DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

In actual transit news, the Fort Collins BRT officially opens on May 10.




Yay!


Picture from ColoradoStateUniversity on flickr

This is a fine little system. Hat's off to the Aggies.

[Cirrus]

The internet's foremost transit map expert sketched a Denver proposal.

Originally Posted by TransitMapsBlog

Quick Redesign: Denver RTD Light Rail Isometric Map
http://transitmaps.tumblr.com/post/85120903605/denver-isometric

Way back when, I posted a quick sketch of an concept Denver RTD light rail map that used 30-degree lines to give an isometric appearance to the map, based on the amazing Stuttgart U- and S-Bahn map, c. 2000.

While I feel that this treatment works well for the existing Denver rail system, further exploration revealed that it is utterly inappropriate for the near-future of all the FasTracks extensions.

[Brainpathology]

I like it, except the result of the W and D lines where they run alone, with evenly spaced dashes, made it look for a second like they are perpetually under construction. For whatever reason I didn't have to look a couple of times to dissuade my brain of that notion wherever there were two colors together.

Of course... I was on call last night and slept 43 total minutes... so things may not coalesce quite as fast for me as usual.

[seventwenty]

More info on CDOT's Denver to Glenwood Springs bus: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2014/05/cdot-plans-weekday-bus-service-on-i-70.html

[seventwenty]

I like this map more



Source: http://transitmaps.tumblr.com/post/79193448014/denver-boland

[Cirrus]

^
Created by the previous SSP Interior West moderator before me, J Church.

[RyanD]

This..... Is so satisfying. Clicky:

TRAVIC - Transit Visualization Client

[Transitmaps]

Oh, I like that one as well... I was just doing a little design exercise based on an unusual style of transit mapping that I thought could work well for Denver. As it turned out, it looks pretty good for the current network, but would fall apart horribly once FasTracks kicks in. Still, fun to quickly work something up!

[DenverInfill]

Schedule for tomorrow is:

Celebration runs from 11 AM to 6 PM. Speeches and ribbon-cutting from Noon to 1 PM.

I'll be around all morning/afternoon.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by bcp

Is the new MetroRide really just a 9 to 6 m to f service? Youch...lots of people could use it after hours, ball games, etc....extending the hours seems like exceptionally low fruit...

That said, damn good looking bus!!

The original plan was for 7 day/week service with a schedule similar to the Mall Shuttle, plus a route that extended into the GT to 12th and Acoma. RTD's estimate of the annual operating costs of that level of service: over $2 million. They claim they don't have the funds to do that. The current service plan (route ends at Civic Center and only M-F, six-hour peak service) is about $800,000. However, there's nothing in the current operational plan or physical route infrastructure that precludes the extension of the route to the original GT terminus and/or the extension of the operations schedule to more days/longer hours. It's all a matter of funding. I'm sure within the next few years, some funding will be identified to fund the full plan, as that's what everyone involved wants.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

The original plan was for 7 day/week service with a schedule similar to the Mall Shuttle, plus a route that extended into the GT to 12th and Acoma. RTD's estimate of the annual operating costs of that level of service: over $2 million. They claim they don't have the funds to do that. The current service plan (route ends at Civic Center and only M-F, six-hour peak service) is about $800,000. However, there's nothing in the current operational plan or physical route infrastructure that precludes the extension of the route to the original GT terminus and/or the extension of the operations schedule to more days/longer hours. It's all a matter of funding. I'm sure within the next few years, some funding will be identified to fund the full plan, as that's what everyone involved wants.

I think the other aspect of that was that RTD figured out what the bare-bones level of service needed to be, which came to $800,000. RTD then approached Denver about covering the cost for a higher level of service and Denver didn't want to spend city money for that at this time. The issue of increasing the level of service will likely be visited in a year or so and some sort of agreement will be hammered out. Perhaps RTD will incur the annual operations cost for increased service while Denver will provide additional funding for the 16th St Mall refurbishment.

[bcp]

Six hours total per day? This has the potential to.scare away people that want transit when they still have to schlep it over to 16th.....

Im glad we have this, but it's an awfully soft launch.

[Fritzdude]

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/solar-highway-indiegogo/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000589

Interesting idea by some Idaho inventors. Solar Powered panels designed for roads which provide power, create heat to melt snow, and provide framework for a smart grid to interact with electric vehicles. Could this be a viable replacement to our current roadwork boondoggle? Supposedly testing has proved they're durable enough to withstand traffic loads. I'd love to see CDOT experiment with a few miles of roadway somewhere.

[Cirrus]

How much does it cost? That's really the only thing that matters. It has to be cheaper than our existing roads, over the long term if not for straight up construction.

[denverryan]

While we're on the topic of maps, I'm obviously partial to the map I created a few years ago, which I never got around to finishing and updating because I have a really time-consuming job.

I'm convinced that altering the scale between downtown and the suburbs is the key way to make the map useful. The most recent RTD maps have headed more in this direction—maybe they even saw my map—but they don't take it far enough, I think.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Wow.

I expect a lot of pictures.

Alright mister, to make up for not riding the Velocirfta you have:

Denver Union Station: Transit Center Grand Opening Part 1

Denver Union Station: Transit Center Grand Opening Part 2

Denver Union Station: Transit Center Grand Opening Part 3

With Part 4 and Part 5 coming in the next two days...

And as an added bonus:

Goodbye Market Street Station!

How 'bout them apples?

[CPVLIVE]

Interesting angle of the new hotel from the Denver Post -



(Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

How much does it cost? That's really the only thing that matters. It has to be cheaper than our existing roads, over the long term if not for straight up construction.

Yeah.. they were admittingly vague on cost estimates, but it's probably due to what scaling can be projected on manufacturing volume, solar efficiencies gleaned, and other cost benefits that would be factored in. Such as, what is the benefit to the city of always having clear roads during the winter without needing snow plows? Fewer accidents and traffic jams as a result. How would you quantify that? It's definitely a paradigm shift that is interesting to think about.

There would be some tricky cost ratio formulas to work out. Lets say a mile of road costs 3 times more than current pavement estimates, but the solar energy captured is able to recoup that expense over 20 years..? When does it make sense to invest in unproven technologies? And who pushes this envelop? Private enterprise? Or more likely grants from the the Energy Dept to foster development. I think it's a fascinating idea.

[bunt_q]

We haven't been able to make solar powered street lights cost effective (except in the context of a nationbuilding boondoggle, where military officers are rated by their ability to spend money, but even then the things got a little dirty and stopped generating power unless you pay somebody to clean them.) If we can't make it work for something as simple as streetlights on a large-scale basis, roads seem a million years off.

There's nothing tricky about the calculations of the lifecycle cost savings. That's undergraduate engineering work. The trick is in the maintenance, and the politics of funding. Our roads today area perfect example. The choice between asphalt and concrete is driven in large part by funding sources - we can't fund maintenance for asphalt.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Our roads today area perfect example. The choice between asphalt and concrete is driven in large part by funding sources - we can't fund maintenance for asphalt.

Concrete is far more expensive per linear foot, particularly if done correctly: at least 8 inches thick with some rebar. However, well laid concrete lasts far longer binding sand and gravel than does asphalt. Asphalt, unless laid down upon properly designed expensive rubber(like) mats, is very vulnerable to water, and, it's evil ice twin.

The question, as you know, remains what road does one redo in concrete at a far higher cost than does one do in new asphalt or patch work, based upon some combination of taxes, possible bond issues, and, neighborhood political will.

The primary problem with redoing roads lined with businesses in concrete is the length of time. Businesses, particularly those not somewhat protected via franchise generally operate on quick receivables and 90 day payables. In essence, many operate on a 90 day cushion and, after those 90 days, either have to borrow money to service debt or increase cash flow, possibly via new long term tax credits that can lower the cost of borrowing that money. Regardless, most small businesses facing paralleling roads prefers asphalt resurfacing to rebuilding such roads with continuously cast concrete.

Concrete is not the best patch material, and, is far stronger when laid down full width.

This a metaphor for all infrastructure.