DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

If we could start from scratch...

Originally Posted by mhays

The concept of multiple coincentric funding sources seems VERY applicable to Denver. The whole metro won't contribute enough to the core area, and the city itself doesn't have enough tax base. It sounds like you need the combination.

(And thanks for your comment Ken!)

Under current realities of post-pandemic times, light and commuter rail (presumably) lack the ridership to justify their existence. Then again, that could also be said with respect to most of the bus routes.

The issues are compounded by the escalating costs of labor in trying to hire and retain enough drivers, mechanics etc. Then add in the costs of fuel (and everything) which have only gone higher and higher, to the equation and the budget challenges get bigger and bigger.

The RTD District as we know it

Originally, there existed a six-tenths percent sales and use tax for RTD. When FasTracks was approved it added an additional four-tenths percent tax for a cool one percent.

The RTD "District" is comprised primarily of parts of seven counties (technically eight). All of the 'district' is obligated to pay the one percent tax until the FasTracks bonds are paid in full. Including re-financing that will take 25 to 30 years.

Generally, both the rail system and the bus system consist of a 'spoke and wheel' design to/from the center of Denver (or through other key parts of Denver) such that the most miles of both rail and bus routes are within the city. Given the growth within Denver, the city is not being subsidized to the level it once was but it still is the biggest beneficiary of the tax paid by all.

Assuming we all understand the basic tenets of good transit then things like frequency are highly valued. It may not be the most cost efficient model but then whoever accused a quasi-government agency of being efficient?

Presumably many of the more outlying cities/counties would prefer NOT to be a part of the bus tax but be free of the tax to do their own thing. Certainly Boulder/Boulder County would prefer to be left to their own devices. Douglas County would presumably also prefer to go their own way. Both these areas provide a lot of revenue to the RTD District.

The Pandemic/stimulus Government cheese runs out at the end of 2022 and the clock is ticking.

Consider the Cable Industry

which is currently being reorganize into various choices from the 'whole pie' or for various slices of (streaming) options. If RTD were to be reorganized, my guess is that many cities would prefer to choose (or contract) with RTD for only specific service instead of paying a flat six-tenths percent for the whole pie. (The four-tenths rail tax which is more of a regional system is more of a forever tax)

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Yeah, I would support some targeted tunneling rather than full subway (ie., Speer under 8th/Broadway/Lincoln). Look my advocacy has nothing to do with wanting a "subway system" for the sake of it. It's just the practicality of serving Cap Hill, Cheesman, Cherry Creek, Glendale (the latter of which should be easier at-grade). Basically the whole diagonal from Union Station down to 25/Colorado which by the way, is where 90% of the pedestrians in Denver are.

Well intended, yes. Why not just remove street parking from one side of those dense neighborhoods and bring streetcars back? It would be WAY more cost feasible and likely see much higher ridership than a subway. Plus, think of the wonders it would do for urbanization, last mile, densification, etc...we can all dream.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Stating the obvious here, but this is going to remain difficult until we have decent transportation alternatives in place...

Ah yes but you can't put the cart before the horse now can you? You may be the king of pointing out what we want vs what we can have and so I embrace your philosophy. We need the density to get the transit, otherwise we just have the light rail cruising through scenic Lakewood four times daily with nobody on the train.

Americans always look to the destination and so easily forget the journey. Just like retail follows rooftops, transit follows density. There are a couple places where transit has been preceded by density, Denver being one of them and Washington DC being another, but that's a-typical and DC only got their monster system because the Feds made a subway under single family home sprawl happen and over the decades, DC has really been heavily densifying at transit stations (as I envision Denver will over the next 50 years).

People need to understand we can't just want things anymore - this ain't the golden age. We can't use stated income to qualify for mortgages anymore, as tempting as that may be, we actually have to have a way to pay.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And truncating the fee at all would make it impossible (or at least, really dumb) to "take back" legal liability from owners, because there'd be no permanent source of dollars for ongoing maintenance (which is what the fee is supposed to do), as opposed to just upfront construction. To me, as a voter, the best story is knowing that the sidewalk will no longer be my problem. Absent that, you'd be left with the Los Angeles story. For those of you who aren't familiar with what LA did, they took back sidewalk responsibility on the back of a large-ish federal grant for sidewalk repair. They ran out of money, of course, and got dinged with a couple billion dollar ADA lawsuit and I believe had to unwind the whole thing. (No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose - total disaster.) There isn't a lot of in-between on stuff like this; there's a good reason why the City has avoided the problem entirely for so long.

This sounds like opening Pandora's Box.

Does this mean that everyone who stubs their toe on a sidewalk is now entitled to sue the city (for their back pain)? What's to prevent Denver from ending up in largely the same predicament as Los Angles if the fee (also) goes to cover the legal costs of defending the city?

The more I hear the less... but then my opinion of 'sidewalks' isn't what's important.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mhays

The concept of multiple coincentric funding sources seems VERY applicable to Denver. The whole metro won't contribute enough to the core area, and the city itself doesn't have enough tax base. It sounds like you need the combination.

(And thanks for your comment Ken!)

Indeed. Denver can't supplement transportation funding enough to develop any kind of real intra-city rail system. But it can do enough to upgrade several of the core bus routes to BRT routes to create a comprehensive BRT network (Colfax, Federal, Broadway, Speer/Leetsdale, Alameda, etc) . Give me six to ten routes with 10 minute headways and 24-hour service and we can talk about next steps.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

By the way, wong, your metro district only paid to build that stuff once. (The price you pay for new construction!) It'll still break someday, and I am pretty sure your metro district (or master) isn't going to be out re-building your sidewalks 50 years from now. They're going to need every penny of that O&M mill levy to pay for the holiday lights and maintenance on all of that damn landscaping.

Hey, we've got a metro district and a master HOA up here to handle the landscaping the the holiday lights. Can't expect to freeload like you Country Club types.....

In all seriousness, you make a good point on the residual mill levy not being sufficient to cover sidewalk replacement costs as I believe that it's 3% in perpetuity. Though the reference time-frame, i.e. not having to worry about replacement for 50 years, isn't exactly going to persuade a ton of people.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

This sounds like opening Pandora's Box.

Does this mean that everyone who stubs their toe on a sidewalk is now entitled to sue the city (for their back pain)? What's to prevent Denver from ending up in largely the same predicament as Los Angles if the fee (also) goes to cover the legal costs of defending the city?

The more I hear the less... but then my opinion of 'sidewalks' isn't what's important.

The state supreme court has some timely thoughts on this very question: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/...10db144-940f-11ec-bc81-9b87e747d106.html

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Glad that Candi lost Union Station during redistricting last night. Maybe something might actually be done about it now

And Candi got stuck with the rich part of Park Hill too, where people probably vote in much higher numbers than the "I'm still registered to vote at my mom's house in Chicago[land]" crowd. I'd venture she might be in trouble now.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Give me six to ten routes with 10 minute headways and 24-hour service and we can talk about next steps.

This is absolutely a thing Denver could do. You are basically describing the DC Circulator bus system. Let's see:

• City-focused system funded & managed separately from regional system ✅
• 6-10 routes ✅
• Universal 10 minute headways (all routes all the time) ✅
• 24 hour service ❌ (no, ends 12am or 3am)

Ironically, when the District was setting this up, the feasibility study cited the 16th Street Mall Shuttle as an example of a local shuttle to emulate.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Over time FasTracks will be seen as a stroke of genius.

^^Yep, exactly. We will have paid pennies on the dollar for a system that, once the density catches up, would otherwise be out of our reach. We should also factor in operating deficits over the 30-40 years it will take density to catch up, but still a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to replicate that system in the future once the density is already here.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The state supreme court has some timely thoughts on this very question: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/...10db144-940f-11ec-bc81-9b87e747d106.html

So basically Denver would be 'legally' responsible financially but not legally responsible for liability. Works for me.
------------------------------------

Always nice to know you're out there!

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is absolutely a thing Denver could do. You are basically describing the DC Circulator bus system. Let's see:

• City-focused system funded & managed separately from regional system ✅
• 6-10 routes ✅
• Universal 10 minute headways (all routes all the time) ✅
• 24 hour service ❌ (no, ends 12am or 3am)

Ironically, when the District was setting this up, the feasibility study cited the 16th Street Mall Shuttle as an example of a local shuttle to emulate.

TBH, I love the circulator concept much better than supposed BRT routes.

Pretty sure I suggested something similar that would rotate through nearby downtown neighborhoods (but I thought smaller buses might be better).

Not really transit but what is nifty fun is that in Old Town Scottsdale they have large-sized golf carts that circulate through the streets that people can use to get around or just go sightseeing.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And Candi got stuck with the rich part of Park Hill too, where people probably vote in much higher numbers than the "I'm still registered to vote at my mom's house in Chicago[land]" crowd. I'd venture she might be in trouble now.

I think she was in trouble before. This definitely seals it imo. When I lived in Curtis Park, I knew more than a few Candi voters with buyer's remorse, both irl and based on Nextdoor threads. As long as someone sane and semi-competent runs in District 9 next year, we should see the end of Candiland.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Indeed. Denver can't supplement transportation funding enough to develop any kind of real intra-city rail system. But it can do enough to upgrade several of the core bus routes to BRT routes to create a comprehensive BRT network (Colfax, Federal, Broadway, Speer/Leetsdale, Alameda, etc) . Give me six to ten routes with 10 minute headways and 24-hour service and we can talk about next steps.

This is definitely what we should be focusing on rather than streetcars or other rail pipe dreams. I'm not sure what the transport professionals think about this, but I'd also like to see routes that go perpendicular through downtown. Eg N Federal > Colfax > S Colorado and N Colo > Colfax > S Federal. I feel like that would help increase the number of one seat rides. And the Speer/Leetsdale/Parker corridor should be a top priority after Colfax imo.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And Candi got stuck with the rich part of Park Hill too, where people probably vote in much higher numbers than the "I'm still registered to vote at my mom's house in Chicago[land]" crowd. I'd venture she might be in trouble now.

I'm not in her district, but some recent comments she's made have made me aware of how blatantly moronic she is. She can go for sure.

[TakeFive]

Talking RTD? Not a problem; Let's get started.

The Honorable Mayor Hancock is doing his best to stay relevant.

More RTD Officers To Be Deployed As Part Of Denver Plan To Address Drugs, Crime At Union Station
March 30, 2022 By Jesse Sarles

DENVER (CBS4) – Denver’s mayor blames deadly, illegal drugs for the ongoing disturbances in the underground bus station and platforms at Union Station. He and other city leaders as well as RTD officials discussed efforts to make that area safer in a Wednesday news conference.

As always things take time.

Long-term, there’s also a plan to create a paid fare only area where only ticketed passengers can get in, but RTD CEO Debra Johnson says it will take 12 to 16 months to get the design and materials in place.

Naturally things get complicated.

“We do not want to limit access for people with disabilities, when you want to ensure that we maintain emergency exits. All of those different things will come into play, and it’s just contingent upon us being able to go through the procurement process and basically have a design that we can then leverage and ensure that we can get a contractor on board to address those design issues,” Johnson said.

No doubt RTD is counting on the recently passed 'Infrastructure Bill' for funding this (and other things). In any case this has my full support.

Breaking:
According to CBS4, RTD canceled four A Line trips this morning due to "Police Activity."

In the News
RTD's Telephone Information Center operating hours are temporarily changing due to staffing shortages.

NEXT STEPS FOR REIMAGINE RTD
03.29.2022

RTD concluded the comment period for the draft System Optimization Plan (SOP) on March 9. The draft SOP incudes recommendations for service redesign and development through 2027. The plan will guide RTD as it works to adapt to challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic and changes in commuting behavior.

For those who are interested
APTA recently released their 4th Quarter (and yearend) Ridership Report. Go Here.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And Candi got stuck with the rich part of Park Hill too, where people probably vote in much higher numbers than the "I'm still registered to vote at my mom's house in Chicago[land]" crowd. I'd venture she might be in trouble now.

I can't think of a more un-Candi part of town than Park Hill. Gonna get interesting.

Sadly I think this inevitably will result in a race of Candi vs. some awful NIMBY stay at home mom

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

This is definitely what we should be focusing on rather than streetcars or other rail pipe dreams. I'm not sure what the transport professionals think about this, but I'd also like to see routes that go perpendicular through downtown. Eg N Federal > Colfax > S Colorado and N Colo > Colfax > S Federal. I feel like that would help increase the number of one seat rides. And the Speer/Leetsdale/Parker corridor should be a top priority after Colfax imo.

We've had a process for it. This is roughly what the transit professionals/consultants with the city came up with:



If you want more details you can go through the 30mb document for Denver Moves.

Those of us who have been on this forum for awhile and have been to these meetings, realize that when they say Full BRT to Rail on the graphic that means some at grade rail solution (lrt/streetcar) will be part of the alternatives analysis but will likely be dismissed. Because we just don't need that LRT capacity in the medium term, nor can we afford to spend extra for excess capacity on any one corridor, especially when we have so many corridors we need to improve.

What needs to be done isn't really as big of a question as how to get it done. I had to Google when it was because it's been so long but the city had a pretty consequential public meeting where planners tried to pass off peak period side-running transit lanes as BRT for the solution for Colfax. Some on this forum spoke out at that meeting, others wrote scathing comments on the comment cards, and online. The city got the message and it ended up being true BRT proposed. That meeting took place in late August 2014.

The city has known that BRT should be the solution for Colfax for almost 8 years, we voted on a bond for it in 2017, and it's still 6 years away. In the time since that meeting the Cubs have won the world series, we've had a reality show president, a global pandemic and Russia has gone back to acting like the USSR. But still no BRT on Colfax.

I'm 100% with Bunt that BRT is a good incremental step in the right direction. But incremental change shouldn't take 14 years to implement. The city needs to identify the funding, streamline the planning, and have the political backbone/will to implement the other corridors faster.

[TakeFive]

Looking Ahead

The back half of this year should be very interesting with respect to both development and transit.

Making the Critical Decisions

I'd expect that by the end of the second quarter through the third quarter, that RTD will be pouring over data on the latest ridership numbers as well as revenue figures. I expect the guys over at CPR will keep us updated on the latest RTD challenges and brainstorming.

By the end of the 2nd quarter I would think we'd hear from RTD about the $'s they are getting from the Infrastructure Bill and how they propose to use them. The Good News is that there should be enough money to eliminate most of the deferred maintenance in the system.

This should be fun, exciting even

The money from the Infrastructure Bill has a significant pot specifically for transit bus "Electrification" and I'm sure RTD is already eyeballing how and where they want to take advantage of this.

RTD should be able obtain some good feedback on Boulder's new HOP zero emission buses by Proterra and operated by Via Mobility Services. The buses were put in service last May.

Of course, RTD has been using buses from BYD USA for the 16th street mall and would know how well they have performed.


Proterra Buses - The industry leader

REVOLUTIONIZING TRANSIT - The Proterra ZX5 Electric Transit Bus

Electric buses have become more efficient than ever with the Proterra ZX5, the next evolution in zero-emission transit. The Proterra ZX5 is refined based on a decade of delivering the Catalyst — the most popular electric bus in North America. Since 2004, the EV industry has evolved toward full fleet electrification, and Proterra buses have evolved with it. Proterra’s fifth-generation vehicle, the ZX5 electric bus employs the same technology that broke the world record for longest EV range, with a purpose-built platform proven by 25+ million service miles. Made in the USA, the ZX5 features faster acceleration, industry-leading gradability, and the most battery storage on the road today for any 40-foot electric bus, offering a range of more than 300 miles per charge.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The money from the Infrastructure Bill has a significant pot specifically for transit bus "Electrification" and I'm sure RTD is already eyeballing how and where they want to take advantage of this.

One of the challenges transit agencies are facing is that electrification tends to significantly increase overall operating costs, fleet sizes, etc. Charging isn't fast enough yet to not have to grow fleet sizes, to say nothing of the facility needs for both the charging infrastructure and the charging storage capacity. The federal programs are going to be great for places where this is already mandated, so any free money helps agencies that are already struggling to comply (see: California). But for many, the switch isn't likely to make sense after just a single infusion of dollars, absent some other force pushing them in that direction.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

The city has known that BRT should be the solution for Colfax for almost 8 years, we voted on a bond for it in 2017, and it's still 6 years away.

Hell, conceptually this goes back a long, long way - over a decade.

Nathaniel Minor/Denverite (before he moved over to CPR) updated us last August.

The big, fancy Colfax bus project’s latest chapter is a request for money from the feds
Aug. 31, 2021

There is, perhaps, not a more I’m-on-public-transit-in-Denver experience ... than sitting on a traffic-stalled 15L bus on east Colfax Avenue.

The Regional Transportation District and the city and county of Denver have long-term plans to make that ride a whole lot speedier by dedicating an entire lane to buses in each direction of Colfax between downtown and the Aurora border. Buses would join regular traffic to the Colfax light rail station on Interstate 225.

A lot of the time/delay (as you point out) was converting to a full legit center-lane BRT design. It has taken a ton of time to get the "Placeholders" to accept this design - it's still controversial.

But this was an important step forward:

The governments announced Tuesday that they’d asked the Federal Transit Administration to let them join a grant program that could ultimately lead to up to $100 million to keep that project moving. It’s a key part of the city’s overarching goal of enabling more people to move by methods that aren’t their personal vehicles.

Initial cost estimates were in the $50 to $75 million range but as the design was upgraded and time has gone by so has the cost estimate.

The overall price tag could be between $200 million and $300 million in 2021 dollars, RTD’s letter to the FTA says. That’s significantly higher than the $168 million estimate Denverite reported in 2017.

Part of the challenge as Cirrus pointed out to us is that East Colfax:

is owned by the state Department of Transportation; the city and county do much of the maintenance on the road, and RTD operates the transit service. All those cooks in the kitchen means lots of coordination and planning is necessary.

So what's next? According to RTD

The request to enter in the project development phase is part one of a multi-year process. In August 2022, the partners will apply for a project score and in 2023, provide the FTA with a cost estimate and official funding request. If the FTA approves the Small Starts application, RTD will serve as sponsor for the project.

I'm now thinking that as a result of the "Infrastructure Bill" that this project should be able to be Expedited.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

One of the challenges transit agencies are facing is that electrification tends to significantly increase overall operating costs...

Partly, this is a political problem. At least with respect to electricity costs. I thought they had worked something out with Excel but if more needs to be done - in the interest of saving the environment - then that's a political problem that can be solved.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

One of the challenges transit agencies are facing is that electrification tends to significantly increase overall operating costs, fleet sizes, etc. Charging isn't fast enough yet to not have to grow fleet sizes, to say nothing of the facility needs for both the charging infrastructure and the charging storage capacity.

Turn-Key Charging Infrastructure That Simplifies Your Transition to Electric

Proterra Energy fleet solutions can streamline your project by managing your charging infrastructure installation from start to finish. With extensive in-house experience, Proterra has installed 60+ MW of charging infrastructure, and our expert team has worked with utilities across the continent to help customers get the best energy rates.

Proterra’s newest line of electric bus chargers provides operators with a comprehensive set of products to scale their electric vehicle fleets, building on Proterra’s decade of delivering electric buses and charging infrastructure while leveraging Power Electronics’ more than 30 years of experience in solar, energy storage, and electric mobility. Developed in collaboration with Power Electronics, the new Proterra charging systems are more reliable, compact, and cost-effective than ever. These high-power charging systems — available in a range of power levels up to 1.5 MW — also enable simultaneous charging of multiple vehicles from a single charger.

Consider the East Colfax Connector BRT
RTD secures a site east of I-225 for drivers to take a 15-minute (bathroom) break while the bus is recharging.

Takes 5 to 10 minutes



Proterra is the Tesla of the bus world but this tech isn't exclusive to Proterra and it keeps getting better and faster all the time.