DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

^^ Yikes! You both talk like it's just a matter of which button to push.

Why don't the two of you lobby for Exxon, Chevron, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. to move their HQ to Denver and build an iconic building that you'd be happy with. While you're at it take a referendum to the voters so we can get the additional tax revenue needed for the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 trains, stations etc. that Denver deserves. You have my full support.

[jubguy3]

We have a no frills philosophy in SLC. What have we ended up with?

• crossing delays between courthouse and 2100 south
• boring, uninspired design
• mediorce attempts at graphic design - i want to make a helvetica 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and shove it down UTAs throat so they stop using the halloween font
• very little grade seperation
• no attempt at integrating stations with their surroundings
• heavy crowing at the courthouse station

Appreciate your attempt at creating a nice looking system. We will stick with our microsoft word designed bus schedules here. Seriously, look at our website. IT 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!

🞵🞵🞵🞵 you, UTA

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

no, seriously, denver should order S70 train. I checked the Light Rail design criteria and our trains are supposed to be in service until 2026, but I think they may need repairs that are more costly than placing the order for new trains and distributing them to places like Denver, San Fransisco, Norfolk, Minneapolis, etc.

No thanks. We'll order additional S70's or S200's, aside from the 12 that will be ordered next year, in about 7-8 years. I understand UTA replacing some of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 vehicles they purchased from Santa Clara with S70's as those were already old when they were purchased. But, any entity that can't keep a piece of equipment operating for it's manufacturer's recommended operational lifespan needs to check their O&M procedures and practices, because something isn't right.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by LAM

do we really think it's that difficult to maintain a couple or a few different vehicles... If they are from the same manufacturer, they might probably each have certain mechanical similarities.

Right. And Denver's peer cities mix models successfully. When a single city is the only place doing something, it begs the question of why. I'm sure this is saving RTD a little money. But I doubt it's very much. That's why I still wonder if there's a better technical reason.

Originally Posted by jubguy3

We have a no frills philosophy in SLC. What have we ended up with?

I think it's great that SLC has been able to use a bare bones philosophy to build a really impressive network. No other comparably small city in the US has anything like SLC's rail system. If bare bones is what SLC had to do to get it built, that's OK with me. Better than not having it.

But even putting aside the railcars SLC bought used from San Jose, SLC has still bought multiple models directly from Seimens. That's a clue that keeping the same model doesn't save very much money.


from martijn van exel on flickr

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Right. And Denver's peer cities mix models successfully. When a single city is the only place doing something, it begs the question of why. I'm sure this is saving RTD a little money. But I doubt it's very much. That's why I still wonder if there's a better technical reason.

There's no better technical reason. It's because RTD, and its forum spokespeople, think they're better and smarter than any of our peer cities, and they know what's best. Period, end of story.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There's no better technical reason. It's because RTD, and its forum spokespeople, think they're better and smarter than any of our peer cities, and they know what's best. Period, end of story.

Oh, bite me.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Right. And Denver's peer cities mix models successfully. When a single city is the only place doing something, it begs the question of why. I'm sure this is saving RTD a little money. But I doubt it's very much. That's why I still wonder if there's a better technical reason.

Possibly, it might also have been a) institutional inertia (Bunt's favorite rational), or b) a timing question. It looks as if a lot of SD-160's were purchased in the 2003-08 timeframe by different transit agencies and RTD might have been eager to piggyback on these orders.

But it probably was institutional inertia and RTD not wanting to try something new and shiny.

[Cirrus]

Speaking of shiny things, I'm really only commenting because it gives me an excuse to look up pretty pictures on Flickr and then share them.

Here are some more!



atlanta streetcar image from jttjr on flickr


toronto brt image from sean marshall on flickr


washington dc image from kevin mueller on flickr


And just for bunt, one with bikes!


san francisco image from andy tucker on flickr

[afrench]

Interesting RTD fare structure discussion on /r/denver over the past couple of days.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I think it's great that SLC has been able to use a bare bones philosophy to build a really impressive network. No other comparably small city in the US has anything like SLC's rail system. If bare bones is what SLC had to do to get it built, that's OK with me. Better than not having it.

Exactly, I think it's very impressive what Utah/SLC has accomplished.

To an extent the same goes for Denver. The Fastracks vote came at a great time b/c it passed. Unfortunately it also came with promises to build waaaay more than the changing economy would allow.

It would be naive IMO to not believe RTD got a good clearance price by not changing models from Siemens. Those savings along with an improving economy and hungry, now experienced transit builders allowed RTD to timely add two more lines that they previously were up in the air as to when they might be built.

I think it's also important to recognize that by being able to build the two additional lines that Denver Union Station and the neighborhood benefited. Who knows how much the positive impact from the additional energy on private developers that was created?

What's really important is that we got many more funky cool LRT cars.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by afrench

Interesting RTD fare structure discussion on /r/denver over the past couple of days.

here is the video on the new options being jammed on denverites (i mean considered...)

http://www.rtd-denver.com/fare-restructuring.shtml

say good-bye to zones, which kinda made sense...

this is what they call simplifying...
- 4 new types of service
- pay for hours, OR
- pay for number of vehicle entries

and there is a lovely carve-out to hike up the fare for DIA service on a train...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It would be naive IMO to not believe RTD got a good clearance price by not changing models from Siemens. Those savings along with an improving economy and hungry, now experienced transit builders allowed RTD to timely add two more lines that they previously were up in the air as to when they might be built.

This is the most absurd thing in this entire thread. Saving on rail vehicles enabled RTD to build two extra lines? It had nothing to do with massive infusions of private money to still not complete the program as initially envisioned (and poorly cost-estimated), despite an economic recovery. On the other hand, if RTD has correctly estimated and sized the program in the first place, once the economic recovery came along, we could've gotten shiny new trains, dumped the high blocks, and still moved ahead with private partnerships, which would've gotten us four new line. Yipee.

See what I did there? I made up some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that supports what I think.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

here is the video on the new options being jammed on denverites (i mean considered...)

http://www.rtd-denver.com/fare-restructuring.shtml

say good-bye to zones, which kinda made sense...

this is what they call simplifying...
- 4 new types of service
- pay for hours, OR
- pay for number of vehicle entries

and there is a lovely carve-out to hike up the fare for DIA service on a train...

The easiest way would be to pay per vehicle entry with the 4 differing types of service, unless they wanted to go to a entirely cashless system and we could start charging just based on distance. I'm imagining that the four differing types of service will see a reduction in local fares, a hike in rails fares to compensate for the loss of the zones, and increases in the regional and airport fares.

$20 +/-$5 to the airport is what I'll bet.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

See what I did there? I made up some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that supports what I think.

Now cite some 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and tenuously-linked case-law as support.

Note: The idea that RTD saved money on the trains thereby saving FasTracks is silly.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is the most absurd thing in this entire thread. Saving on rail vehicles enabled RTD to build two extra lines? It had nothing to do with massive infusions of private money to still not complete the program as initially envisioned (and poorly cost-estimated), despite an economic recovery. On the other hand, if RTD has correctly estimated and sized the program in the first place, once the economic recovery came along, we could've gotten shiny new trains, dumped the high blocks, and still moved ahead with private partnerships, which would've gotten us four new line. Yipee.

See what I did there? I made up some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that supports what I think.

LOL, you are insufferably silly at times.

So you presume RTD should have been able to foresee the tripling of copper prices and other basic materials in a couple of years after voter approval was obtained? If you've got that kind of predictive vision you should quit your day job and play the commodities market.

Furthermore if RTD would have envisioned a buildout cost of closer to $7 billion then the whole ballot question would have looked much different. Who knows if it would have even passed under such a scenario?

Oh Boy! Where are these "massive infusions of private money" you speak of? I missed that part.

The DTP P3 used a little over ! billion from RTD, a little over $1 billion thanks to the ARRA and then borrowed (IIRC) about $700 million from a division of Lloyds Banking Group, Plc. to cover their soft costs. They have zero skin in the game that I'm aware of. I assume their return will be sufficient to comfortably cover the payback & LIBOR on the Lloyds' loan and also return a fair management profit?

I don't know the particulars on the Aurora line but far as I can tell it's a largely a design build contract. Maybe Kiewit also borrowed to cover their soft costs and maybe even fronted some of the hard costs but it's no more than financial engineering. The advantage they brought was they could do this.

The reason RTD could go forward was the improving economics including better, growing tax receipts plus their whittling down of costs including the P3 by single tracking etc. which provided the extra room to move forward on both projects. If you don't think cost management was a key you are naive.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

LOL, you are insufferably silly at times.

So you presume RTD should have been able to foresee the tripling of copper prices and other basic materials in a couple of years after voter approval was obtained? If you've got that kind of predictive vision you should quit your day job and play the commodities market.

Furthermore if RTD would have envisioned a buildout cost of closer to $7 billion then the whole ballot question would have looked much different. Who knows if it would have even passed under such a scenario?

Oh Boy! Where are these "massive infusions of private money" you speak of? I missed that part.

The DTP P3 used a little over ! billion from RTD, a little over $1 billion thanks to the ARRA and then borrowed (IIRC) about $700 million from a division of Lloyds Banking Group, Plc. to cover their soft costs. They have zero skin in the game that I'm aware of. I assume their return will be sufficient to comfortably cover the payback & LIBOR on the Lloyds' loan and also return a fair management profit?

I don't know the particulars on the Aurora line but far as I can tell it's a largely a design build contract. Maybe Kiewit also borrowed to cover their soft costs and maybe even fronted some of the hard costs but it's no more than financial engineering. The advantage they brought was they could do this.

The reason RTD could go forward was the improving economics including better, growing tax receipts plus their whittling down of costs including the P3 by single tracking etc. which provided the extra room to move forward on both projects. If you don't think cost management was a key you are naive.

I did a cost analysis a long while back when we first heard that Fasttracks was going over budget ($6.5b total cost at that point vs. $4.2b voted on amount) based on the stats provided by RTD and came to the conclusion that the shortfall due to tax receipts being down in the crappy economy at that time was only a small piece of the pie, and the simple fact was that RTD greatly underestimated what the costs for construction and land acquisition would, and naively thought the rail roads would play along when it came to sharing their ROWs. Like Bunt said, if tax receipts are going up now (and they are), then the shortfall should also be narrower, but its not.

Some of this was maybe unforeseeable, especially in regards to the cost of construction material escalation, but a lot of it was was just very poor cost estimating, using historically very skewed numbers in their cost analysis. And shouldn't they have had some of these land acquisition deals with the rail roads tentatively in the works before they asked the voters for their hard earned dollars?

It's really water under the bridge at this point, and I am glad that they getting to do full build-out even with all of the shortfalls.

[TakeFive]

^^ Interesting.

Supposedly they claimed they tried to be overly conservative and that may have been true regarding some things like inflation escalators that ended up being way short in the end anyway.

Regarding working with the railroads I'm sure the response they got was "Sure we'll work with you and be very reasonable. Get back to us if this ever becomes real." How they arrived at whatever estimate they made on this I have no idea.The big miss was in the NW Line but who cares?

The lost tax revenue was pretty significant for a few years but yeah I didn't focus on that. It was more the cost that was crazy.

It may be that as they made the proposal to voters they started to wonder about some of their own numbers but it's not good strategy to start waffling on the costs. It would have given the opponents too much fodder to have a field day with. Just speculating here.

I think to a great degree the task was just too overwhelming even if we assume they used their best efforts. Who ever envisioned voting on such a massive undertaking? Well it was how they believed they could get voter approval which was true of course. I imagine in real time a gazillion things came up they hadn't been able to anticipate.

QUESTION: You might know this to some degree.
Especially on the West line as an example, Denver did a massive amount of infrastructure improvements. I never knew how they decided this should be funded, through Fastracks or by the city. While some seemed necessary for accommodating the line other work was more like "we might as well get it done now" type.

[EngiNerd]

It has jokingly been said that Fastracks is a drainage improvement project with a rail component...it is all lumped as part of the deal.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Some of this was maybe unforeseeable, especially in regards to the cost of construction material escalation, but a lot of it was was just very poor cost estimating, using historically very skewed numbers in their cost analysis. And shouldn't they have had some of these land acquisition deals with the rail roads tentatively in the works before they asked the voters for their hard earned dollars?

One theory that has been batted around is that RTD's public survey's showed that support for FasTracks really started going down at the $5B project cost mark. So, they pencil-whipped the feasibility studies and cost estimates to get the whole project under $5B before taking it to the voters. You say poor cost estimating, they say management-driven cost estimating.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

It has jokingly been said that Fastracks is a drainage improvement project with a rail component...it is all lumped as part of the deal.

LOL, and when you think about it what a great strategy. IIRC the W Line received about 40% Federal participation. Plus there were misc. grants awarded for various aspects of the Fastracks projects.

Between Fastracks and the Better Denver Bonds a ton of upgraded drainage work has been done. Great way to accomplish "not 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to voters - unless it's your neighborhood" kind of infrastructure improvements. Most of Denver's drainage system was designed and built way back when and needed significant upgrading.

Just off the top, there's been I-25, South Broadway corridor, Tennyson Street, 40th Ave. Lakewood Gulch, City Park and an ongoing project towards the southeast, University and I'm sure that's just a partial list.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

One theory that has been batted around is that RTD's public survey's showed that support for FasTracks really started going down at the $5B project cost mark. So, they pencil-whipped the feasibility studies and cost estimates to get the whole project under $5B before taking it to the voters. You say poor cost estimating, they say management-driven cost estimating.

Makes sense. The strategy of offering everybody a piece of the pie was nifty but elections can be so unpredictable; can turn on a dime.