DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 181

bcp · #**3601** Posted **Jun 15, 2012, 2:40 PM**

bobg - would love to see the studies you are referring to, or a citation, even they are old - that would be fascinating...there are so many factors that impact property value beyond train station (look at 5 pts - they have 4 bunched up stations but that has not been what has impacted property value)

bobg · #**3602** Posted **Jun 16, 2012, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

bobg - would love to see the studies you are referring to, or a citation, even they are old - that would be fascinating...there are so many factors that impact property value beyond train station (look at 5 pts - they have 4 bunched up stations but that has not been what has impacted property value)

I couldn't find them on the Google but off the top of my head the most thorough one was done in Boston in 1913/14. That study was ordered by the MA legislature because property owners were upset.

One recent enough to be semi relevant is one done in Suburban Atlanta in 92? by a guy named Nelson who found discrepancies between how elevated lines effected property adjacent to elevated line in high income/high value areas and blighted areas. Obviously values went down in high income/value but they did go up in some blighted areas depending on some variables.

Then Ellis in 97? wrote an analysis for NYC MTA as they where trying to determine if an extension should be elevated or not. That MTA study referenced a lot of earlier studies and came to a similar conclusion that I had stated that over the long run it will not save the city money.

Like I said would love to see something more current and relevant. I wonder if Tyson's Corner or Honolulu did some sort of analysis like this or if they just went for what they could get funding for?

Not sure what your point is with 5 points but yes an at grade LRT in a blighted neighborhood will effect values adjacent to the ROW differently than anything elevated in an economically successful neighborhood. Theirs a lot of variables that goes into this and if this ever becomes a serious discussion I hope this becomes a consideration by RTD/Denver/DDP to look into further.

bobg · #**3603** Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 1:26 PM**

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20120616/NEWS/120619886/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Not sure why this only appeared in the Summit Daily but it looks like there is more private interest in the I70 mountain corridor. So we will not find out the transit technology until Fall now.

wong21fr · #**3604** Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobg

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20120616/NEWS/120619886/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Not sure why this only appeared in the Summit Daily but it looks like there is more private interest in the I70 mountain corridor. So we will not find out the transit technology until Fall now.

You know the really interesting thing? Every single one of these firms is an ESOP. Given their long-time horizons and desire for long-term growth unconstrained by activist shareholders focused on short-term gains I'm wondering how this factors in on the private financing side of this possible PPP.

This is also apparent in the I-225 LRT bidders. One is an ESOP, the other is a public company that specializes in long-term PPP's.

PLANSIT · #**3605** Posted **Jun 22, 2012, 5:56 PM**

Just a reminder for those interested:

PLANSIT · #**3606** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 5:10 PM**

Isn't there a Fastracks buildout version of the below map somewhere on here (SSP)? One that shows all the lettered routes for Gold Line, East Line, Boulder, I-225, etc.

Cirrus · #**3607** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 6:18 PM**

I think there are a couple of forumer-produced versions, but don't think there's an official RTD one.

Cirrus · #**3608** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 6:19 PM**

Here's sort of one, from former-forumer J Church, via his website.

bunt_q · #**3609** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 6:38 PM**

There's not an RTD-produced presentation version, like the kind you'd see posted at a station, as far as I know. But there are the less fancy versions that RTD includes in its annual report to DRCOG.

For example:

I don't have the 2011 version saved and I'm on my phone. But I think it's page 100 or so here: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/SB208_2011_report_4-3-2012.pdf. Regardless of maps, the DRCOG reports are must-read material.

PLANSIT · #**3610** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There's not an RTD-produced presentation version, like the kind you'd see posted at a station, as far as I know. But there are the less fancy versions that RTD includes in its annual report to DRCOG.

For example:

I don't have the 2011 version saved and I'm on my phone. But I think it's page 100 or so here: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/SB208_2011_report_4-3-2012.pdf. Regardless of maps, the DRCOG reports are must-read material.

That's it. Wondering how the unsolicited bid for I-225 will work if the "G" line goes to Lincoln and the "H" starts at Florida. Where does the revenue come from? And are they planning to be the operator similar to the east line?

EngiNerd · #**3611** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 6:59 PM**

Here's the 2012 map pulled from the PDF Bunt posted.

For full size, click here:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5745/httpwwwrtdfastracks.jpg

Cirrus · #**3612** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 7:17 PM**

Jeeze, at 30 minute peak headways (peak!) you may as well just eliminate the C and E lines and force the transfer at Broadway, Alameda, Osage, or 16th St Mall. That's what people will learn to do anyway.

I suspect the added complication of making the system harder to figure out, and the inconvenience that dumb riders who insist on waiting for a one-seat ride will face, will ultimately cost RTD more lost ridership than they'll gain by 2 trains an hour providing one-seat rides.

Alternatively, I can see why you'd want trains connecting into DUS, but if you're only going to do 4 trains an hour from Osage to Union, then put them all on a single route. Add 2 more trains/hour to the E and D lines, and eliminate C.

Simple routes do matter. Not requiring riders to consult a schedule before riding does matter.

wong21fr · #**3613** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't have the 2011 version saved and I'm on my phone. But I think it's page 100 or so here: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/SB208_2011_report_4-3-2012.pdf. Regardless of maps, the DRCOG reports are must-read material.

Jesus, the DT loop continues to really screw things up. Though will someone kindly help me understand why the decreased number of train slots in the DT loop results in RTD deciding that they cannot accommodate additional trains heading to Union Station?

Cirrus · #**3614** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 7:39 PM**

Total speculation: It's not that they can't operationally accommodate those trains; it's that they are saving capital costs by buying fewer trains, and therefore have fewer to run.

wong21fr · #**3615** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 7:49 PM**

^That could be it. I believe RTD has already purchased all of the LRT vehicles that they budgeted for the additional LRT lines and extensions. Guess they figure it wouldn't be a good idea to even float the idea of buying a few additional cars to keep the proposed upgraded service frequency.

Cirrus · #**3616** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 8:00 PM**

The map says 2035. Even if they've already bought all the railcars they plan to use on FasTracks opening day, I doubt they've bought everything they'll want for 20 years. Presumably they expect ridership to climb over time, and thus require additional railcars.

wong21fr · #**3617** Posted **Jun 26, 2012, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The map says 2035. Even if they've already bought all the railcars they plan to use on FasTracks opening day, I doubt they've bought everything they'll want for 20 years. Presumably they expect ridership to climb over time, and thus require additional railcars.

Probably, but I'm going to assume that one of the constraints of the DCROG FasTracks report is an assumption that only the capital expenditures identified in the original FasTracks scope can be used. So, if 55 additional LRT vehicles were identified as being adequate, than it must be assumed that there will only be those 55 additional vehicles with which to construct service models.

DenverTrans · #**3618** Posted **Jun 27, 2012, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It is somewhat ironic that we are simultaneously having a discussion about how horrible an elevated highway viaduct is but at the same time discussing how we could build an elevated rail viaduct through the middle of downtown. An elevated concrete structure is an elevated concrete structure - they are all ugly. Bring steel back to 19th-century prices and we can have this discussion and it might make some sense.

Credit: flickr user keyboard samurai
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keyboardsamurai/2177822545/

bcp · #**3619** Posted **Jun 27, 2012, 3:08 AM**

mmm...sweet map...but why dont the commuter rail lines have a color-coded letter just like the LRT lines? oh boy...i hope RTD has not lost its way on "system thinking" rather than mode thinking.

LAM · #**3620** Posted **Jun 27, 2012, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverTrans

Credit: flickr user keyboard samurai

DenverTrans, this photo you posted is quite beautiful. However, considering RTD would be building it; and it is not the early 1900's; and we don't have a city filled with corporate robber barons, or Tammany Hall, or the likes of that; I doubt anything in Denver would ever look like that. Besides, one bridge does not an elevated rail line make. Not that we can't hope.