DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

A couple things -

1. There is no such thing as ROI. RTD gets so little of its revenue from ridership that ridership is of secondary importance to a lot of things. Politics and getting more built for less are big ones. Placement in corridors where perceived traffic mitigation (or at least providing an alternative to traffic) is a factor is another. [Edit: as we are all fond of pointing out, there are bus routes in Denver with higher ridership than some of the projected rail line figures.]

2. To the point about Golden - RTD is still primarily a commuter system for downtown Denver. And much of that, particularly in the burbs, is park-n-ride based. There's no need to be in Downtown Golden because it doesn't serve downtown commuting any better, and probably does it worse. Reverse travel is virtually non-existent. If you want to visit Downtown Golden, why wouldn't you just drive? (And the School of Mines doesn't figure in at all - it's smaller than some high schools around the metro area.)

3. Back to politics - RTD is governed by an elected board covering a huge geographic area. Which means that everybody has to get something, or you lose the regional coalition supporting funding more. It's not a setup that facilitates investing a lot of money in a few of the best corridors first, and then slowly expanding. We have to go quantity over quality.

4. On the original questions - why no Aurora connections. There are two - the airport line, and the 225 line. If the question is why no direct connections - there was no easy right-of-way, and therefore any connection would require a lot of grade separation and property acquisition. Making it more expensive. Defeating the political "something for everybody on a limited budget" criterion.

5. Answer re Cherry Creek is the same - potentially expensive. Or not, if done as streetcar, but that would be new and special for RTD, and since that benefits 1 of the 15 RTD districts, it clearly defeats the spread-the-wealth goal. Denver gets enough special treatment as the hub and terminus for the whole metro system. Denver-only lines are arguably not within RTD's regional scope.

6. Re Brighton vs the North Metro lines - see #2 above. The north metro line serves the bedroom communities north of Denver, and should do pretty well with commuter traffic (more workers up there work downtown vs. in the south and east suburbs because there are fewer suburban employment centers in that direction). Brighton serves....nobody... today. (Even less so than Golden - it's barely walkable and it's tiny - there's no "there" there.) As the northeast suburbs build out, it'll make more sense to build a commuter line in that direction.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/e...OBYu5F%2FO7W7Amf&t=1457461279&j=71210342

[COtoOC]

Through Lone Tree... but they left it at 3 lanes under C470. I mean, you can literally see from one end of the bottleneck to the other, and the afternoon traffic is still all backed up on the southbound side.

It looks to me like the 3 southbound lanes are tight between the columns of the C470 flyover (northbound looks like they have room to add a lane). So really, what was the point of the entire thing if you still have a bottleneck?

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

Through Lone Tree... but they left it at 3 lanes under C470. I mean, you can literally see from one end of the bottleneck to the other, and the afternoon traffic is still all backed up on the southbound side.

It looks to me like the 3 southbound lanes are tight between the columns of the C470 flyover (northbound looks like they have room to add a lane). So really, what was the point of the entire thing if you still have a bottleneck?

I 100% agree, makes no fricken sense to still have the 3 lane bottle neck when north of the C470 interchange is 5 lanes, and south is now 4 lanes. All of the documents show no widening for that segment. Anyone know if it will be take care of during the upcoming C470 work, maybe?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I 100% agree, makes no fricken sense to still have the 3 lane bottle neck when north of the C470 interchange is 5 lanes, and south is now 4 lanes. All of the documents show no widening for that segment. Anyone know if it will be take care of during the upcoming C470 work, maybe?

The interchange will be somewhat reconstructed, mostly to accommodate direct connects from NB and SB I-25 to the C-470 toll lanes.

Not sure what the problem is - if, for example, looking at southbound, you have 5 lanes, 2 exit to EB/WB 470, then traffic from EB/WB 470 merges back back in south of the interchange, it makes sense to only have 3 thru-lanes underneath. If you want 5 thru-lanes, then you'd actually need 7 to the north and ~6 to the south. Better to have fewer thru lanes than force extra weaving. Or you need a wholesale widening. Or am I not understanding the observation?

[EngiNerd]

The issue I see is the transition from 5 to 3 for that 1/2 mile stretch, and then widen back out to 4. Looking at southbound, why wouldn't one of those lanes which diverts off to WB C-470 remain with I-25 SB, instead of dropping off the lane entirely. They could do something similar on the NB side too. No reason to lose a lane in my mind, it just creates a choke point, instead just have it peel off like is done in so many other locations.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

The issue I see is the transition from 5 to 3 for that 1/2 mile stretch, and then widen back out to 4. Looking at southbound, why wouldn't one of those lanes which diverts off to WB C-470 remain with I-25 SB, instead of dropping off the lane entirely. They could do something similar on the NB side too. No reason to lose a lane in my mind, it just creates a choke point, instead just have it peel off like is done in so many other locations.

It's only a choke point if you're not diverting 40% of the traffic to the west. I'll have to look at the modeling and see what it says. The direct connect to the toll lanes will be more important, though, so you're not likely to get a complete through lane in any case.

If people would quite moving to BFE south of the beltway, it wouldn't be a choke point! Ha.

Also, there are the million cheap-a**es who want to stay on and exit at Lincoln so they don't have to pay for E-470. I have no sympathy for them.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's only a choke point if you're not diverting 40% of the traffic to the west. I'll have to look at the modeling and see what it says. The direct connect to the toll lanes will be more important, though, so you're not likely to get a complete through lane in any case.

If people would quite moving to BFE south of the beltway, it wouldn't be a choke point! Ha.

Also, there are the million cheap-a**es who want to stay on and exit at Lincoln so they don't have to pay for E-470. I have no sympathy for them.

I do a reverse commute to Lone Tree, exiting Lincoln, so it doesn't affect me really. But in the afternoon, the traffic is still at a standstill southbound through the DTC down to C470. I thought that was the point, to solve that daily jam.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Also, there are the million cheap-a**es who want to stay on and exit at Lincoln so they don't have to pay for E-470. I have no sympathy for them.

Yeah!! Only wealthy people deserve traffic free roads!!


Screw the lower classes who may not have the expendable income to pay tolls!!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Yeah!! Only wealthy people deserve traffic free roads!!

Screw the lower classes who may not have the expendable income to pay tolls!!

Deserve has nothing to do with it. The people have voted to do it this way. We want low taxes, we still want our roads improved, and because of TABOR, we've decided that certain government functions have to pay for themselves. For roads, that means through tolls.

There is nothing at all stopping the "lower classes" from banding together, repealing TABOR, and electing reps who will support measures to change our state income tax from a flat tax to a progressive tax, which would tax the wealthy at higher rates and create funding to widen roads to add general purpose lanes. You would even have my vote for all of that!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Deserve has nothing to do with it. The people have voted to do it this way. We want low taxes, we still want our roads improved, and because of TABOR, we've decided that certain government functions have to pay for themselves. For roads, that means through tolls.

There is nothing at all stopping the "lower classes" from banding together, repealing TABOR, and electing reps who will support measures to change our state income tax from a flat tax to a progressive tax, which would tax the wealthy at higher rates and create funding to widen roads to add general purpose lanes. You would even have my vote for all of that!

Typical Pollyanna Liberal talk- that the government can solve transportation issues.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Typical Pollyanna Liberal talk- that the government can solve transportation issues.

Reasonable Hillary-liberal. I'm from the government, and I'm here to help fix it. But sorry guys, we're going to need you to pay a little something for it.

Versus ScottK's Bernie-liberal - The wealthy are evil! Everything should be FREEEEEEEE!

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Deserve has nothing to do with it. The people have voted to do it this way. We want low taxes, we still want our roads improved, and because of TABOR, we've decided that certain government functions have to pay for themselves. For roads, that means through tolls.

There is nothing at all stopping the "lower classes" from banding together, repealing TABOR, and electing reps who will support measures to change our state income tax from a flat tax to a progressive tax, which would tax the wealthy at higher rates and create funding to widen roads to add general purpose lanes. You would even have my vote for all of that!

I agree. I hate TABOR, but the voters put in in place. Having said that, they've also approved numerous exceptions, spending initiatives, and tax programs since TABOR was in place.

If I had my druthers, I'd probably keep TABOR's requirements for voter approval for lots of stuff and tweak or get rid off some of the nonsensical stuff requiring automatic refunds and indexing of spending to growth.

It results in absurd things such as a tax free marijuana for a day! I want the damn marijuana taxed, that's why I voted for it.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

If I had my druthers, I'd probably keep TABOR's requirements for voter approval for lots of stuff and tweak or get rid off some of the nonsensical stuff requiring automatic refunds and indexing of spending to growth.

That is an absurd notion. Taxes kill the economy, just look at the Laffer curve. Why, if taxes were even lower, we'd all have more money to spend and thus more tax growth. Good men are going to jail to support this notion.

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The interchange will be somewhat reconstructed, mostly to accommodate direct connects from NB and SB I-25 to the C-470 toll lanes.

Not sure what the problem is - if, for example, looking at southbound, you have 5 lanes, 2 exit to EB/WB 470, then traffic from EB/WB 470 merges back back in south of the interchange, it makes sense to only have 3 thru-lanes underneath. If you want 5 thru-lanes, then you'd actually need 7 to the north and ~6 to the south. Better to have fewer thru lanes than force extra weaving. Or you need a wholesale widening. Or am I not understanding the observation?

The "or you need wholesale widening" part. But we used that space for a train.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/mornin...OBYu5F%2FO7W7Amf&t=1458167102&j=71462562

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29647761/i-70-expansion-north-denver-target-lawsuit

[The Dirt]

Oh Lord. Can we not do anything without a lawsuit?

[EngiNerd]

Hold on, the very same people/neighborhoods that got the state to spend an extra hundred million for the lid to "reconnect" the neighborhoods are now suing the city? WTF, seriously?

...and increased pollution? They do know they live right next to an oil refinery, power plant, and basically every industrial facility in Denver right?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Hold on, the very same people/neighborhoods that got the state to spend an extra hundred million for the lid to "reconnect" the neighborhoods are now suing the city? WTF, seriously?

...and increased pollution? They do know they live right next to an oil refinery, power plant, and basically every industrial facility in Denver right?

That's the problem with environmental advocates, ultimately there's no such thing as compromise when dealing with them. Not surprised at the frivolous lawsuit, it's a minimal expense for the groups involved and is the typical way that radicals gum up the approval process as the onus is on the government to disprove the claims.

Oh for the days up corporate thugs....