DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 50

AFPhoto Wolf · #**981** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorax3000

I dont understand why they are starting to build this line, I thought they would build the rout to DIA or the north West rail first. They just seem higher in priority to me.

^ and they want to have the lines moving to downtown and then to DIA going first, that way you have more flow to the airport via fast tracks when the line is opened (makes the tax payer feel like its money well spent). Mix that in with Union Station work/updated, its best to have the DIA line towards the end of the project then the first thing.
Over all it was due to the old train line that runs thru Lakewood.

SnyderBock · #**982** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 7:31 PM**

Yeah, West Corridor is Light Rail and was farther along in all the preparation stuff. They already have Light rail in place, so adding another light rail line to it is easier. Union Station will not be capable of handling EMU (such as to DIA), until after it's completely redeveloped. So building the DIA line first is not even possible. They also don't have a maintenance facility built for EMU yet, they do have one for Light Rail. Everything makes since for the West Corridor to be first.

bcp · #**983** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

You ask these questions as though you are oblivious to the Union Station plan. AmTrak is being served at Union Station with a nice long platform and refueling depot. Any future AmTrak service would share that platform. Trains would obviously be scheduled at different times.

Furthermore, the SkiTrain is gone. This nice long platform right next to the AmTrak platform will now be available to future service.

In addition, there is another unused platform being incorporated into the Train Room for FUTURE SERVICE.

In addition to this, RTD is securing ROW for an additional future Light Rail platform by the CML and ROW for another future platform for HSR.

And as for your question about commuter bus service? The master plan called for 15 bus bays and the current Union Station plan now has 22 bus bays. This includes a couple bus bay for shuttle buses to shuttle passenger to the Greyhound station (and other commuter bus stations). Grey Hound was asked if they wanted to be integrated into Union Station, and they said "No Thanks."

Eliyah has a really good point here - Greyhound AND the Mexico buslines (so long as they meet some standards) should be integrated into the plan. Both of the absolutely were included in the original masterplan, so i can only assume that when E/W took over they were axed from the program. Another example of "flash" over good planning.

I recall a meeting where a Greyhound executive was excited to make the move and partner on the project, stated they could receive good money for their current land and promised to MOVE the maintennace facility out of Curtis Park if they received some help from the city.

Snyder by looking atyour comment above i'm wondering if you think that DUS will have a total of 37 bus bays? Because the existing 22 will certainly go away. A reduction makes sense in that many people will switch to rail, but there is just no room for extension, or private service providers, and this is a bad move.

Market Street station might be a good option for Greyhound to evaluate.

Where are the bicylce bays and showers? Where are the cab stands? Where will the rickshaws queue up?

wong21fr · #**984** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 9:24 PM**

BCP,

I thought it turned out that the commercial bus companies balked at the cost of buying into the project. If I remember, a commercial bus facility was planned as part of the parking garage on the bottom levels.

bcp · #**985** Posted **Jun 22, 2009, 9:40 PM**

yes, that was part of the plan.

if the rental rates were through-the-roof, then that's just a fancier of way of E/W telling them "go pound sand we dont want you".

Lorax3000 · #**986** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 12:26 AM**

All of your points make scene, off topic but relative, when is DIA going to start to expand?

SnyderBock · #**987** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 12:28 AM**

The commercial bus operators rejected investing into the project. FasTracks did don't provide funding for that element. The commercial bus companies rejected any investment into Union Station. E/W then was able to expand the bus bay to 22 bays (up from 18 bus bays), allowing for 2 bus bays to be dedicated for transferring people back and forth between Union Station and the commercial bus stations, such as Greyhound.

I think that is sufficient. The commercial bus companies were only asked to contribute a small amount to intregrate their operations into Union Station. I believe they were asked to cover less than $20 million (collectively). I recall Greyhound rejecting putting any money into moving to Union Station, citing their current location serves them and their future plans well. Greyhound also liked the concept of a shuttle bus between Union Station and their facility. So that's what they get and I think it's fine.

bcp · #**988** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 8:55 AM**

sorry...but you know what greyhound liked? i'm kinda really wanting to know how...

$20MM is a shit-ton of money to ask private bus operators to provide in a PPP project...i would guess that EW is not providign that much and they are the master developer (and land contributions along the CML can't count that much as they are mostly undevelopable, and surely they won't give up air rights to any landed ceded to RTD)

SnyderBock · #**989** Posted **Jun 23, 2009, 11:13 AM**

FasTracks funding provides roughly $250 million for Union Station out of the ~$447 million price tag. E/W is providing the majority of the remainder sum, in exchange for the rights to develop the land in Union Station redevelopment site.

~$20 million from 2-3 major commercial bus operators to move into the Union Station redevelopment is a shit load? I'd like to see Greyhound remodel their decaying bus station in Denver in 15 years for $20 million, because it probably ain't happening.

Eliyah78 · #**990** Posted **Jun 27, 2009, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock

Without true HSR, I dare you to come up with real advantages to train over rail right now, at least for distances of more than about 400-500 miles. I can understand rail over air for short distances, but anything more than 6-8 hours by normal-speed train is inconvenient compared to air right now.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Do you mean train over plane?

How about overall cost, fuel consumption, baggage allowance, and environmental impact?

Eliyah78 · #**991** Posted **Jun 27, 2009, 5:34 PM**

It looks like Tom Rader's DMU railcar project will survive after all.

http://www.amrailco.com/

glowrock · #**992** Posted **Jun 27, 2009, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eliyah78

Do you mean train over plane?

How about overall cost, fuel consumption, baggage allowance, and environmental impact?

Yes, I meant train over plane. As for overall cost and baggage and impact, many of the newer regional jets are pretty fuel efficient, and their speed definitely makes them better than rail over about 400-600 miles... Even with the obvious waits at the airport for security screening and the like, it makes more sense.

Obviously, under that 400-600 mile limit, HSR makes much more sense than air travel.

Aaron (Glowrock)

bunt_q · #**993** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 7:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

FasTracks funding provides roughly $250 million for Union Station out of the ~$447 million price tag. E/W is providing the majority of the remainder sum, in exchange for the rights to develop the land in Union Station redevelopment site.

~$20 million from 2-3 major commercial bus operators to move into the Union Station redevelopment is a shit load? I'd like to see Greyhound remodel their decaying bus station in Denver in 15 years for $20 million, because it probably ain't happening.

Why would Greyhound ever need to or want to remodel their bus station? We're not comparing do it now vs. do it later, we're comparing pay a a shit load now vs. continue to operate a nasty bus service out of a nasty bus station for a small sliver of riders who probably have few other alternatives (or are there for another reason, say, afraid to fly, and are probably less concerned about station amenities).

glowrock · #**994** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 7:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Why would Greyhound ever need to or want to remodel their bus station? We're not comparing do it now vs. do it later, we're comparing pay a a shit load now vs. continue to operate a nasty bus service out of a nasty bus station for a small sliver of riders who probably have few other alternatives (or are there for another reason, say, afraid to fly, and are probably less concerned about station amenities).

Brent, have you ever seen how freaking busy that Greyhound station actually is? My guess is that several thousand of people per day ride those buses in and out of the downtown station. Sure, it's nothing compared with DIA or something like that, but it IS a substantial number nonetheless. While yes, of course the station itself is definitely in need of a remodel, it's relatively clean, it seems to be structurally sound, and I don't see any reason why Greyhound would want to move from there at this point. Why would Greyhound want to spend tens of millions to have a shiny new station when their current one works well for them at this point?

I think you and I agree on Greyhound's logic for NOT relocating, but I guess we just differ as to the size of the clientele who use Greyhound every day... It's definitely substantial.

Aaron (Glowrock)

sashyenka · #**995** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 8:43 AM**

^Word on that. There's no really apparent reason for them to change their operations and location at all, really, which is a shame due to the absolutely prime real estate location they've got downtown. What a gross building in such a nice spot. Also, I would seriously hope Greyhound doesn't move into Market Street, in the event that became a possibility. It wouldn't do that section of downtown any favors.

Wizened Variations · #**996** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 12:42 PM**

We pretend to understand "realpolitik" as either groupies of the favored, or as underlings of those highly paid.

The Historical Tragedy

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...18454&t=h&z=16

This google map which looks to be of 2005-2006 vintage clearly shows what one might call, on the conservative financial side “The Ten Billion Dollar Mistake.”

The potential maximum heavy rail right-of-way width is NOT constricted to less than 200’ or even 300’ by the Pepsi Center when the parking lots north of the current alignment are included.

No, as is clearly visible in the Google map, the problem lies in the recent construction between Speer and 15th Street where the condominium construction pinches the right-of-way. To compound matters, construction along the southern side of the right-of-way between 15th and 16th, has extended this pinch further east.

This particular construction reflects the narrowest (pun intended), and least thought out, urban planning I have ever seen in metro Denver. I hesitate to accept, based upon the time of the build out, that the construction between 15th and 16th was anything less than a deliberate move to prevent future wider right-of-ways through the ‘pinch.’

To put the issue in perspective, tearing down all the buildings and parking garages that immediately face the north and south sides of this ‘pinch’ and paying three to even five times their build out price would cost a small fraction of running subways under Wewetta or Delgary Streets and running these lines into the Union Station complex as envisioned. (Any interface between these subway lines would have to be on a deep burial scheme on the complexity of New York’s great stations.)

Very clever people without vision are in the midst of putting the finishing touches on a public transportation mess on the order of the North and South Station debacle in Boston…..

What Should be Done

As any condemnation of recent construction is unlikely, the only way to salvage the right-of-way left is to reroute the light rail going to the Union complex along Wewetta and Delgary Streets and convert their current right of way to heavy rail. This would produce a rather miserable compromise, but, would allow 2 tracks of heavy rail south, while BNSF and UP railroads do their arm twisting to get us, the tax payer, to subsidize moving their tracks east, freeing their right-of-way for future public use.

DENrising · #**997** Posted **Jun 28, 2009, 4:32 PM**

Lorax's post about DIA expansion was not addressed, but I see no reason for any expansion at DIA at this time. Do you have any other information to the contrary? This recession, airline woes, etc. is lowering demands for flights right now, and United and Frontier obviously have been hit hard.

On that note about Greyhound, in SLC, they opened up a few years back their Intermodal hub. It now has their Trax (LRT), Frontrunner (Commuter rail), a temporary housing for Amtrak and the new Greyhound terminal. I thought this was being looked at for Union Station, to make it a transfer between any means type of operation? I may have missed something in this thread.

Eliyah78 · #**998** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 7:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

It's not like there will be an AmTrak train leaving Union Station each hour. They can expand service at Union Station if they want. One platform can handle much, much more AmTrak service, so long as the stagger their service in and out of Union Station. No reason they wouldn't do this anyway. They could add a new NW line and AmTrak still wouldn't have a train leaving Union Station every 4 hours.

I wonder what the SkiTrain platform will be used for now. This will mean two empty platforms in the main train room and space for two more future platforms out by the CML/Light Rail. It will be a long time before those free spaces are used up. By that time (30 years from now), new service will have to explore subway or elevated options (which is a good thing). If we leave Union Station as open land with space for new service 100 years into the future, it's likely Denver will never become urban enough to need that new service and it will make it too easy to never build a subway/inner core system. If it's developed up densely and brings people in from all over, Denver will need better inner-core service and because everything is built up, a subway may be the only option. That's a good thing; subway operate efficiently in highly dense areas without surface transportation disruptions. This Union Station plan puts Denver on that path; in that dirrection.

I dont think Colorail's arguement is about the overall number of platforms as much as it is about future access in and out of Denver Union Station. Multiple units wont face the challenges that Amtrack trains currently do- in order to access the platform the CZ must borrow an auxillary freight line and go into reverse push mode. This is logistical process that will complicate future station access for locomotive hauled coach cars (C Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Pioneer, Rail Runner, etc). If DUS is to become a true multi modal hub, the design element must incorporate a contingency for all technologies.

bunt_q · #**999** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 10:48 AM**

All technologies? Stagecoaches? Their comeback is as likely as an expansion of long-haul Amtrak... as long as we can accommodate a north-south and an east-west alignment (Front Range/Mountain rail), that's all I am concerned about.

SnyderBock · #**1000** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 1:59 PM**

I proposed to RTD a station design where light rail comes in at the proposed Train room and the heavy rail (or at least a couple tracks of it) comes in along the CML. I actually brought this up during the time at which you were supposed to bring it up, not a year late like Colorail. My plan was looked at extensively and was almost even written about in the Denver Post. However, it was determined that it would actually increase the cost for Union Station and there simply is not the funds to pay it.

So like I said before, unless Colorail is planning on paying for these changes, they need to drop it. It's a year too late and a dollar short. The current plan is the best possible design within budget limitations.

Here is my split station proposal (DMU & AmTrak along CML; EMU still in Train Room along with LRT). The LRT loop can be disregarded.:

My proposed Subway Expansion Option A (stub end):

My proposed Subway Expansion Option B (threw Line):

Also, here is my Reverse Proposal, with LRT in Train Room and all other along the CML:

This is my Mixed Station Proposal along with an urban streetcar system: