DENVER | Transportation Thread

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by DUPio

DenverInfill did a fun visionary look at the possibilities for subway, light rail etc back in 2005. http://denverinfill.com/streetcar/

"Alternative D" is an especially interesting look at how things could be set up

A future subway connecting Lohi/Union Station/CBD/Cap Hill and Cherry Creek makes too much sense... so don't get your hopes up.

I found it really interesting to look back at these maps, in particular how certain areas of the city have exploded with growth and would be unthinkable to exclude if we were to draw up a similar system now. Given the patterns of development, I don't think we could any longer ignore West Colfax, Brighton Blvd., and the entirety of Whittier/Cole/North City Park from new rail/BRT segments. Also, as there is more of a focus on equity in transit development, building transit in only wealthy areas and excluding all Denverites south of 6th Ave. and West of I-25 who are most likely to rely on transit seems unlikely as well.

Worth noting that (with a rough inflation adjustment) we could basically build out Alternative A with the upcoming GO Bond, if, you know...a complete sidewalk grid and other basic infrastructure preferences already existed.

I'd be interested to see what a few of us would come up with in a shared Google Maps doc based on today's priorities and looking ahead 10-15 years (I may even have one started already).

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Worth noting that (with a rough inflation adjustment) we could basically build out Alternative A with the upcoming GO Bond

The proposed Colfax BRT is expected to be part of the GO Bond package. For a more updated view on costs check out the Colfax Alternatives Analysis Chapter 6, Page 21. At least in 2013 dollars BRT is estimated at $115 million for the 10 miles while a streeetcar is estimated to cost $400 million. I'll guess $125 million to be more realistic which equates to $12.5 million per mile. I'm eve more skeptical of the streetcar costs and wouldn't be surprised if they were closer to $50 million per mile. BTW, the person-trip analysis makes a compelling argument for BRT over a streetcar in addition to the cost difference.

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Without a real mechanism for funding transit above and beyond what RTD provides, it's unlikely we will see capital intensive projects like a subway. And with the Fed CIG program (Small/New Starts) and TIGER likely being cut over the next few years (maybe this year in their entirety), Federal help is less likely.

I'm not concerned, yet.

Our ever impulsive Pres. Trump is real pissed at the Heritage Foundation crowd and Freedom Caucus over the failed healthcare initiative; they seem to be going thru a nasty divorce with one Heritage clown who already resigned from his EPA position.

It's important to remember that Congressman Bill Shuster still chairs the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which created the FAST Act and passed it out of the House on 359-65 vote. It extended the CIG program thru 2020 IIRC.

[Cirrus]

I'm worried about New Starts, but TIGER is the most flexible pot of money in the DOT budget. It's a slush fund. They'd be stupid to cut the one pot they can do anything they want with. They could use TIGER to build the wall if anybody in the administration had a policy brain. Call it a livability project.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm worried about New Starts, but TIGER is the most flexible pot of money in the DOT budget. It's a slush fund. They'd be stupid to cut the one pot they can do anything they want with. They could use TIGER to build the wall if anybody in the administration had a policy brain. Call it a livability project.

Eh, what the President proposes the Congress disposes. It's been like that forever.

Attempts to cut transit funding in the past have failed by a 2 to 1 margin. There's too many "moderate" Republicans that represent more urban areas including in the South and increasingly see transit as a necessary piece of any future transportation solution, even for more modest-sized cities; Cleveland just loves their BRT.

In essence the transit hating right as well as the road hating left are both out of luck. They don't have the power. The power's answer is "All of the above."

Denver would be worried about "Small Starts" if they were even far enough along on the Colfax BRT to show up on a list. Soo slow. Tempe is anticipating their FFGA on a streetcar project that started about the same time.

[Cirrus]

I think you're probably right, but the more polar the country gets, the less true that becomes. Republicans always propose stripping out transit funding and it never goes anywhere, but the calls get stronger every time. It's never been in a president's budget proposal before AFAIK.

[seventwenty]

Relevant Brookings article and video.

Originally Posted by Brookings Institution

Infrastructure legislation is discussed as some kind of singular action to execute, but that doesn’t align with the way the federal government is set up.
In reality, the government is designed to address infrastructure in different sectors via multiple congressional committees and executive agencies built around the same silos.
Bringing people from these different committees together to agree on an infrastructure project would be extremely difficult, and even if that happened, there’s still the issue of financing.
Funding sources are essentially nonexistent, and even Trump’s proposed infrastructure tax credit is facing opposition from rural senators, leaving few financing options.

• Video Link


Relevant Brookings 2016 Report

[seventwenty]

The Frontier of the Atlantic comes to DIA.
Low-cost fare fight goes international with Norwegian Air offering $400 round-trips to London from Denver

Originally Posted by Denver Post

Service from Denver to London [Gatwick] begins Sept. 16, with twice-weekly flights on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Service increases to three days a week Oct. 28.

Like other no-frills airlines, Norwegian is heavy on the a la carte menu. One-way prices increase to $219, $289 and $839 as travelers add checked bags, seat reservations, early boarding, meals, ticket changes, refunds and access to airport lounges.

. . .

About 400 people travel between Denver and London each day, making the U.K. capital Denver’s largest long-haul market. Only Cancun, Mexico, generates more demand for travel through DIA.

Not sure about London being #2 to Cancun. Wiki says Frankfurt, Calgary, and Toronto all have more passenger traffic than London. But maybe the Post is counting non-connecting traffic. Like Denver, the other 3 are Star Alliance hubs or focus cities.

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

The Frontier of the Atlantic comes to DIA.
Low-cost fare fight goes international with Norwegian Air offering $400 round-trips to London from Denver



Not sure about London being #2 to Cancun. Wiki says Frankfurt, Calgary, and Toronto all have more passenger traffic than London. But maybe the Post is counting non-connecting traffic. Like Denver, the other 3 are Star Alliance hubs or focus cities.

Best news I've heard all week! And as to not give people the wrong impression, these flights are infinitely better than Frontier - All of my past flights with them from NYC to Oslo and London have been on 787 Dreamliners, and each seat had it's own USB ports for charging, and a removable tablet that has more TV and movies than you could possibly need on an 9-10hr flight. Shame we have to wait until September...

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Best news I've heard all week! And as to not give people the wrong impression, these flights are infinitely better than Frontier - All of my past flights with them from NYC to Oslo and London have been on 787 Dreamliners, and each seat had it's own USB ports for charging, and a removable tablet that has more TV and movies than you could possibly need on an 9-10hr flight. Shame we have to wait until September...

Fair. I'm just not a huge fan of unbundeled airfares, as that airfare model can often lead to a higher costs via nickel and diming. Not always but often enough.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Fair. I'm just not a huge fan of unbundeled airfares, as that airfare model can often lead to a higher costs via nickel and diming. Not always but often enough.

Yeah, plus at least whenever I've looked from originating at LAX, once you take into consideration the higher fare for checked luggage, a seat assignment, and food, Norwegian is typically more expensive than United, American, or Virgin.

Either way, this is exciting for DEN. I was not expecting Norwegian to come in anytime soon. Icelandair's success seems to indicate that there clearly is a taste for low cost long haul from DEN. Would love to see United start another flight across the pond, but at least we have the Lufthansa flights to make up for United's absence.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/06/col...m_term=0_e8b1506f0c-d9878cf281-147998669

[CastleScott]

^ This sounds very interesting and a little bird told me that something like this would happen in Japan, China or Europe before it happens here...

[Cirrus]

The hyperloop is probably technically possible, but it has two big problems that Mr Musk has yet to even try to solve:

1. The costs would be wildly higher than he claims. The costs he talks about don't take into consideration right-of-way. It's one thing to build one of these on private property or out in the desert, but to actually make it useful it has to go to central cities, and doing that will entail the same astronomical right-of-way as building anything new through the city.

2. These things move fast, but at low capacity. At maximum person throughput, Musk's hyperloop moves 3,360 people per hour. One freeway lane moves 2,000 (meaning the smallest 4-lane interstate moves 8,000), an urban subway moves 36,000, and traditional high-speed rail moves 12,000. To make this anything more than niche product, you'd have to scale it up somehow. I'm sure that's technically possible, but it would, you guessed it, increase the costs a lot.

So don't necessarily be a total luddite on this, but also don't hold your breathe that Musk's claims mean we're about to have a huge spree of these all over.

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The hyperloop is probably technically possible, but it has two big problems that Mr Musk has yet to even try to solve:

1. The costs would be wildly higher than he claims. The costs he talks about don't take into consideration right-of-way. It's one thing to build one of these on private property or out in the desert, but to actually make it useful it has to go to central cities, and doing that will entail the same astronomical right-of-way as building anything new through the city.

2. These things move fast, but at low capacity. At maximum person throughput, Musk's hyperloop moves 3,360 people per hour. One freeway lane moves 2,000 (meaning the smallest 4-lane interstate moves 8,000), an urban subway moves 36,000, and traditional high-speed rail moves 12,000. To make this anything more than niche product, you'd have to scale it up somehow. I'm sure that's technically possible, but it would, you guessed it, increase the costs a lot.

So don't necessarily be a total luddite on this, but also don't hold your breathe that Musk's claims mean we're about to have a huge spree of these all over.

I haven't paid too much attention to Elon Musk's vanity projects, but this looks like a shift in strategy that doesn't make much sense. My understanding is that the original one he wanted to build would connect San Francisco to Los Angeles nonstop, city center to city center, in like 30 minutes. If it were focused on longer distance trips like that, then it could be compelling against short haul air travel and driving. But to compare to the Colorado system, LA to SF is about the same driving distance as Denver to Santa Fe, and I still question whether there's really much of a market for people trying to get from Pueblo all the way to Denver or Cheyenne on any given day.

[COS]

^Exactly. Connecting Major Metro City Centers seems like the only viable way to get competitive ridership numbers. LA-SF, Denver-Dallas-Houston, Portland-Seattle, etc. With the cost for right-of-way or underground equally astronomical, I'm not holding my breath for one of these in the US. If it does happen, my bet is on LA-SF or the East Coast.

[trubador]

Not really transit related, but I just needed to rant. I drive south down Peoria from I-70 most morning around 5:15AM. The 225 line (R?) ties into the A line, nearly at Peoria and I-70, so I spend a good portion of the time diving parallel to the track. There are multiple at grade crossing for the train for the side streets off peoria (33rd, 31st etc.) For some reason, the city of Aurora, in their infinite stupidity and quest of inefficiency, has decide to make the light reds on peoria when the gate crossings are down and the lights for the side streets green. So when the cars actually can't go because the train gates are down and there aren't cars there anyway because it is so early. I have to stop at a red light and wait at 5:15AM.

/end rant

[Zmapper]

According to schedules in Google Maps, the R line is slower than the local-stop 121 Peoria bus.

[Darius C]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

According to schedules in Google Maps, the R line is slower than the local-stop 121 Peoria bus.

The R line is a disaster. From the near 90 degree turn on a bridge near Iliff, to the chicane (in the true sense of the word: an artificial feature creating extra turns) near Abilene, to non-functional synchronization of traffic lights. I rode it three times and it made me angry enough so that I decided to avoid it in the future.

10 minutes of commute could be easily shaved off by a redesign, which should be seriously considered.

[seventwenty]

Colorado Senate president trims proposed transportation tax hike as it advances

Originally Posted by DBJ

Seeking the support of enough Republicans in the Colorado state Senate to push through a transportation tax-hike proposal, Senate President Kevin Grantham made several major changes to the bill during a committee hearing Tuesday, including the reduction of the proposed tax increase from 0.62 cents to 0.5.

Grantham, R-Cañon City, also committed $100 million per year from the state’s general fund to a new 20-year stream of revenue that would be used to cover roughly $3.5 billion a year in highway expansion projects, as well as generating additional funding for local roads and creating a new multi-billion-dollar multi-modal transportation grant fund.

And he ensured through yet another amendment that the Colorado Department of Transportation received a percentage of the annual revenues from the tax for construction and maintenance of state roads rather than a previously capped amount of $375 million per year.

The changes were enough to get House Bill 1242 through the Senate Transportation Committee with a 3-2 vote that included the support of committee chairman Sen. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, and the committee’s two Democratic members — not a surprising tally, given that Baumgardner is a co-sponsor of the bill with Grantham and that every Democrat in the House backed the measure.

More importantly, the 13 amendments added to the bill Tuesday may set it up for a better chance of success in the critical Senate Finance Committee, where it heads next.

. . .

Grantham zeroed in on that with two amendments. The first requires that legislators commit $100 million a year toward the new revenue stream from its budget, a total that likely won’t mean having to make cuts to existing programs but will instead require that funding won’t be able to grow as quickly across the board because of this allocation.

Because of that new pot of revenue, the Senate president was able to reduce the size of the proposed tax hike. Originally slated to raise the state sales tax from 2.9 cents to 3.52 cents if voters approved the measure, it now would jump that total just to 3.4 cents.

. . .

“I think this is an offer we make to the general public, and hopefully people understand what a miracle it is that we’ve come up with a bipartisan offer,” [Sen. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora] said after the vote.

The changes also won kudos from Fix Colorado Roads, a group of largely northern Front Range business organizations who surprised some by testifying at the hearing Tuesday that it was leaning toward opposing the proposal because it felt the lack of general-fund commitment would make it unlikely that voters would back the measure.

. . .

Senate Bill 267 — sponsored by Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Lucia Guzman of Denver — would seek to sell $1.35 billion of state buildings through lease-purchase agreements, setting aside enough money for a $1.7 billion bonding issue that would set aside $300 million to improve infrastructure in rural communities with populations under 50,000 people.

The complex measure also would remove the controversial hospital provider free from the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights revenue cap, a move that would reverse the proposed $528 million in cuts to health facilities in next year’s budget that threaten to close as many as a dozen rural hospitals.

SB 267, which is seen as a longer shot to make it through both the Senate and House, heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

[PLANSIT]

What's this? An all-day dedicated transit lane for Denver?

South Broadway bike lane gets eight blocks longer

"The South Broadway bike lane will get longer, Denver Public Works announced Thursday. The agency says that they will extend the bikeway study lane so that it stretches from East Virginia Avenue to Cherry Creek.

The decision comes after three months of preliminary data suggested that vehicles were delayed just 9 seconds travelling from Colfax to I-25 after the installation of the lane..."



..."Meanwhile, there’s another change possibly coming to Broadway: DPW and RTD are considering changing the peak-hours bus lane into a full-time bus lane.

“These changes, including new pavement markings for the transit-only lane, will get underway as early as this summer and will be studied for about a year,” the agency said."