DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Umm, we're just going to demolish a 500-foot, brand new bridge? Umm...? I wish I believed none of this cost will get passed on, but that's a hell of a pill for the insurers to swallow.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26818222/jersey-cutoff-bridge-demolished-rebuilt

[wong21fr]

^ I'm sure the insurers will fight this bitterly. But the companies' insurance brokers and attorneys will have a great time submitting multiple claims to recoup most of the cost. The professional liability claims will be huge and I'd love to see the PE's face who signed off on the bridge design package when gets hit as well.

If the entirety of construction risk was transferred to the private partners than bravo to RTD.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bcp

look at how BRT is being done in chicago on a very colfax style street.

fun video here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7D1uA52LG0

We've announced a vision for providing faster, more reliable bus service on Ashland, including dedicated bus lanes and median stations.

At the Colfax Corridor meeting Ryan asked why not consider a median running BRT. The speaker answered that the economic benefit would be less because the stations would not be fronting the sidewalk. Is there any data to back this claim up? If anything, I image a dozen colfax citizens waiting for the bus outside a business could lower property values.

[bunt_q]

That sounds like a BS answer if ever there was one. The real answer: because then we'd have to buy all new buses with doors on the other side for any route that'll use these lanes. And we are cheap. Yes, we're buying new buses anyways. But even though we tell you we'll never use regular buses for this service, you all know we are lying, and from time to time the "BRT" will be a regular old bus.

That Chicago video is pretty sweet, good for them, looks like a great plan. The difference is they care about transit as a city, we do not.

[jubguy3]

You know you can have the buses cross over each other at grade? That makes the stations work for regular buses and its not 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 complicated.

Also you guys are getting a nice taste of careless transit. Look at the 35M MAX bus in West Valley. That said, the South Davis BRT planned will be 500 million dollars while light rail would have been 800 million. The 35M was 7 million to construct.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

At the Colfax Corridor meeting Ryan asked why not consider a median running BRT. The speaker answered that the economic benefit would be less because the stations would not be fronting the sidewalk. Is there any data to back this claim up? If anything, I image a dozen colfax citizens waiting for the bus outside a business could lower property values.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That sounds like a BS answer if ever there was one. The real answer: because then we'd have to buy all new buses with doors on the other side for any route that'll use these lanes. And we are cheap. Yes, we're buying new buses anyways. But even though we tell you we'll never use regular buses for this service, you all know we are lying, and from time to time the "BRT" will be a regular old bus.

That Chicago video is pretty sweet, good for them, looks like a great plan. The difference is they care about transit as a city, we do not.

Ugh... You know, I wouldn't ask that question if I knew it was unpractical and wouldn't work in the real world. I even gave two extreme examples where it worked: Los Angeles AND Salt Lake City. Two drastically different cities. His answer was complete and utter 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, excuse my language. If Chicago is doing it, then it damn well will work in Denver. That meeting made me angry. Why did you guys have to remind me?

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Umm, we're just going to demolish a 500-foot, brand new bridge? Umm...? I wish I believed none of this cost will get passed on, but that's a hell of a pill for the insurers to swallow.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26818222/jersey-cutoff-bridge-demolished-rebuilt

That's precisely why public-private partnerships work well - make the private side have skin in the game. You can refuse to believe all you want that the cost won't get passed on, but the concessionaire agreement signed between DTP and RTD protects RTD against situations just like this. DTP's contract with RTD is a DBFOM (Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain) contract. If they make a mistake in the design and construction (which they did), it's on them to fix it, not RTD.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

That's precisely why public-private partnerships work well - make the private side have skin in the game. You can refuse to believe all you want that the cost won't get passed on, but the concessionaire agreement signed between DTP and RTD protects RTD against situations just like this. DTP's contract with RTD is a DBFOM (Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain) contract. If they make a mistake in the design and construction (which they did), it's on them to fix it, not RTD.

He's just used to the private entity always being able to pass the cost of failure onto the public. It's the natural capitalist thing to do, especially in areas where the public sector isn't competent enough to know any better.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

That's precisely why public-private partnerships work well - make the private side have skin in the game. You can refuse to believe all you want that the cost won't get passed on, but the concessionaire agreement signed between DTP and RTD protects RTD against situations just like this. DTP's contract with RTD is a DBFOM (Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain) contract. If they make a mistake in the design and construction (which they did), it's on them to fix it, not RTD.

Right, because a multimillion dollar f-up never leads to litigation. Contracts are iron-clad, always. Especially those done, in particular, by RTD and the City, who are known for their contracting prowess. I stand corrected.

Way to tow the party line, strong work.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

He's just used to the private entity always being able to pass the cost of failure onto the public. It's the natural capitalist thing to do, especially in areas where the public sector isn't competent enough to know any better.

That's because that's what happens. The private sector can afford more lawyers.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Right, because a multimillion dollar f-up never leads to litigation. Contracts are iron-clad, always. Especially those done, in particular, by RTD and the City, who are known for their contracting prowess. I stand corrected.

Way to tow the party line, strong work.



That's because that's what happens. The private sector can afford more lawyers.

Right...and just because its public v private, public will get screwed.

You're right...I stand corrected.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

Right...and just because its public v private, public will get screwed.

You're right...I stand corrected.

Well yes, if the public pays even a penny, then the public is getting screwed. Pretty sure that happens, even if it's only in legal fees. But no, I don't think the public gets screwed inherently. Just RTD. RTD hasn't exactly demonstrated a decade of competence. There's a reason getting "railroaded" is a verb in common usage, perhaps they should've seen that one coming!

[LAM]

Not to sound too stupid, but what is the advantage of BRT in the center of the street as opposed to the sides of the street? I personally don't like the idea of being dumped into the middle of the street when I get off a bus. I imagine I could get used to it though. I guess if they have a landscaped center median, that could be a nice feature.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by LAM

Not to sound too stupid, but what is the advantage of BRT in the center of the street as opposed to the sides of the street? I personally don't like the idea of being dumped into the middle of the street when I get off a bus. I imagine I could get used to it though. I guess if they have a landscaped center median, that could be a nice feature.

Stations ae busier, no conflicts with parking and sidewalk, makes the bus more visible, smaller conflicts with turning lanes.

[jubguy3]

EDIT: my iPad is failing to iPad so I wilk have to share the link at a later time.

Off to the right you can see how a station would be set up to service regular buses... Someone maybe share this with the Colfax BRT team?

EDIT: http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/DetailedAltBBRT4112014.pdf

[Zmapper]

A median LRT line was originally planned on E. Colfax in the 1980's. I found this document in the Auraria Library a short while ago.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

EDIT: my iPad is failing to iPad so I wilk have to share the link at a later time.

Off to the right you can see how a station would be set up to service regular buses... Someone maybe share this with the Colfax BRT team?

EDIT: http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/DetailedAltBBRT4112014.pdf

That looks perfectly suited for Salt Lake's giant-🞵🞵🞵 streets, not so much for Colfax. I'm beginning to see why they when with the sidewalking loading for BRT: it takes up a lot less room and since we aren't willing to take parking, or even a single general traffic lane, space maximization is the key.

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Ugh... You know, I wouldn't ask that question if I knew it was unpractical and wouldn't work in the real world. I even gave two extreme examples where it worked: Los Angeles AND Salt Lake City. Two drastically different cities. His answer was complete and utter 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, excuse my language.

The bizarre thing was that he even acknowledged median lanes would be a better design and solve some of the problems such as parking, but then dismissed it out of hand because it wouldn't bring as much economic benefit. Weird.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not really. The annual report to DRCOG includes all sorts of good stuff: https://drcog.org/sites/drcog/files/resources/2014%20RTD%20FasTracks%20Baseline%20Report.pdf

Including:

And yes, it looks like 62 minutes between Ridgegate and Peoria, so with the transfer, 90+ is probably correct.

Thanks! I couldn't find it on the Fas-Tracks site

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

... And we are cheap.

That Chicago video is pretty sweet, good for them, looks like a great plan. The difference is they care about transit as a city, we do not.

1) Does RTD not have to be cheap? Or are they flush with money that I'm not aware of?

2) So far as that Chicago BRT goes that's a fricken vision. People can envision whatever their heart desires. Get back to me when it becomes reality.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That looks perfectly suited for Salt Lake's giant-🞵🞵🞵 streets, not so much for Colfax. I'm beginning to see why they when with the sidewalking loading for BRT: it takes up a lot less room and since we aren't willing to take parking, or even a single general traffic lane, space maximization is the key.

Makes sense to me. Some of this popped into my mind as well. Whether RTD trying to be all things to all interested parties is a good idea or not, is a good question.

That and the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) RTD is having to cobble together funds to get even what they've proposed done. Whether it would be better to wait a decade to see if more funds could be found is a different question.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well yes, if the public pays even a penny, then the public is getting screwed. Pretty sure that happens, even if it's only in legal fees. But no, I don't think the public gets screwed inherently. Just RTD. RTD hasn't exactly demonstrated a decade of competence. There's a reason getting "railroaded" is a verb in common usage, perhaps they should've seen that one coming!

I suspect the public can handle getting screwed out of a penny (or even two).

I would (confidently) assume that over a decade RTD has learned tons and gotten much better at their craft. Can I also assume RTD has the ability and willingness to commiserate with CDOT or otherwise competent, experienced engineers?

Originally Posted by Mulligan

That's precisely why public-private partnerships work well - make the private side have skin in the game. You can refuse to believe all you want that the cost won't get passed on, but the concessionaire agreement signed between DTP and RTD protects RTD against situations just like this. DTP's contract with RTD is a DBFOM (Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain) contract. If they make a mistake in the design and construction (which they did), it's on them to fix it, not RTD.

This is the 1st time I've heard of a "design-build" coming back to haunt. While I'm not privy to all the documents that were signed between the parties I'm gonna guess that there were clearly defined minimum standards of structural integrity that would have to be met.

As you point out there are two primary parties that entered into a contractual arrangement: RTD and DTP. Given DTP's mea culpa like response it would seem they recognize the fault was NOT with RTD. BTW, I assume that the documents were (repeatedly) gone over with a fine tooth comb by RTD and their team of lawyers, engineers etc.

The only hiccup that I could envision is that whoever designed this turd will sue RTD claiming they met RTD's minimum standards or that the language was vague or some such non-sense. It is their right after all to throw good money after bad.