DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

Fixed....

Only in Denver to they build a park TWO blocks from another park...spend a billion, get sued, and the sad part is that it will still take decades to address the housing, socioeconomic, density, and access challenges for these areas - despite having two train stops.

Watch your mouth, bcp. I'm from the government and I'm here to help rough you up.

For the record, CDOT is not getting sued, EPA is. They're challenging EPA's conformity guidance, which is applicable to all transportation projects nationally, not just to I-70.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Watch your mouth, bcp. I'm from the government and I'm here to help rough you up.

Ohhhhh, that just made me shiver in me boots.

For the record, CDOT is not getting sued, EPA is. They're challenging EPA's conformity guidance, which is applicable nationally, not just to I-70.

Suing CDOT wouldn't make the case fall under the Equal Access to Justice Act would it? I figure that's a compelling reason for the Sierra Club to sue the EPA, asides from the likely primary desire to force the EPA to adopt stricter air rules for highways.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...et-help-smart-city-finalist-denver-study

[seventwenty]

Sierra Club suit here. I'm not seeing it on Justia quite yet.

Originally Posted by Sierra Club Complaint

[Petitioners] petition for review of a final agency action of the [EPA] entitled “Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas” (US EPA, EPA-420-B-15-084, November 2015) [“Hot-spot Guidance”]. Final agency action was taken by posting revisions to this Guidance on the Transportation Conformity website maintained by EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/documents/420b15084.pdf.

EPA’s Hot-spot Guidance applies to all transportation hot-spot analyses required by 40 C.F.R. Part 93, and is “nationally applicable” “final agency action.” . . .

In particular, the revised method for combining the modeled expected future concentrations in the ambient air of particulate emissions from proposed transportation projects with background concentrations to determine the design value to be compared with the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the purpose of deciding whether a project meets the statutory tests for conformity in Clean Air Act section 176(c)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. section 7506(c)(1)(B), violate procedural and substantive requirements of the Act, and fail to comply with applicable NAAQS, are arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with law. Petitioners request that the applicable provisions of the Hot-spot Guidance be vacated and remanded for further agency action consistent with the Act.

. . .

Some members of each of these petitioner organizations reside, work, or recreate within the health hazard zone 300 meters on either side of I-70 where exposure to air pollution from the highway is significantly greater than in other areas of the City, or whose children attend classes at Swansea Elementary School or Garden Place Elementary School located within the health hazard zone adjacent to the interstate highway.

Petitioner organizations, their members and staff will be adversely affected by provisions in, and omissions from, EPA’s final Hot-spot Guidance that will allow greater levels of aggregate motor vehicle emissions compared to levels that would be allowed if the Hot-spot Guidance had not been revised, and if it complied with the Act and applicable conformity regulations. Petitioners are harmed by, but harm is not limited to –
1) the revised procedures for determining whether emissions from new or enlarged transportation projects will not cause or contribute to new, more frequent or more severe violations of, or delay timely attainment of a PM NAAQS in violation of Clean Air Act § 176(c)(1)(B)(i)-(iii); and
2) EPA’s failure to promulgate such criteria and procedures that prescribe the methods to be used by transportation agencies when determining whether particulate matter (PM) emissions from a transportation project will meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a conformity determination by notice and comment procedures required by law.

The revised Hot-spot Guidance will allow increased exposure to motor vehicle emissions not reduced to levels necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of applicable NAAQS for PM. The revised Hot-spot Guidance will cause increased risk of harm to the health of petitioners’ members. The increased exposure to harmful pollutants, and increased risk of harm to health associated with increased exposure, provides the standing for petitioners to bring this Petition for Review of EPA’s revised Hot-spot Guidance.

I need to review admin law, but I really hate it when plaintiffs cite a 150 or so page PDF, as they do here, and don't tell you which of the provisions are specifically violated. It'll get flushed out through litigation, but still.

[seventwenty]

I think this news is related to the lawsuit.

Air pollution is declining, but Colorado fails to meet federal targets
Colorado air quality control officials and industry leaders are fine-tuning a plan to meet a 2008 limit while a tougher new one looms

Front Range residents are failing to meet federal air standards, and state officials on Thursday were fine-tuning a required plan to comply with the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion of ozone.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment won't impose new controls on polluters to meet that limit, said Will Allison, director of CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division.

"The trends, overall, are that air pollution is declining," Allison said. "This, despite the fact that we've had tremendous growth in population and business."

But the Environmental Protection Agency has ratcheted down the old limit to 70 ppb. Colorado hasn't begun figuring out how to comply with the new limit.

Lawmakers are questioning the feasibility.

If Colorado fails to ensure healthy air, the EPA could step in and delay infrastructure projects.

State-run air monitoring stations in west metro Denver show ozone levels around 80 ppb. Ozone increased between 2014 and 2015, likely the result of a relatively wet, cool summer in 2014 that lowered ozone that year. Ozone measured in Fort Collins also exceeds 75 ppb.

. . .

EPA officials are in the process of jacking up Colorado's status from "marginal" violator to "moderate" violator of federal clean air laws.

"There have been significant reductions in the pollutants that form ozone in the Denver area — nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds — but there also has been growth in the area that has somewhat offset the reductions," EPA spokeswoman Lisa McClain-Vanderpool said.

. . .

If states fail to submit adequate plans to ensure healthy air, the EPA can impose sanctions and hold up funding for road-building. The EPA also can impose a federal plan to cut pollution.

[TakeFive]

Where's my Soapbox?
Oh, there it is...

Credits to shutaf.wordpress.com

So the Metro closed down for 24 hours. An AP story in WaPo March 16th had the story.

The nation’s second-busiest transit system subway was shut down for a system-wide safety inspection of its third-rail power cables after a series of electrical fires.

Philip Kennicott in WaPo on 3/16 has his own take on the problem.
"We caused the Metro shutdown when we decided to let our cities decay"

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country:
"BART shutdown underscores aging system’s overwhelming problems"
March 17th By Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle

It's really interesting reading about the messes that others have. Fortunately in Colorado and Denver lots is fairly new and still shiny... unless we're talking about CDOT.

It's all about Infrastructure Investment and Maintenance. I'm happy to give the Trumpster props on one clear point and I paraphrase:
"Instead of spending trillions of dollars overseas on civil wars where we accomplish little or nothing and often make things worse, we should be spending trillions on our own country's Infrastructure."

BTW, does anybody know who the presidential candidate of the "Centrist Party" is? My vote's available.

[TakeFive]

I found Numbers

"Ridership on W Rail in Lakewood climbs with increasing development"
February 1, 2016, Lakewood Sentinel

"Initially, I think ridership was a little less than they (RTD) were expecting, but it was really starting to build going into 2014," said David Baskett, a traffic engineer with Lakewood. "The changes they made in the fare structure also helped increase ridership."

With a current W Rail ridership of about 12,500 weekday riders RTD is still finding ways to fine-tune service for riders.

I'm telling ya that soon enough the R Line will be rocking the socks off of those numbers.

RyanD... Enjoyed your 101SlowJam

[Cirrus]

The airport line opens in a month! Yay!

http://www.rtd-denver.com/a-line.shtml

Someone should make this their avatar:

[The Dirt]

I think bunt needs an update.

[TakeFive]

I don't recall this being posted previously but I found a nifty video created for Flour as managing partner of the Denver Transit Partners featuring the Eagle P3 project.

• Video Link

[The Dirt]

Yes but, it's also $9 from Lone Tree and Golden. Hopefully, that'll end up decreasing some of the car traffic origination from and beyond the southern and western parts of the metro.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

!9 to go one stop.....this will never make sense to me...


Maybe they should have kept with the zone system, and just add $2-3 on top of that fareif you end / originate from airport

They have to do that or else everybody will drive to the very last station and park around there. The airport fare structure has to be tailored so that there's an incentive to park at park-n-rides around the metro area, or else people won't do that. Airport employees will not have to pay the $9 - there will be pass programs that make it normal-priced for them. I think it makes perfect sense. For non-workers there is no reason to go to the airport stop, other than to go to the airport.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

But there are only so many parking spaces...it will cap out on its own, people will adjust. What population does it screw? Lower income in GVR (none employee) and will be a bitter pill to swallow for the planned TODs

Oh please. Red herring alert - now we're screwing low income riders. Just because they're closer doesn't mean they go to the airport any more frequently, or for different reasons, than anybody else. They can go to every other station on the system with the same fare structure as anybody else. I doubt many of your low income, non-employee riders are global jetsetters.

[PLANSIT]

If the fare were pro-rated based on distance to Airport (say $2.60 from 40th/Airport), there would be very little incentive to take the train from your nearest station (for example, 40th/Colorado). You would drive to 40th/Airport to save $6.40 (x2), overwhelm the parking facilities there, and add additional traffic to I-70 between the two stations. The airport needs a hardline fare - whether that should be $9 is a different conversation.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

Of course there is incentive...people don't usually like sitting in traffic.

For me that is worth a lot...and despite my protests I will be paying the $9 in May for a visit...can't wait to ride!

There won't be any more traffic in a few years for those willing to pay. You're competing with tolled express lanes, and if all goes well, possibly a direct connect to Pena Blvd. We're going to price out congestion, and probably do it for less than the $6.40 fare difference.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We're going to price out congestion

Let's be honest here. HOT lanes allow you to bypass congestion, but they do not eliminate congestion. Far from it, making HOT lane projects pencil out from a revenue standpoint requires there to be continuing congestion in the remaining free lanes, in order to provide a reason for anyone to pay to use the HOT lanes.

Unless you're talking about 100% congestion pricing and not having any free lanes. Then you can completely price out congestion, sure. But that would be news to me for I-70.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Let's be honest here. HOT lanes allow you to bypass congestion, but they do not eliminate congestion. Far from it, making HOT lane projects pencil out from a revenue standpoint requires there to be continuing congestion in the remaining free lanes, in order to provide a reason for anyone to pay to use the HOT lanes.

Well sure. But the ability to bypass congestion in a crunch is a nice choice to have, particularly in an airport corridor. Also, there's no requirement for the managed lanes to pencil out. (At least on I-70, where the private partner won't get the toll revenue. I-70 is structured like what RTD did for Eagle.) Toll prices are set for congestion management first, not revenue generation. Obviously this doesn't solve congestion, but it's the best we can do. And certainly better than adding free lanes... this approach defeats the induced traffic argument. (Not the more traffic argument, though... if a person is in the 'more cars are bad, stop global warming by stopping cars' camp. For those folks, I guess being anti-car is sexier than being pro-sterilization these days.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There won't be any more traffic in a few years for those willing to pay. You're competing with tolled express lanes, and if all goes well, possibly a direct connect to Pena Blvd. We're going to price out congestion, and probably do it for less than the $6.40 fare difference.

Interesting, what's the travel distance for a toll at <$6.40? Are we talking from I-70 and I-25 out to Pena Blvd? I would feel like I'm getting a bit screwed if I'm paying a toll heading out of downtown and have to get into general purpose lanes in order to access the managed lanes on I-70. I am paying to be better than poor people after all......

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Interesting, what's the travel distance for a toll at <$6.40? Are we talking from I-70 and I-25 out to Pena Blvd? I would feel like I'm getting a bit screwed if I'm paying a toll heading out of downtown and have to get into general purpose lanes in order to access the managed lanes on I-70. I am paying to be better than poor people after all......

Too early to say on toll rates. But why would you get on I-25 coming out of downtown to get on I-70 anyways? Are we assuming that the re-do of Brighton Blvd. will make it all but impassable to vehicular traffic?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Too early to say on toll rates. But why would you get on I-25 coming out of downtown to get on I-70 anyways? Are we assuming that the re-do of Brighton Blvd. will make it all but impassable to vehicular traffic?

If I'm paying an express toll than I should be able to access the 20th Street ramp and have a traffic-free experience all the way to Pena (if not all the way to DIA). Traveling down Brighton Blvd means that I have to subject myself to a complete street where cyclists and pedestrians are going to impede me from going 55-65 MPH.

I'm also thinking that such an access would make sense for the managed lanes on 36 and North I-25 by providing seamless access across three different corridors. I would assume that this isn't something in the cards for the short-term, but I wouldn't be shocked if CDOT has conceptualized what such a system would look like at the I-25/I-70 intersection.