terrible survey. Only asking people what they want, with nothing about why, where, how, or what they currently do, is entirely meaningless. If you're going to structure it that way, you might as well make it two boxes in an online poll - 1. enter your zip code, and 2. do you like (a) transit/bicycle or (b) cars more? Useless.

[The Dirt]

I was thinking the same thing. I obviously like transit but, I have no reason to use it until I get a job outside of my house. So, currently, I want transit options for future me but, in the survey it's going to look like I just want others to drive less so I can drive more. Also, the fact that the last question asks what highway is most important to me tells me that all of the other questions that have transit as an option are moot because at the end of the day CDOT is a highway agency ad nothing else.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Also, the fact that the last question asks what highway is most important to me tells me that all of the other questions that have transit as an option are moot because at the end of the day CDOT is a highway agency ad nothing else.

I don't think that's true. I think what it says is that the highways are going to get fixed. And they're interested in how to prioritize those.

Which I think is perfectly appropriate. There is no transit program actually on the table anywhere in the state right now (that isn't already funded and/or under construction) that I think is more important than I-70 between Brighton and, say, Quebec. Front range rail is far, far less important in the grand scheme than highway fixes. (It has a number of fatal flows - like being hopelessly park-n-ride dependent, not being connected to other transit in any city except Denver, and now, possibly being routed halfway to Kansas. It's basically a remote parking program for DIA.) Everything worth doing in Fastracks is done. I-70 train is a joke. And we don't have any other actual proposals right now. Sure, give a few bucks to bike paths, and do some token studies to appease folks. But nobody's really proposing anything to compete with highways right now in any meaningful way, so of course the outcome is a foregone conclusion. (In Denver, we've said "no more cars" but have made zero headway on alternatives. And outside of Denver, Fastracks is it.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Which I think is perfectly appropriate. There is no transit program actually on the table anywhere in the state right now (that isn't already funded and/or under construction) that I think is more important than I-70 between Brighton and, say, Quebec. Front range rail is far, far less important in the grand scheme than highway fixes. (It has a number of fatal flows - like being hopelessly park-n-ride dependent, not being connected to other transit in any city except Denver, and now, possibly being routed halfway to Kansas. It's basically a remote parking program for DIA.) Everything worth doing in Fastracks is done. I-70 train is a joke. And we don't have any other actual proposals right now. Sure, give a few bucks to bike paths, and do some token studies to appease folks. But nobody's really proposing anything to compete with highways right now in any meaningful way, so of course the outcome is a foregone conclusion. (In Denver, we've said "no more cars" but have made zero headway on alternatives. And outside of Denver, Fastracks is it.)

Front Range Rail is also a joke and the millions that went towards studying it provided some planners some billable work for a couple of years for a study that will promptly go on a shelf to serve as a dust collector. When CDOT does end up doing a rail project it's going to be something akin to what has been proposed in the North I-25 Study: conventional commuter rail along existing tracks. If the transportation sales tax passes in 2014 (a very big if) CDOT would probably get into the rail business shortly thereafter with such commuter rail projects that can be done relatively cheaply ($600 million versus $10 billion).

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If the transportation sales tax passes in 2014 (a very big if) CDOT would probably get into the rail business shortly thereafter with such commuter rail projects that can be done relatively cheaply ($600 million versus $10 billion).

Where is the money coming to fund the 1.8 billion dollars for 12 miles of I-70? It seems there is plenty of money available, it is just a matter of priorities.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Where is the money coming to fund the 1.8 billion dollars for 12 miles of I-70? It seems there is plenty of money available, it is just a matter of priorities.

How many commuter trips are done each day on I-70? Take that number versus the number of passengers who will take a train to nowhere and you'll what should be prioritized. I don't pretend to think that the cost-benefit would even remotely favor the rail concept that the Front Range HSR is going with and as soon as it came out that Denver would be circumvented the whole vision became DOA.

Fix the highway and build a conventional commuter rail to Fort Collins. That's where we have to start.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

How many commuter trips are done each day on I-70? Take that number versus the number of passengers who will take a train to nowhere and you'll what should be prioritized. I don't pretend to think that the cost-benefit would even remotely favor the rail concept that the Front Range HSR is going with and as soon as it came out that Denver would be circumvented the whole vision became DOA.

This is silly. Of course if you routinely spend billions on highways while nickel and diming transit there will be very few transit riders. At some point we have to get away from this thinking and just commit to rail. If we make this switch the cost benefits per rider might look very different for projects in 2050.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

How many commuter trips are done each day on I-70? Take that number versus the number of passengers who will take a train to nowhere and you'll what should be prioritized. I don't pretend to think that the cost-benefit would even remotely favor the rail concept that the Front Range HSR is going with and as soon as it came out that Denver would be circumvented the whole vision became DOA.

Fix the highway and build a conventional commuter rail to Fort Collins. That's where we have to start.

Agreed- the last 10 or so posts here have been a stern lesson in reality orientation.

The low buck solution for conventional commuter transportation is to use the very straight, extremely easy to upgrade to 79 mph rail line (and 110 for that matter), that follows the South Platte to Greeley. * From there, there is poor to fair track on good right of way that goes from Greeley through Windsor to Fort Collins.

I suspect that such a package with UP trains using the line between 12:00a and 5:00a might cost under $200 million. An average speed of 55-60 mph would be doable, with possible stops at Brighton, Ft Lupton, Greeley, Windsor, and, Ft Collins. A morning commute from Brighton to DUS would take 20 minutes, from Greeley 1 hour, and from Ft Collins, 1hr 30 minutes.

At 110 mph top speeds, I suspect the average speed could increase to 75 mph, and, 5 to 10 minutes could be shaved off times.

Another low buck transportation improvement would be extending the 120x bus north, and, building diamond shaped tunnel on and off ramps (quadrupling the type of setup now at 120th). I suspect that including park and rides at new stations at, maybe 136th Ave and 168th might cost a total of $150 million.

This is called picking what's left of the low handing fruit.

*Following I-25 North on new right of way IMO would cost somewhere around $30 to $60 million per mile, or about 10X as expensive as improving existing line.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Where is the money coming to fund the 1.8 billion dollars for 12 miles of I-70? It seems there is plenty of money available, it is just a matter of priorities.

It's probably coming from the loathed gas tax. When you figure out a tax scheme for bicycles that can generate equivalent revenue, then you can throw stones at spending priorities.

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

This is silly. Of course if you routinely spend billions on highways while nickel and diming transit there will be very few transit riders. At some point we have to get away from this thinking and just commit to rail. If we make this switch the cost benefits per rider might look very different for projects in 2050.

No, it isn't silly. Because land use drives transportation. And our land use isn't changing - it's still car dependent (EDIT: at a metropolitan scale - but I assume we're clear that spending CDOT money on Denver streetcars probably is not going to happen on any significant scale). We have to commit to higher density living, then we can commit to rail. But it's silly to commit to rail, and remain committed to suburban development patterns.

Name me a project you would spend that $1.8 billion in state money on? Then we can do an actual comparison. As I said, though, there really aren't any projects on the table right now, except for some medicore intercity ideas.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's probably coming from the loathed gas tax. When you figure out a tax scheme for bicycles that can generate equivalent revenue, then you can throw stones at spending priorities.



No, it isn't silly. Because land use drives transportation. And our land use isn't changing - it's still car dependent. We have to commit to higher density living, then we can commit to rail. But it's silly to commit to rail, and remain committed to suburban development patterns.

Name me a project you would spend that $1.8 billion in state money on? Then we can do an actual comparison. As I said, though, there really aren't any projects on the table right now, except for some medicore intercity ideas.

There is a school of thought that says do nothing and let problems get worse. This worsening of problems forces individuals to make decisions to adjust- for example, changing resident location. In addition, commuting difficulties affect where job seekers look for work (despite too often being done after the fact).

And, of course, worsening traffic problems can produce political pressure, which, really, is the only way to accelerate infrastructural improvements.

Addition: this reminds me of what my grandfather once said about a horse and buggy- "you steer the horse, you don't push it." Market conditions, based upon macroeconomics that include all the states in the US, cannot be controlled on the state level, only influenced. After all, if the future evolves as I think it might, we here in Denver will have no choice but to deal with transportation problems in the most efficient and frugal ways possible. Until then, our leaders will either be quiet or self congratulatory depend on which direction the "wind blows."

[bobg]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Where is the money coming to fund the 1.8 billion dollars for 12 miles of I-70? It seems there is plenty of money available, it is just a matter of priorities.

"CDOT doesn't have the money to build the project, which would be done in phases, "but we're confident that we can find it," Webb said.
One source of funding that could be explored is reserving the two new lanes for high-occupancy vehicles with a toll option for solo drivers, CDOT spokeswoman Mindy Crane said."http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/04/10/cdot-proposes-lowering-two-miles-of.html?page=all

CDOT does not have any money for expansion, they are more or less in maintenance mode.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's probably coming from the loathed gas tax. When you figure out a tax scheme for bicycles that can generate equivalent revenue, then you can throw stones at spending priorities.

Haven't you heard the highway trust fund is bankrupt? Been been bailed out multiple times from the general fund? When the federal govt raises the gas tax or implements VMT to actually cover costs we can talk. FYI bike share has the highest revenue/operating cost ratio of any mode of transit. But we're not taking about bikes here.

No, it isn't silly. Because land use drives transportation

And transportation drives land use. We wouldn't have highlands ranch if we didn't have 470. Also there are plenty of sprawled out suburbs that have successful commuter rails. We just need to commit to the initial investment. What was the cost per traveler of the eisenhower tunnel in 1970?

Name me a project you would spend that $1.8 billion in state money on?

Maybe that 1.8 billion could be used to actually route commuter rail into denver rather than around through aurora.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Maybe that 1.8 billion could be used to actually route commuter rail into denver rather than around through aurora.

Great, that still leaves $10 billion. We aren't going to spend $10 billion on a highway, nor are we going to spend $10 billion on rail. Can we please shit-can this absurd HSR proposal and not talk about it as anything more than a fantasy?

We will spend $1 billion on commuter rail along existing tracks. That's where we need to start. Plus it has the benefit of being a lot less of a sprawl generator since it's closer to existing population centers.