DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TransPlan]

Regardless of what may be good for Denver or the region in terms of more transit, it all costs a lot of money and there just isn't enough to go around. Besides, street cars have their limitations. Go read a very recent article on Planetizen.com that illustrates that very point.

In addition, I've been a transportation planner for nearly 30 years and I can say that areas that don't approach transit from a regional perspective have a lot more expenses as individual entities (overhead/administration/maintenance facilities,etc.) and must take a lot more effort to make sure their transit systems and services are coordinated and complementary. The Denver metro area is very lucky that the history of transit development here started out and still is based on a regional perspective.

[SnyderBock]

I personally would rather Denver wait 20 years from now and build a basic, inner city subway/elevated system, then build an inner city streetcar system 10 years from now. If it builds the streetcar system 10 years from now, it WILL NOT get a subway system in 20 years, because it would be redundant infrastructure.

So perhaps we go back to the plans on DenverInfill.com's website as the most logical expansion of FasTracks. Connect inner Denver top destinations and corridors with the regional FasTracks system in an integrated fashion, using higher capacity, grade-separated lines.

That's really what NexTracks is all about and if Denver has to wait 20+ years for that, it's better than getting a streetcar system in 10 years.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Octavian

I have many unrelated points to make.



Well the suburbs is where most people actually live. Like you said, Denver has a population of about 600,000 in a metro area of 2.4 million. And the suburbs have been growing faster than Denver.

Denver gets plenty of new stations in Fastracks. Most of the East Corridor is in Denver and portions of all the other corridors are as well. Not to mention the Union Station redevelopment (which has other revenue sources but wouldn't happen without Fastracks). Moreover, Denver got new stations when the Central Corridor was made (which no one but Denver benefited from but which was paid for by everyone).

My understanding is that the Fastracks tax may never expire. If anyone has the original language of the bill, I'd be interested to see if that's the case.

One place I would suggest cutting is buses. I mean just your typical everyday buses. Why is a public entity even responsible for this? It might seem heretical to ask the question, but why are buses.

An interesting story from Chile. Chile until recently had a private bus system. Anyone could go there and start a bus company. Instead of the giant buses RTD buys (which they do because it reduces the number of drivers they use), most companies opted for smaller buses. Competition meant you weren't likely to fill a very large bus so smaller buses predominated. Because they were smaller, buses came very frequently. Smaller buses also use less gas. Drivers were paid by the number of passengers they carried (ever had to run towards the bus and had the driver not stop?). There also had different classes of service. There were express buses, local buses. Some buses for rich people were better appointed and had fancy extras for a higher price.

Notice I said till recently. Here is one article explaining what happened. Here is another.

Because they were private, the buses responded more quickly to changes in either the cost of fuel or demand for services. Certainly much faster than RTD could.

With rail, at least its a big infrastructure investment and you need eminent domain to acquire the right of way. But what's the argument for public buses? RTD could use bus revenue to pay for the cost-overruns.

Also, why does RTD have such a s**ty website? I mean really?

Something else that's cool that I recently discovered. Hong Kong's subway system is privately owned and operated. Of course, Hong Kong is much denser.

They weren't always public here. They're public now because they could never turn a profit is their weren't. What is RTD's farebox recovery?... 20% or so? If it was private there'd be, what, maybe a half dozen corridors in the metro that could pay for themselves? For better or worse, we have a sizable transit dependent populaton that could never make do with that. So it went public.

Same story with every transportation mode, really... deregulation cuts costs and boosts profits... but given the choice, nobody runs freight rail to Bob's Town, North Dakota; nobody has flights to Bismark, North Dakota; and nobody runs buses to Highlands Ranch. But the public demands all three, so we infuse each with public money (or we just require it, and then we see carriers in bankruptcy)

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I personally would rather Denver wait 20 years from now and build a basic, inner city subway/elevated system, then build an inner city streetcar system 10 years from now. If it builds the streetcar system 10 years from now, it WILL NOT get a subway system in 20 years, because it would be redundant infrastructure.

So perhaps we go back to the plans on DenverInfill.com's website as the most logical expansion of FasTracks. Connect inner Denver top destinations and corridors with the regional FasTracks system in an integrated fashion, using higher capacity, grade-separated lines.

That's really what NexTracks is all about and if Denver has to wait 20+ years for that, it's better than getting a streetcar system in 10 years.

Funny you say that, really... I'm going through everything I own today, purging years worth of junk that can't make the trip across the Pacific. And I came across the whole newpaper series of RTD's aborted attempt to do elevated/subway, then elevated rail then at-grade rail, then BRT up broadway... I save everything. RTD will never be dumb enough to pick that fight again.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They weren't always public here. They're public now because they could never turn a profit is their weren't. What is RTD's farebox recovery?... 20% or so? If it was private there'd be, what, maybe a half dozen corridors in the metro that could pay for themselves? For better or worse, we have a sizable transit dependent populaton that could never make do with that. So it went public.

Same story with every transportation mode, really... deregulation cuts costs and boosts profits... but given the choice, nobody runs freight rail to Bob's Town, North Dakota; nobody has flights to Bismark, North Dakota; and nobody runs buses to Highlands Ranch. But the public demands all three, so we infuse each with public money (or we just require it, and then we see carriers in bankruptcy)

You mean like this program to subsidize flights to small communities.

Imagine an aviation system in which planes fly two-thirds empty, fares are as low as $46 and the government pays up to 93% of the cost of a flight.
You don't have to look far. That system exists in the USA — and quietly is expanding even as most of the nation's 2 million daily air travelers see fares tick upward for increasingly crowded flights.

Each day, about 3,000 passengers enjoy mostly empty, heavily subsidized flights, financed by a 30-year-old program that requires the government to guarantee commercial air service to scores of small communities that can't support it themselves.

Personally, I think that's a waste of money. And you're right, maybe there isn't enough demand to justify serving Highlands Ranch (or other areas) with buses. I would say that's fine. If the public really demanded it, the private sector would provide it.

[bunt_q]

Well, I would agree... and most people would. Right up until they have an accident and can't drive, get old, or have a developmentally disabled kid (or any other kid under 16 for that matter). The buses may be damned inconvenient, but they provide the only means of mobility for over one-third of america... that's why we subsidize them.

You know, you could make the same private-sector argument - "If the public really demanded it, the private sector would provide it." - for health care, housing, retirement, or even fire protection... but for some odd reason, some americans think those things should be available to more people than can afford a plasma tv.

Personally, I'm young, healthy, reasonably wealthy, well educated, white, and male... I could do without a lot of things. I could do without social security, medicare, medicaid, the denver police (i'd rather pay security - i'd trust them more), denver fire (i'll buy private insurance), affirmative action, public schools, public higher education, public transportation, free roads, and a host of other things. I'd get by just fine, and the private sector, no doubt, could and would provide everything I need adequately for me. That doesn't mean I don't see a need for these things, because I am quite certain many people - including most on this forum - need at least something from that list more than I do.

I think we've spent almost two decades now neutering government, and I thought most Americans were beginning to think that, no, we're actually not better for it. Maybe I'm wrong, though... maybe people still do not see government as a potential force for good. I do, though... call me a hopeless optimist. I see a place for both the public and private sectors.

[SnyderBock]

I don't think it would be dumb for RTD to "pick that fight" again regarding elevated/subway rail for inner city key routes. Furthermore, how can one say RTD would "never" do that? Oh what dos the future hold? That sounds too much a limit or barrier to me and I don't like limits. There are no limits to what humanity can achieve.

In 20 years, it will be a different economy, different residents, different generation in power, different culture and mindset, denser city. Who knows what that future RTD might be able to get done? 10 years ago, you might have said RTD would never be able to get something like FasTracks funded and constructed - yet here it is happening.

I think streetcars are not the best upgrade from buses. They are basically buses on rails, sharing lanes of traffic and stringing rather ugly canopies everywhere. Now would I support streetcars over elevated/subway rail, IF I knew for a fact the grade-separated will never happen? Yes. Will it be hard convincing me that it NEVER will happen? nearly impossible.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well, I would agree... and most people would. Right up until they have an accident and can't drive, get old, or have a developmentally disabled kid (or any other kid under 16 for that matter). The buses may be damned inconvenient, but they provide the only means of mobility for over one-third of america... that's why we subsidize them.

You know, you could make the same private-sector argument - "If the public really demanded it, the private sector would provide it." - for health care, housing, retirement, or even fire protection... but for some odd reason, some americans think those things should be available to more people than can afford a plasma tv.

Personally, I'm young, healthy, reasonably wealthy, well educated, white, and male... I could do without a lot of things. I could do without social security, medicare, medicaid, the denver police (i'd rather pay security - i'd trust them more), denver fire (i'll buy private insurance), affirmative action, public schools, public higher education, public transportation, free roads, and a host of other things. I'd get by just fine, and the private sector, no doubt, could and would provide everything I need adequately for me. That doesn't mean I don't see a need for these things, because I am quite certain many people - including most on this forum - need at least something from that list more than I do.

I think we've spent almost two decades now neutering government, and I thought most Americans were beginning to think that, no, we're actually not better for it. Maybe I'm wrong, though... maybe people still do not see government as a potential force for good. I do, though... call me a hopeless optimist. I see a place for both the public and private sectors.

I too see a role for the public and private sectors. It appears we disagree about which goods the government should provide. I think the government's role is to provide public goods. Lighthouses and national defense are the classic examples. What constitutes a public good? From Wikipedia:

This is the property that has become known as Non-rivalness (the consumption of a good does not preclude other people from consuming it). In addition a pure public good exhibits a second property called Non-excludability: that is, it is impossible to exclude any individuals from consuming the good.

Many of the things you list the market does provide. Housing for example. Others are really income transfer programs, to help the poor or underprivileged. You admit as much when you list your own characteristics, and when you say that they should be available to "more people than can afford a plasma tv." If what you want to do is an income transfer, there are more effective ways. What if instead of spending money on public buses, we sent the money directly to low income individuals? Or if you prefer control how individuals spend money, why not offer transportation vouchers? As it stands now, RTD has a monopoly. I think most on this forum would agree that monopolies are undesirable. At least with vouchers, you would open up transportation to some more innovation. Whose to say that the buses or routes RTD provides are "the right ones." Maybe someone else can provide better service. My proposal was to open up the buses to private companies and reinvest what's spent on buses on rail.

Our roads are subsidized. It's one of the factors that contributes to our car culture. While roads could in theory be built privately (and were in the 1800s and even occasionally in the present), in practice, they often require the use of eminent domain. Moreover, until only very recently, it was too expensive to charge individuals for the use of roads. Bus service, since it takes advantage of the subsidies used for private vehicles (buses use roads), differ from rail I think in a fundamental way because rail requires its own infrastructure.

Two final points. Chile is a poorer country than the US but the poor there did not lack for bus service because that service was provided privately. And second, what is your opinion of department of transportation lavishing subsides on those flights to small towns. If you think this is a bad idea, how does this differ bus transport?

[bunt_q]

Okay, I could do transportation vouchers, I'm on board with that. I like school vouchers too for the same reason... anything to give DPS a good kick in the tush. Same logic I suppose.

Chile gets away with private buses exactly because they are poor, though. Captive audience - demand by default. But I could do vouchers, that levels the playing field.

As for the small towns... well sure, I think it's an awful idea. But politics trump economics. For whatever reason, we insist on clinging to our vision of America as an agrarian wonderland... god forbid we tell the good folks of Fargo to suck it up and pack up for the Twin Cities!

Back on point for a moment, I think the only way to serve these small towns profitably is probably with infrequent, high-priced buses. But that would require busting up the Greyhound monopoly. (You know, I've always dreamed of starting a national bus network of my own using high-quality buses, like the kind the Turks use on intercity routes. Really amazing. And I love that the Mexican buses here in Denver provide better service to the border than Greyhound does, both in terms of price and quality)

So I think we're on the same page.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I don't think it would be dumb for RTD to "pick that fight" again regarding elevated/subway rail for inner city key routes. Furthermore, how can one say RTD would "never" do that? Oh what dos the future hold? That sounds too much a limit or barrier to me and I don't like limits. There are no limits to what humanity can achieve.

In 20 years, it will be a different economy, different residents, different generation in power, different culture and mindset, denser city. Who knows what that future RTD might be able to get done? 10 years ago, you might have said RTD would never be able to get something like FasTracks funded and constructed - yet here it is happening.

I think streetcars are not the best upgrade from buses. They are basically buses on rails, sharing lanes of traffic and stringing rather ugly canopies everywhere. Now would I support streetcars over elevated/subway rail, IF I knew for a fact the grade-separated will never happen? Yes. Will it be hard convincing me that it NEVER will happen? nearly impossible.

Well sure, nothing is never. But we know we've got 30, maybe 40 years of Fastracks bonds. And Nextracks, if it happens, will be largely suburban... so we've got solidly 40 years of regional rail bonds to pay off. No way around that.

So could Denver-proper, a city of, say, 750,000 by then, finance, oh, 20 miles of elevated and/or subway routes? I think we can all agree that costs won't go down any. So let's go with $200m/mile - seems fair (seems optimistic when you've got SF at $750m/mile today). Okay, so we're looking at $4-$5 billion in today's dollars - another Fastracks basically - to get us from Broadway to DT, DT to Cherry Creek, and DT to Colorado on Colfax. That's it. I dunno... anything is possible, but that's a heck of a lot of money. It's possible I'll build Denver a new tallest too... if I win Powerball. Can the city win Powerball? I think streetcars are a much, much better option for us. We're just not very big or dense. We don't need elevated/subway. You could plop that same system in for half a billion if you do streetcar (with a heck of a lot of much-needed streetscape improvements). Granted, for it to pass, we'd have to guarantee Aaron he'd always have a dedicated parking space all to himself on Colfax ()...

[DenverTrans]

Two contributions to the discussion:

1. Instead of "streetcars" we should talk about trams. The largest streetcar/tram networks in the world get a little bit more like light rail each year -- more reserved right of way, better stations, etc. There is a lesson there. Trams would work well in Denver, but the city has to commit and has to be willing to shift space on the street from cars to transit. Trams are more urban than light rail (as RTD applies it), but not like traditional streetcars.

2. All this talk of private versus public is a bit wearying. I think private is great -- but the so called market is chilled today by innumerable factors. If you have capital to invest, you would make more money by investing in video games than hard infrastructure or bus lines or even automobile companies.

All forms of transportation in the United States seem to be in decline. Air travel (private carriers/public infra.) is miserable. Intercity bus (private carriers/public infra.) also miserable. Intercity train service (public carrier/private infra.) is bad. Driving (private vehicle/public infra.) -- well, it ain't what it used to be, is it?

Until we correctly diagnose our transportation problem, we will never solve it. My diagnosis: culturally we no longer respect reason or planning and have no faith in government to invest or partner with the private sector, so we suffer.

[DenverTrans]

PS: sometimes the city needs to help itself...

[ski82]

New FasTracks #s are in: $7.9b

http://www.denverpost.com

I thought it was going to be higher, but who knows if this is actually on the mark.

[wong21fr]

Still probably too low... I'm betting that total costs will be around $10 billion or so when all is said and done.

[bcp]

i'm glad that the article pointed out that if we stretch this to 2034 (seriously) and dates in between, the costs just keep going up and up....

i vote for extending the tax indefinitely, killing BRT to boulder (system thinking here, i know that the train is more expensive per rider) as well as completely pushing out the extension of the current lines.

interesting that there are zero federal dollars earmarked for the boulder, 225 and north metro lines. is this just a 'for now' condition or are they just not going to receive federal funding for some other reason? do you know bunt?

[ski82]

I assume the cost increases are based on inflation probably interest. You would expect average sales tax receipts (taking into account another downturn or two) to increase over the same period of time. Despite the higher costs of extending construction, I think it is a viable option at this point. The worst thing they can do is shorten lines or remove aspects from the project.

What I would like them to see happen is let the voters decide between increasing taxes with an on time completion OR delay the project completion date. I don’t think voters are going to pass an increase so from there, push forward with projects that qualify for fed funding now. Those that do not now, maybe they will in 5-10 years.

[bunt_q]

Greetings from Honolulu. As far as I know, there's no plan to go after federal dollars for those corridors. They'd never get them anyways... the formula for those lines would put them behind dozens of other projects nationwide. Its no coincidence that the "better" corridors have that money.

Dropping BRT to Boulder in favor of the rail would be the worst possible decision. In fact, and this is off the record, I've heard stirrings that if/when a corridor goes bye-bye, it's going to be the rail to Longmont first. (The ridership on that train is dismal, with little hope for any improvement in the future from either new development or improved service - it just flat out doesn't go where the people are)

[SnyderBock]

Those are the most logical plans I have head Ski82 and bunt_q - it looks like RTD might be going in that dirrection.

One thing is obvious, Boulder does not have to have two lines. Kill the BRT line and let the CDOT worry about US-36's future. That would save what? A quarter of a billion dollars? And Boulder and Longmont would still have service built to their cities with the train.

BUT I like bunt_q's points and think a good compromise would be to cut the rail extension from Boulder to Longmont and simply run some of the buses from the Boulder BRT end of line station, on up to Longmont. Is the CDOT doing anything to get funding for their share of the BRT line?

That's not exactly a major sacrifice in order to save greater sacrifices in service elsewhere.

I also think RTD should delay the extensions of the SW and SE lines. OR single track those extensions at very least, perhaps even only extending them by one station instead of two.

I don't see any point in delaying the I-225 line. Sure, it's ridership is low, but that because it's not useful. To leave it as it is now, is pointless. The only value from the I-225 line will come from it connecting to the DIA line. Right now, it's just a dead end road. people don't use dead end roads, but make it a through road (railroad) and people will start using it. They will use it from Lincoln Station south, DTC, and Aurora to get to the airport.

The North Metro line might be worth shortening. Build it up through Commerce City and into Thornton. Good enough for now.

Run the Boulder and Thornton DMU's on Bio-diesel !!

[1Post2]

lets hope that next year, congress under the next administration can double the federal transportation budget when it comes up for renewal. hopefully all the cries about decaying infrastructure will actually amount to something.

channeling the new funds into anything except transit projects and maintenance of existing infrastructure would be a crime against the future of this nation, but i think i'm already asking too much.

as the article points out, voters won't approve a new tax to bail out fastracks. nor will they swallow too much of an time extension...if safetea-lu doesnt help bail us out, we're gonna see more than a few pieces of fastracks hit the chopping block.

one more thing...why isn't simply extending the tax without extending the construction timetable an option? (i.e. issue more bonds between now and 2016 and extend the tax until they're repaid) we would be paying interest, but not the penalties of increased construction costs that we'd suffer by slowing the whole project down.

[1Post2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But we know we've got 30, maybe 40 years of Fastracks bonds. And Nextracks, if it happens, will be largely suburban... so we've got solidly 40 years of regional rail bonds to pay off. No way around that.

Really? Yikes...you'd think a metro-wide sales tax would bring stronger cash flow than that...

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by 1Post2

Really? Yikes...you'd think a metro-wide sales tax would bring stronger cash flow than that...

Especially considering the longer they extend the sales tax, the greater the annual collections will be - because of population and economic growth factors. 20 years from, metro Denver will be approaching 4 million people. That might equal early payoffs.