DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I actually completely agree on that point; it is much better to build lines that are actually doable today and have ridership estimates that are justifiable. As much as Boulder may gripe about the situation they're in, I don't have any problem with the airport and other lines being expedited on the grounds that they make sense right now - considering the Boulder line simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense all the way to Boulder.

But this loops back to my original point... I think a case could be made that the ridership numbers could be justified as far as 88th and Sheridan (Westminster Center). I think the case could also be made that EMU would make sense as the chosen technology at least to this point. I don't think it makes any sense not to at least explore this possibility, or to write off another station as being as much of a lost cause as the entire line to Boulder. Or to assume for that matter that commuter rail has to share track with freight trains beyond 72nd and Lowell. If EMU can operate on dedicated tracks as far as Lowell, then why couldn't they operate in the same capacity beyond that point? I honestly wonder if this option has even been pitched to the BNSF. Granted, there are sections of the corridor beyond this point where this really does become true... the enormous earth embankment where the RR crosses Big Dry Creek comes to mind as a stretch where it would be quite difficult to build a parallel track. But so far as I can tell, this is not the case between 72nd and 88th. If the single-station "good faith" extension is feasible as far as South Westminster, I find it hard to see why it wouldn't be feasible to 88th as well.

Talked to a friend who works at RTD and he helped clear up some things. The reason that NW stops at South Westminster is because that's the end of the segment that BNSF would allow RTD to operate on their own track - anything north of there needs to be shared with BNSF which potentially creates hazards and pitfalls operationally.

As for 88th, there's operational difficulties there related to the tail tracks, a chambering track, and grade crossings that could jazz up vehicle traffic in the area. Also, that station wasn't in the original FasTracks plan (but I'm told has good ridership estimates) so Westminster and RTD would have to come to some agreement related to cost-sharing for that station - and that's assuming that the operational difficulties for 88th being an end-of-line station can be overcome. Additionally, the line north of the South Westminster Station would need to be DMU, not EMU, because BNSF trains cannot travel under the catenary wiring - and that would require an additional maintenance facility and tens of millions of dollars.

So basically, north of the South Westminster Station is a clusterf#ck.

[EngiNerd]

That makes sense, if you look back at my previous post you can see that the price for extension beyond 72nd to Broomfield is very high because it is front loaded with the burden of acquiring the operating rights to the rest of the BSNF corridor all at once and the additional DMU Maintenance Facility.

Basically, they conclusion is that the NW Rail is a longer term goal, essentially just pushing it to the back burner to revisit again at some point, but knowing for the time being that it is not realistic. In the mean time, the focus will be finishing the FasTracks BRT line and potentially some other arterial BRT lines.

This is also an interesting tidbit from that report that I was not aware of.
"The resolution also noted that two high-priority Arterial BRT corridors, SH 119 and SH 287 were submitted for TIGER grants"

[TakeFive]

^^ So basically, while adding another stop near 88th may be desirable it would require RTD to acquire their own ROW in order to continue with EMU's. I think I got it.

[mr1138]

That does make more sense, I don't mean to beat a dead horse. The tail tracks that would need to cross 88th really would be a problem and I hadn't considered that before... I live just west of there and know the area well, so I can see how that might be a problem. It is a bit unfortunate though. That location is as fit for a station as most anywhere in the metro area.

I still don't fully understand though why the BNSF would insist that trains run share track with their freight trains and crowd the line with all those trains when it seemingly makes more sense to simply build separate parallel tracks. There is clearly enough room in the ROW for at least 3 sets of tracks, and it seems arbitrary that they would allow this arrangement to 72nd but then no further. I do seem to remember that the RR wanted more clearance on the East corridor than their ROW allowed which is why land was condemned south of the line and the freight tracks "pushed" north, but that was only in the narrow 75' wide section. The alignment between 72nd and 88th is over 90' wide, so this shouldn't be a problem if the freight tracks are "pushed" to the side again. I don't see what I'm still missing here. I do understand though that it's ultimately BNSF's decision and government agencies are powerless to decide for them, but it all seems so reactionary and illogical. I just can't help but feel its more of an issue of wrong place, wrong time than that it actually can't be done. There just needs to be a little more creative problem solving.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by mr1138

That does make more sense, I don't mean to beat a dead horse. The tail tracks that would need to cross 88th really would be a problem and I hadn't considered that before... I live just west of there and know the area well, so I can see how that might be a problem. It is a bit unfortunate though. That location is as fit for a station as most anywhere in the metro area.

I still don't fully understand though why the BNSF would insist that trains run share track with their freight trains and crowd the line with all those trains when it seemingly makes more sense to simply build separate parallel tracks. There is clearly enough room in the ROW for at least 3 sets of tracks, and it seems arbitrary that they would allow this arrangement to 72nd but then no further. I do seem to remember that the RR wanted more clearance on the East corridor than their ROW allowed which is why land was condemned south of the line and the freight tracks "pushed" north, but that was only in the narrow 75' wide section. The alignment between 72nd and 88th is over 90' wide, so this shouldn't be a problem if the freight tracks are "pushed" to the side again. I don't see what I'm still missing here. I do understand though that it's ultimately BNSF's decision and government agencies are powerless to decide for them, but it all seems so reactionary and illogical. I just can't help but feel its more of an issue of wrong place, wrong time than that it actually can't be done. There just needs to be a little more creative problem solving.

It's always simple from us looking on from the outside. There's many more issues underneath (logistical, operational, political, financial), I'm sure. Someday it'll come.

[Zmapper]

Colorado Constitution, Article 15, Section 4:

Section 4. Railroads - common carriers - construction - intersection. All railroads shall be public highways, and all railroad companies shall be common carriers. Any association or corporation organized for the purpose, shall have the right to construct and operate a railroad between any designated points within this state, and to connect at the state line with railroads of other states and territories. Every railroad company shall have the right with its road to intersect, connect with or cross any other railroad.

There has to be a way to use this provision in RTD's favor somehow. As a nuclear option, without doing any further research it would appear to be legal to purchase land on the most convenient side of the railroad, crossing the railroad as necessary in order to connect the purchases. Quickly skimming Google Earth, it would appear most feasible to cross the BNSF railroad onto what would become RTD-owned property on the railroad-east side at 72nd, then cross back over around 80th to the railroad-west side where RTD could purchase the back parking lots of the apartments, continuing all the way to Westminster Mall. My understanding is that as RTD would be the most recent railroad and would presumably be willing and able to supply a dispatcher, they would be granted priority in dispatching.

BNSF doesn't want to have RTD cross their tracks twice? Tough. It's our turn to play ball.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Colorado Constitution, Article 15, Section 4:

Section 4. Railroads - common carriers - construction - intersection. All railroads shall be public highways, and all railroad companies shall be common carriers. Any association or corporation organized for the purpose, shall have the right to construct and operate a railroad between any designated points within this state, and to connect at the state line with railroads of other states and territories. Every railroad company shall have the right with its road to intersect, connect with or cross any other railroad.

There has to be a way to use this provision in RTD's favor somehow. As a nuclear option, without doing any further research it would appear to be legal to purchase land on the most convenient side of the railroad, crossing the railroad as necessary in order to connect the purchases. Quickly skimming Google Earth, it would appear most feasible to cross the BNSF railroad onto what would become RTD-owned property on the railroad-east side at 72nd, then cross back over around 80th to the railroad-west side where RTD could purchase the back parking lots of the apartments, continuing all the way to Westminster Mall. My understanding is that as RTD would be the most recent railroad and would presumably be willing and able to supply a dispatcher, they would be granted priority in dispatching.

BNSF doesn't want to have RTD cross their tracks twice? Tough. It's our turn to play ball.

Federal law preempts state law. Period.

[PLANSIT]

APTA 3rd Quarter Transit Ridership Report is out.

RTD is reporting 345,400 weekday ridership.

15,400 - Demand Response
84,200 - Light Rail
245,900 - Bus


The bus number seems high compared to past quarters/years.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/14281207-113/service-denver-vail-bus

Can you imagine if this ran from Denver Union Station to Vail on weekends? wifi, bathrooms... It'd sell out in seconds.

[LAM]

Has anyone on this forum really looked at the 6th avenue bridges project construction drawings? I had seen some earlier drawings that seemed confusing, but the one they are building seems to me to be even more confusing. I obviously missed the updated drawings. They split 6th Ave around the Federal Blvd interchange. I think I heard someone mention that once before. But that just seems like a bad idea. There seem to be so many decision points for drivers along the route. I guess, I'll just have to wait until they open it. Maybe it will be less confusing in real life that it is looking at the plans.

HERE is a link to the first plan with Federal not splitting:

HERE is a link to the one they are actually building:

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by LAM

Has anyone on this forum really looked at the 6th avenue bridges project construction drawings? I had seen some earlier drawings that seemed confusing, but the one they are building seems to me to be even more confusing. I obviously missed the updated drawings. They split 6th Ave around the Federal Blvd interchange. I think I heard someone mention that once before. But that just seems like a bad idea. There seem to be so many decision points for drivers along the route. I guess, I'll just have to wait until they open it. Maybe it will be less confusing in real life that it is looking at the plans.

HERE is a link to the first plan with Federal not splitting:

HERE is a link to the one they are actually building:

I believe CDOT is taking SB/NB I-25 to WB 6th Ave. traffic and allowing them to merge AFTER the Federal interchange, therefore eliminating the free-for-all that currently exists for traffic merging onto 6th Ave and traffic exiting to Federal.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

I believe CDOT is taking SB/NB I-25 to WB 6th Ave. traffic and allowing them to merge AFTER the Federal interchange, therefore eliminating the free-for-all that currently exists for traffic merging onto 6th Ave and traffic exiting to Federal.

That's how I understand it too. Regardless of which route (NB/SB I-25 or WB 6th), everyone can still get off at Federal, but those continuing west on 6th after getting off I-25 will not merge onto 6th until after Federal - which I think is a very good thing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

That's how I understand it too. Regardless of which route (NB/SB I-25 or WB 6th), everyone can still get off at Federal, but those continuing west on 6th after getting off I-25 will not merge onto 6th until after Federal - which I think is a very good thing.

That's my understanding three. Another benefit is that the off-ramp movements are all left movements from the I-25 off ramp on to 6th and Federal. This will simplify the I-25/6th interchange and the extended off-ramp will reduce traffic backups that extend on to I-25. Though the temporary configuration does result in a lot of vehicles violently swerving to make the 6th off-ramp. The signage doesn't convey how quick the turn is.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's my understanding three. Another benefit is that the off-ramp movements are all left movements from the I-25 off ramp on to 6th and Federal. This will simplify the I-25/6th interchange and the extended off-ramp will reduce traffic backups that extend on to I-25. Though the temporary configuration does result in a lot of vehicles violently swerving to make the 6th off-ramp. The signage doesn't convey how quick the turn is.

Yea I noticed that yesterday too. I don't know when they opened the new NB I-25 - WB 6th off-ramp, but it must have been very recently.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Federal law preempts state law. Period.

Are you saying that the Great State of Colorado.....

Actually are you saying the Colorado law is unconstitutional or that it just can't be used in the manner that Zmapper is suggesting?

Shot in the dark: I wonder if there isn't some type of "user fee" that the state could impose to grease the skids, so to speak?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

http://www.vaildaily.com/news/14281207-113/service-denver-vail-bus

Can you imagine if this ran from Denver Union Station to Vail on weekends? wifi, bathrooms... It'd sell out in seconds.

I like it.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/mornin...mA+ElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F/O7W7Amf&t=1419616071

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/mornin...mA+ElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F/O7W7Amf&t=1419616071

It's encouraging to see. However, The COS route and the Ft Collins route bug me a little in that they both appear to originate/terminate at park and rides near the freeway when it would be a small additional amount of time to go To/From the South Transit Center in Fort Collins, and the downtown terminal in COS. Both those transit centers would provide better car-free connectivity throughout those respective cities than the park and rides on the periphery.

Oh well it's the first stab at something like this by CDOT, and I am sure they can adjust over time.

[bunt_q]

I can't speak for Fort Collins, but goig to the bus terminal
In Colorado Spribgs would be a complete waste of time, a ridership killer, and a terribly stupid idea. Sure it looks good on a map, and sounds good for people interested in car free connectivity... on paper. Which is also a stupid idea that has no basis in reality. The only thing that bus is useful for is commuting. Hence the park n ride. Nobody who has anything better to do with their time is riding transit in the Springs. The people who are riding it can take the bus south and transfer. That's probably all of 10 people per year.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I can't speak for Fort Collins, but goig to the bus terminal
In Colorado Spribgs would be a complete waste of time, a ridership killer, and a terribly stupid idea. Sure it looks good on a map, and sounds good for people interested in car free connectivity... on paper. Which is also a stupid idea that has no basis in reality. The only thing that bus is useful for is commuting. Hence the park n ride. Nobody who has anything better to do with their time is riding transit in the Springs. The people who are riding it can take the bus south and transfer. That's probably all of 10 people per year.

The primary justification of the buses were to provide vital transportation for those unable to drive (IE an elderly veteran needing to get to the VA in Aurora by way of DUS). In other words it has little to do with those interested in car free connectivity and it has more to do with those who need car free connectivity. I understand the transit system in COS is pathetic to say the least, but if you truly are providing a needed service to those who cannot get to Denver in other ways you should stop where it's most accessible to those who cannot drive.

Yes commuting is part of the justification for the routes but mainly from the point of view as to why they think they can make financial sense. However, there's other park and rides along the route and going to either transit center does not preclude stopping at those park and rides.