DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Strange Meat]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

There's a rule against carrying bikes on to Metro at rush hour, for exactly that reason. I can't imagine that's a particularly uncommon thing.

RTD doesn't forbid rush hour bikes, but they also say that, you're not supposed to barge on if it's too crowded. As for opportunity at rush hour? I don't know.

[trubador]

so I don't know how they did it, but they managed to make my commute worse with the work they did at the 270 and 70 intersection. Traffic is now always backed up when the highways merge. I wonder if it is because the merge happens closer to the Havana St exit.

[The Dirt]

Aren't they still working on the whole Central Park exit and interchange? I thought that this still had another year to go?

[dmintz]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We shouldn't dismiss the need for more hard infrastructure to support this massive bicycle expansion. We need more bike lanes (when combined with widened sidewalks, it's a win-win for everybody but drivers). Operating in mixed traffic annoys everybody - drivers, bicyclists, RTD, etc. We need more streetscape/bikescape projects, and those unfortunately are not as cheap.

I'm afraid denver is being left far behind by other cities when it comes to bike infrastructure. We have a great backbone- cherry creek and s. platte trails, good weather and no big hills, but we seem to only be gaining a couple miles of bike lanes a year. Even the Denver Moves plan was suprisingly unambitious, not taking a stand on traffic separated bike lanes and cycle tracks that make new bikers feel so much more comfortable. NYC, SF, and Chicago are adding many miles of cycle tracks each year- http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...ike-Lanes.html but aside from bannock st along civic center, and possibly 15th st downtown, denver seems unwilling to make this investment.

[Cirrus]

Bike car on Salt Lake City commuter rail:


saltcycle.blogspot.com

[The Dirt]

Seems like they could have hung these and added a couple extra racks.

[Wizened Variations]

Still have the problem that more people could sit down in the area that the bikes are placed than the bikes themselves. At the very least, make the non-bike side of the bikes, a no seat area, with over head hand holds.

Take the Dirt's correct observation (IMO too) that more bikes could be put there with a different arrangment and have the riders standing, and you could break 'even'- that is you could equal passenger space usage that an opposing 2 person setup would produce. That way you could make at least 10 people have bikes per 'bike car' (sorry schedulers, you got to use more switching because this set up would be a great addition at the end of the light rail or commuter train plus the normal 2 at the non-bike end of non bike dedicated light rail cars.) This way a 2 car with a bike could have 14 bikes and riders, and, a 4 car could have as many as 22.

In the not as 'soon as you think' future, 5 car trains (you can because the Siemens cars computers are networked, and, on level ground without tight turning radii (not Lodo, or the present (and future) turns on DUS light rail line, and you can have a 6 car train. Perfect for DUS to Mineral. Absolutely perfect except for that one nast turn immediately north of the Invesco Station that will still remain). A five car train could have half an articulated car set up the same way with a capacity of 40 or more bikes and their riders in the total bike car half of a car and 8 more in the conventional cars. 50 bike riders- I might even commute for that. LOL, I walk now to the light rail and bus)

[arkhitektor]

The bike racks shown above actually work pretty well and make it very easy to move bikes on and off of the train without getting in the way of other riders and their bikes. Hooks or hanger would add more capacity, but would be more cumbersome in such an enclosed space and since there is one of these cars in each train, it seems pretty well suited for our needs here. You also have to consider that these are bi-level trains and the entire upper level is still set up for normal seating. A typical car seats 140 and only around 14 seats are sacrificed for the bike racks. The remaining seating on the lower level is just about right for the bikers to sit and everybody else goes to the upper level.

In any case it's much better than before when you'd have to start digging your bike out of the mess of others piled near the doors a few stops ahead just to make sure that it was out in time for your stop. Now I can just roll my bike in when I get on, set in it one of the racks, and roll it back out when I'm ready to get off.

Our current light rail trains are all high-floor models and riding with a bike isn't as easy. Hopefully UTA will do something similar with the new low-floor trains that will be entering service this summer and make bike transit easier for light rail users as well.

[seventwenty]

$120,000,000 in fed money for Fastracks

U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet announced today that the Denver Regional Transportation District will receive funding grants for FasTracks – as promised in the Obama Administration’s budget proposal. The grants are from a pool of $1.6 billion approved by Congress this year. The West, Gold and East lines each are slated to receive $40 million.

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff announced in a speech this morning that he plans to move forward with grants for FasTracks and other major transit projects, despite budget uncertainty.

http://coloradoindependent.com/90889...grants-secured

[Cirrus]

$40 million on a corridor isn't very much. What are they using it for?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

$40 million on a corridor isn't very much. What are they using it for?

The monies will disappear into the planning maw, as I suppose, the monies must.

[bunt_q]

I think it's probably just an installment payment on the existing FFGAs.

[bunt_q]

So these new window treatments on the trains... is this to make passing drivers think the train is full, even when it's not?

[bunt_q]

Not to overwhelm this thread too much, but I wanted to post the link to RTD's 2010 report on Fastracks for DRCOG. Interesting little (or not-so-little) read.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/u...nal_Report.pdf

Here's the newest service plan. Doesn't seem like much has changed here. I just like the map.



Here was the ultimate decision on that $305 million. I, for one, am glad to see the BRT money in there. I am actually pretty pleased with how they decided to spend this money.

[trubador]

so the 225 line will run most frequently (probably safe to assume it will have the most riders) and will be the last one built?

[bunt_q]

I assume you just mean of the new lines? The reason for that is technology. North Metro will have roughly the same capacity at 4 trains/hour as the light rail does at 12 trains/hour. It's also basically an extension of existing lines that can be done using existing vehicles, so it's easy to add capacity. I wouldn't assume that's any indicator of planned ridership on that particular new segment (and its 6 addl. stations) along 225.

[taylor23]

Am I reading that map correctly that anyone boarding the 225 line between Aurora City Center and Montview will have to transfer to another train to get down town? That seems odd not connecting the medical campus with a single seat ride to down town as well as the tech center. Is this stretch of track only going to be single track?

[EngiNerd]

Guess their market research has told them most of the ones working at Anschutz live on the east side of town, not in downtown (which is probably accurate). Though Stapleton probably houses quite a few that work there...guess they either have to drive over to Peoria/Smith, or transfer.

[bunt_q]

Even if the LRT extended north of Florida, it'd almost assuredly still be faster from the medical campus to downtown to transfer and take the east line in. Let's not forget, light rail is slow. I imagine that's why it stops where it does, it becomes more efficient to go north and transfer.

Stapleton folks have to transfer regardless. Different technologies.

[Wizened Variations]

IMO, the key with regards to speed, remains the Peoria Station. If the transfer can be cross platform, and, if the correct scheduling is maintained (i.e., if hypothetically the frequency were equal and timing staggered on the I-225 Light Rail Line and the East line), then the break even point time wise would be either the Parker Road Station or Dayton going to Lodo. If the frequencies were different and the Peoria Station less transfer friendly, then maybe Iliff or Florida.

Where the transfer point could brightly shine is transferring to the East line and going to and from DIA.

This may not be a main priority of the designers, but truly should be.

(the spokes in a hub and spoke design need good 'interspoke' connections, which marks the difference between a Chicago like system and a huge Moscow like public passenger rail system. Transfer points produce their own dynamics and TODs worldwide).