DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

mousquet... nice of you to stop by.

MOAR TOD


Rendering courtesy of Grand Peaks via BusinessDen

Grand Peaks to build by Aurora light rail station
THOMAS GOUNLEY NOVEMBER 7, 2017 - BusinessDen

Grand Peaks plans to build two four-story buildings connected by an elevated pedestrian walkway. The complex will have 316 apartment units, 12,500 square feet of retail space and a parking garage. Amenities will include a pet spa, fitness center and roof lounge.

The site is adjacent to Iliff Station, on the Regional Transportation District’s H and R lines.

It's good to see a local developer secure the necessary financing; although this site should be a no-brainer.


MOAR Good News for East Colfax
Not only does the GO Bond passage mean $55 million for the BRT Line on Colfax but there's this:

Election 2017: East Colfax businesses OK improvements
By Jonathan Rose – Denver Business Journal Nov 7, 2017

Business and property owners along East Colfax Avenue have voted to approve a 40 percent Business Improvement District tax rate hike aimed at carrying out the district's improvement plan for the Denver thoroughfare.

What S'up

The BID’s improvement program is called Streetscape, a strategic plan for improvements along Colfax that include [various improvements]

Image courtesy City of Denver

[LooksLikeForever]

Looks like there might be some life in the G-Line after all: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/09/rtd-g-line-crossings/

The PUC is looking to review the gates in combination with the A-line crossings. Hopefully some good news finally on the horizon.

[TakeFive]

LooksLikeForever... The process continues; yes, hopefully they come up with some resolution to this mess.

Best job accessibility by transit (metro area)
Nov 10, 2017 by Angie Schmitt

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have been working on measuring transit access to jobs as part of their broader “Access Across America” project, and they just came out with new rankings for 49 of the nation’s biggest metro regions.

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Chicago
4. Washington D.C.
5. Los Angeles
6. Boston
7. Philadelphia
8. Seattle
9. San Jose
10. Denver

[TakeFive]

Props to Albuquerque


Image courtesy Studio Hill Design

ART is on schedule, city says
November 03, 2017 by Joy Wang - KOB4 Albuquerque

"Every station is its own unique building project, so we're excited," said Michael Riordan, the city’s chief operating officer. “We have 19 new ones along Central Avenue for the ART project, and these are going to have all new landscaping. All new lighting, all new security for transit riders, and really enhance every neighborhood we're touching."

Interesting update and video of pending completion of Albuquerque's Rapid Transit, a center running bus route with dedicated lanes.


Image courtesy KOB4

Sante Fe is the upper crust city of NM while Albuquerque is more gritty, especially in areas. Regardless of areas being a majority Hispanic/Indian mix like anyplace else they (want to) take pride in their community. To make sure everything will be safe and secure:

"Every station has four cameras in it that are going to be tied directly to the real-time crime center," Riordan said. "The buses have 18 cameras on that will be tied right back to the real-time crime center."

There will be 10 security officers dedicated to ART and a maintenance crew will be there before and after the rides. Ticketing services are expected to begin in early 2018.

[TakeFive]

URBAN Light Rail

Portland is going through the process of planning their next light rail line. It's for their SW Corridor; it will be about 12 miles long and initial cost estimates are around $3 billion. That calculates out to about $250 million per mile (FasTracks cost an average of about $58 million per mile). Some of the route may run along I-5 or not; a preferred alternative is due to surface next spring. They're hoping for completion around 2025. Funding is not yet known but given their track record it's assumed they'll figure it out.

Portland's urban or more urban that FasTracks LRT lines do generate good ridership. It's worth noting that Portland got a 10 to 20-year head start on Denver. Phoenix which also built an 'urban' LRT line generates ridership numbers similar to Portland.

Point being that light rail lines along urban corridors more easily attract ridership and Denver deserves at least one of these. Other than along So Broadway through the Speer Blvd/Leetsdale Dr corridor, I can't think of another corridor that would warrant the cost. Given that RTD/Denver hasn't even looked at this I'll speculate that when they do it will cost an inflated $200 million or more per mile. Estimated at 8.5 miles long (including the segment along So Broadway to I-25) that's about $2 Billion. It is what is is but it's important to build... ultimately.

[TakeFive]

There's a faint light at the end of my bus tunnel

How Seattle Avoided the Transit Death Spiral to Turn Around Its Bus System
Nov 8, 2017 by Angie Schmitt - StreetsBlog

With bus ridership in the dumpster, not only in Denver but all over the country, Seattle has been anointed the poster child for success. That's fine but it's always important to understand the context. The article is a decent read but one of the comments is even more interesting.

Hmmm. This is really a glass-half-full perspective on how the city reacted to poor funding in the early 2010's. Lots and lots of regional bus lines were cut, and the Rapid Ride buses replaced them to provide what by and large amounts to the only way to get from home to work. Not all bad, but far from all good.

What do we have now vs. what we had then? Buses are crowded as hell. It's unreal and there's no end in sight. Also, the legacy system provided a lot more geographic coverage with a scheduled approach. ... In a town infamous for rain, you wind up spending a lot of time outside in the weather.

When the Great Recession hit in Seattle it created havoc like everyplace else. Contrary to what the article suggests bus routes and service were slashed. ST2 or Sound Transit 2 was passed by voters in 2008 but just like with FasTracks after the recession hit Seattle hit the panic-pause button. The six RapidRide routes were put on hold while they took a fresh look at the routes and reducing costs.

Then in 2014 as the economy improved Seattle voters passed Prop 1 which provided $36.5 million to buy more bus service. At the same time, sales taxes were rebounding and King County had finished refining their RapidRide routes and started building out the six routes.

Seattle certainly did right by their RapidRide routes and the results are (mostly) positive. Obviously it would be good for Denver to try to emulate what made for their success. But as suggested previously their current RapidRide system (which is to be expanded) to a degree mimics Denver's light rail system. Seattle did invest heavily in these routes with strong 'enhanced' quality features and this is obviously a significant part of their success.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's a faint light at the end of my bus tunnel

How Seattle Avoided the Transit Death Spiral to Turn Around Its Bus System
Nov 8, 2017 by Angie Schmitt - StreetsBlog

With bus ridership in the dumpster, not only in Denver but all over the country, Seattle has been anointed the poster child for success. That's fine but it's always important to understand the context. The article is a decent read but one of the comments is even more interesting.

When the Great Recession hit in Seattle it created havoc like everyplace else. Contrary to what the article suggests bus routes and service were slashed. ST2 or Sound Transit 2 was passed by voters in 2008 but just like with FasTracks after the recession hit Seattle hit the panic-pause button. The six RapidRide routes were put on hold while they took a fresh look at the routes and reducing costs.

Then in 2014 as the economy improved Seattle voters passed Prop 1 which provided $36.5 million to buy more bus service. At the same time, sales taxes were rebounding and King County had finished refining their RapidRide routes and started building out the six routes.

Seattle certainly did right by their RapidRide routes and the results are (mostly) positive. Obviously it would be good for Denver to try to emulate what made for their success. But as suggested previously their current RapidRide system (which is to be expanded) to a degree mimics Denver's light rail system. Seattle did invest heavily in these routes with strong 'enhanced' quality features and this is obviously a significant part of their success.

I wonder how much of this is because of the cost of taking a Lyft or Uber home during rush hour in Seattle. I've heard even short trips are outrageous at certain times of the day...

And that is actually something I've been wondering lately - Has anyone done any kind of polling as to what percentage of potential bus riders are taking ridesharing? I've heard of a few people who take an Uber to and from work every day because it's cheaper than parking but faster than taking the bus... I'm not even sure what the best way to counter that would be - Cirrus? Anyone? I assume most transit agencies are studying this...

[Cirrus]

The general assumption is that ridesharing will gradually replace a lot of the short & infrequent feeder buses, but that it can't replace the main trunk routes because rideshare doesn't change anything* about this math:



* Actually it does change the math. Since rideshare vehicles use 2 trips for every 1 passenger-carrying trip they make, the streets actually get more congested. You gain parking efficiency though, without the need for so many spaces. Basically you're trading parked cars for traveling cars.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The general assumption is that ridesharing will gradually replace a lot of the short & infrequent feeder buses, but that it can't replace the main trunk routes because rideshare doesn't change anything* about this math:



* Actually it does change the math. Since rideshare vehicles use 2 trips for every 1 passenger-carrying trip they make, the streets actually get more congested. You gain parking efficiency though, without the need for so many spaces. Basically you're trading parked cars for traveling cars.

To go along with that discussion:

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

To go along with that discussion:

I'm definitely not advocating rideshare and I assume everyone here would prefer more solid transit over more cars on the road... My question was actually whether or not anyone was looking deeper at ridesharing's impact on decreasing transit ridership and if the transit planning community had solid thoughts about how to get some of the ridership back from Uber and Lyft. Because yes, more ridesharing means more cars on the road and more traffic, but that slows busses too and without regulating the number of people who can drive or giving busses the right-of-way on every road, ridesharing will always be more time efficient since it's door-to-door and will draw away people who could use transit but don't have to.

I know there have been articles like this from February that mention that there hasn't been much research into why transit ridership is declining. It does mention that Austin gained transit ridership when Uber and Lyft left, despite not reworking their bus system. And if reworking bus service is the reason Seattle saw transit gains, it might also mean that this is a one-time gain and their ridership will continue to bleed in the future. The Streetsblog article assumes that it was the investment in transit that succeeded, but ignores all the other data points from other cities that have invested in transit and have seen drops in ridership.

If Seattle sees a decline in ridership a few years from now, is it indicative of inefficiency in their system or of other societal changes that are affecting ridership?
And I know RTD could do more to rework the bus system, but is there something else we should be pushing for to attract riders who are taking ridershares?

[bunt_q]

Well that's obviously incorrect. The space needed to transport folks driving their own cars is more than autonomous cars. Because, you know, cars move, they don't just park on a street for pretty pictures. And cars operated by humans require safety margins, margins to finish that text or adjust the radio, or margins because you're just flat not paying close attention, that autonomous vehicle will not need. It's simply incorrect to argue that autonomous vehicles cannot increase the capacity of our existing street network. (Though implementation and full adoption will be a challenge. Still, it's not hard to imagine a highway managed lane with platooning technology massively increasing capacity in the not so distant future.)

[Denver Dweller]

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...Oh89dpp52Rsdd9Wc&t=1510701564&j=79171211

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...Oh89dpp52Rsdd9Wc&t=1510701564&j=79171211

I wonder why they refer to this as hyperloop. It seems totally unrelated since it is magnetic and unenclosed and frankly seems way more plausible than hyperloop.

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well that's obviously incorrect. The space needed to transport folks driving their own cars is more than autonomous cars. Because, you know, cars move, they don't just park on a street for pretty pictures. And cars operated by humans require safety margins, margins to finish that text or adjust the radio, or margins because you're just flat not paying close attention, that autonomous vehicle will not need. It's simply incorrect to argue that autonomous vehicles cannot increase the capacity of our existing street network. (Though implementation and full adoption will be a challenge. Still, it's not hard to imagine a highway managed lane with platooning technology massively increasing capacity in the not so distant future.)

In fact, isn't that the whole point behind autonomous vehicles? They can travel at higher speeds, much closer together, and dramatically increase the capacity of at least highways.

[TakeFive]

What's most cool about autonomous vehicles is... I get to see it first.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well that's obviously incorrect.

It's obviously incorrect because it underestimates the amount of space you need to move human-driven cars, which can't be clumped that closely together while moving at speed. It correctly illustrates the amount of space you need to move autonomous cars.

Yes, autonomous cars can move more efficiently on highways, and maaaybe on city streets. They still take up exponentially more road space than other modes. You are not getting autonomous cars any closer together than those photos show.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

My question was actually whether or not anyone was looking deeper at ridesharing's impact on decreasing transit ridership and if the transit planning community had solid thoughts about how to get some of the ridership back from Uber and Lyft.

From my experience, the transit agencies are happy to offload their least-productive routes onto Uber and Lyft. See the examples of Arlington and Arlington (not a typo )

There's a big movement right now for bus agencies to focus more on providing good service on their highest-ridership lines, and cut service on their low-ridership lines. I could give you a dozen examples from a dozen different cities, and it's part of Seattle's strategy. The places with rising bus ridership are the places that are doing that. Ridesharing plays into it, because it lets you cut in places where the bus was previously a life-line service. And that part is OK! It benefits a lot more people, and is ultimately better for transit, to focus on the high-ridership trunk lines.

The danger is if people think they don't need it at all. Which will happen in some places, but hopefully not big cities.

[TakeFive]

So bunt is now officially between projects?

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/14/i70-expansion-colorado-cost/

Originally Posted by The Denver Post
For the first time, state transportation officials are detailing the figures that resulted from recently wrapped negotiations with Kiewit Meridiam Partners for a complex public-private partnership contract on the Central 70 project.

Oh Wait... not until today is done.

CDOT’s High Performance Transportation Enterprise and Colorado Bridge Enterprise boards are expected to approve the contract terms Wednesday, marking the “commercial close” of the deal. KMP’s team then will finalize financing agreements by the end of January.

One of my questions has been answered. When the freeway opens there will be one managed toll lane (each way) between Brighton Blvd and Chambers Rd. In the future they can add an additional tolled lane between Brighton and Colorado Blvds.

I may have to fly in for this groundbreaking.

[bunt_q]

Still have a few weeks until we close on the financing. Then yes, between projects.

This article too:

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...o-vote-on-massive-contract-for-i-70.html

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This article too:

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...o-vote-on-massive-contract-for-i-70.html

That is a good article. It's so much more clear than with the RTD P3 clustermess - credit to those providing the explanation, I presume.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Still have a few weeks until we close on the financing. Then yes, between projects.

Ah hah... so to be on the cautious side and not to jinx anything I'll wait to offer congrats until Ground Hog Day (is there a 3-day right of rescission? )