DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

TakeFive, your numbers prove his point -- it's an extremely small downtown for a city of 5,000,000. And not big for 2,500,000 for that matter.

I wasn't making any claims about the size of downtown Phoenix; it is what it is. That was Cirrus obsession. Btw, Phoenix population is 1.6 million, yes the metro is approaching 5 million.

My OP was that 'metro' Phoenix was rated 47th (worst) for congestion and it's not because of retirees nor a lack of commuters; it's that employment centers while mostly in the same general area east of the I-17 are in different urban nodes. There is also a lot of jobs in SW Phoenix/metro where all the warehouses are FWIW.

[Cirrus]

If you don't think the size and concentration of office workers has an effect on rush hour travel, I don't see any reason to keep arguing about it. I'm tired of going in circles with you on basic facts.

Have a nice day.


Valencia, Spain. Via Daniel Garcia on Flickr.

[TakeFive]

Wait... are we being a little jealous?

You understand numbers very well and presumably spatial analysis better than I; yet you are being obtuse?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you don't think the size and concentration of office workers has an effect on rush hour travel, I don't see any reason to keep arguing about it. I'm tired of going in circles with you on basic facts.

If office workers are all concentrated (primarily) in one downtown core it will have a yuge impact on congestion and the size of 'rush hour' in that area.

If you take the same number of office workers and spread them among 3/4 urban nodes, it doesn't change the size of rush hour, it just impacts where the congestion is and how it dissipates.

Perhaps a brief Backstory
Going back decades, gritty downtown Phoenix wasn't considered a desirable business address; a Scottsdale address was however. Consequently the larger share of Class A office space congregated along Scottsdale Rd. An alternative for Class A office space was the Biltmore area of Phoenix, about halfway between downtown Phoenix and Scottsdale.

Tempe AZ
grew up around your typical drunken student ASU campus. Then Michael Crow happened in 2002. The new university president convinced the state legislature to invest $billions in STEM related degrees. ASU along with Ohio State are now the two largest universities. ASU has 55,000 students at the main Tempe campus. Over the last decade Tempe has been the hot spot for growth in urban density and office space development. When a State Farm adds 8,000 office employees it moves the needle.

Is Scottsdale Rd and Tempe along with downtown Phoenix congested at rush hour? You bet. Can the freeway system handle all that congestion? So far, so good.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You understand numbers very well and presumably spatial analysis better than I; yet you are being obtuse?

You keep on talking metro, isn't Cirrus talking city specific?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You keep on talking metro, isn't Cirrus talking city specific?

Fair question as those can easily be conflated. I'd assume that 'rush hour' and commuters involves the big picture of all those coming and going into downtown in the case of more prototypical cities.

Getting back to Denver

Denver is NOT (especially now) the kind of sprawling city you find in the SW where land and labor costs have alway been cheap.

IMO the existing light rail corridors were an excellent alternative to ever wider freeways and will in time prove this out. There's lines to the east, the north, NW, west, SW and SE metro along I-25 but there's no urban line to the SE. That would be the value of a Speer Blvd - Leetsdale Dr corridor.

Is there also an issue with commuting within the core city? Absolutely and I am as confused as anyone as to what the best solutions are.

[TakeFive]

RTD will continue to do what RTD needs to do

NOT IN SERVICE: RTD bus driver shortage affecting certain routes
Sep 24, 2018 By Tomas Hoppough/The Denver Channel 7

DENVER – The Regional Transportation District has been dealing with a bus driver shortage for a while, and it is affecting certain bus routes.

It’s a simple problem – with a lack of drivers there isn't any to help operate certain routes. According to RTD, at the end of August, RTD had 959 bus operators and was in need of 123 more.

Who's to lose?

According to an article by the Longmont Times-Call, RTD will hold meetings in Longmont and Lafayette over two weeks for feedback on proposed cuts to the LD route that runs from Longmont to downtown Denver due (to) low ridership and driver shortages.

Will this add more fuel to the fire that Boulder County shouldn't be a part of RTD?

[TakeFive]

Revisiting the RTD fare increases

The Sentinel had a piece about the R Line and other things.

https://www.sentinelcolorado.com/new...rd-light-rail/

In the short-term, Broom said, RTD’s new fare structure could exacerbate dips in ridership across the district. Claudia Folska, the RTD board director for the bulk of Aurora west of Interstate 225, said she was flummoxed by the convoluted new system.“I think this whole fare structure is so over complicated; it’s mind-boggling,” said Folska, who originally voted against the new fare proposal. “I’m bewildered by it.”

What's the history of previous fare changes?

Broom said the chore of fare restructuring, which RTD usually takes on every three years, typically results in about a five-percent dip in use of public transportation.

“Then after about a six-month period, the ridership picks up to where it was and then you go on from there,” Broom said. “I would anticipate, just based on past history, there probably will be a drop-off in ridership when the fares go up.”

As to the R Line itself...

Tom Tobiassen, former RTD board chairman, said Aurorans need to be patient for housing developments along the city’s infant rail line to come online. He said that as apartments and townhouses are built in the areas surrounding the line’s eight new stations, ridership will steadily swell.

Broom said the number of people riding R Line trains has steadily been increasing in recent months, but it will likely take “a couple” years before trains see the 12,000 daily riders that were expected to flock to the new line not long after it first opened.

[mhays]

Come to think of it, Downtown Phoenix and Camelback might have pretty large numbers of cars coming in...small office totals but big drive-alone percentages.

[TakeFive]

Oh Lordy

When Denverite came on the Denver scene it was a very refreshing source for news and insight into the city without bias. Andrew Kenney was the best; a consummate professional; a good communicator, clear and concise. He wrote some excellent pieces whether about East Colfax or South Sante Fe.

All good things must come to an end. Andrew moved onto the Denver Post. Now there's this:

David Sachs is coming to Denverite after years running Streetsblog Denver

Yes, there’s another new face here at Denverite this fall. David Sachs is joining the Denverite team as our city government reporter. ... we’re excited for David to start in about two weeks.

The addition of Sach follows the hiring of Donna Bryson who will write about "housing and hunger" who also has an interesting resume.

Assuming Sachs retains his insufferable style what saddens me the most is the dramatic change in content and philosophy; Denverite seems to be morphing into more of a liberal advocacy forum from a source of quality news and insight. Oh well, I respect that Sachs has his fans since one man's garbage is another man's treasure.

[TakeFive]

Wut... airport parking loyalty programs?

Airports use parking lot loyalty programs and discounts to compete against Uber and Lyft
23 Sept 2018 By Leslie Josephs/CNBC

Loyalty programs, half-off sales and even free coffee. These are some of the measures airport executives are considering to encourage travelers to park in their lots and garages, as ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft have surged in popularity.

Why is this a bad thing?

Parking is an important source of revenue for airports, sometimes second only to the fees airports collect from airlines, such as for terminal rent and landing fees.

Some airports are already seeing an impact. Denver International Airport reported that parking revenue fell more than 1 percent to $1.76 billion in 2017, while ground transportation revenue, which includes fees collected from Uber, Lyft and from ride-hailing apps, rose 29 percent to $12.4 million in the same period.

[wong21fr]

Mother fuckin' cyclists.....

Worries about cyclist safety prompted two-plus years of snags on RTD’s A-Line and G-Line, lawsuit says

Can the prolonged delays and ongoing difficulties in opening and operating the metro area’s commuter rail system — not to mention the millions of dollars assessed in penalties and spent on flaggers over the last two-plus years — be traced to the issue of bicycle safety?

That’s what the private sector consortium that was hired to build and run the University of Colorado A-Line, G-Line and B-Line is asserting in a lawsuit filed last week in Denver District Court against the Regional Transportation District.

Denver Transit Partners claims that in the summer of 2015 — nearly a year before the A-Line opened passenger service — a staff member with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission expressed concern that cyclists might find the safety-equipped crossings “confusing” to traverse.

That led to RTD, over the consortium’s objections, requiring “exit gate delay” technology at crossings that would have the ability to detect bicycles, even though no such technology existed or had been approved by federal railroad regulators, the lawsuit maintains.

Seems like a huge stretch on DTP's part, but if this is a case of cycling advocates (either directly or indirectly) causing inexcusable delays to our commuter rail system than I advocate a public tarring and feather of their most public advocate- David Sachs.

[TakeFive]

Roof Roof Roof - does the biggest bark get the treats?

https://coloradopolitics.com/rtd-grants/

The Regional Transportation District has been awarded a total of $11 million in federal grants for new buses and to replace roofs on its maintenance facilities, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday.

• $3,503,000 — “To replace roofs on existing maintenance facilities. This project will help reduce operating and maintenance costs while enhancing transit service in the growing Denver region.”
• $7,497,000 — “To purchase replacement buses. The new buses will improve the agency’s bus fleet, reduce maintenance costs and improve service reliability.”

It's the 2nd item that interests me. Unfortunately RTD hasn't sought out my consulting services, but if they did...

I'd recommend RTD follow the lead of our good friends to the north. They know what they're drilling up there.

Edmonton Transit Service Orders 25 Proterra Catalyst® E2 max Electric Buses

BURLINGAME, Calif., Aug. 23, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Today Proterra, a leading innovator in heavy-duty electric transportation, announced that Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) has ordered 25 new 40-foot Proterra Catalyst® E2 max vehicles, which will replace 25 of the agency's existing diesel buses. The purchase marks an agency milestone and supports Edmonton's long-term vision of green public transportation and emissions reduction.

"We're excited to work with Proterra and be at the forefront of integrating electric buses and emerging technology into our existing fleet," said Eddie Robar, Branch Manager of ETS. "Proterra's clean-running and quiet electric buses are winter compatible, have a range of up to 400 kilometres and contribute to our shift toward more sustainable transportation, a low carbon city and high-quality transit service for Edmontonians."

This One

• Video Link

Daimler chief announces Proterra investment
September 20, 2018 By Jeff Crissey/CCJ digital

Daimler/Mercedes-Benz also announced another major development for its electric drivetrain development, investing $155 million in Proterra, a California-based manufacturer of zero-emissions local transport buses. The company’s configurable Catalyst platform is capable of serving the full daily mileage needs for most transit routes on a single charge.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Mother fuckin' cyclists.....

Seems like a huge stretch on DTP's part, but if this is a case of cycling advocates (either directly or indirectly) causing inexcusable delays to our commuter rail system than I advocate a public tarring and feather of their most public advocate- David Sachs.

I'll keep the tar warm.

Sounds like this could be enough of a stretch to make RTD at least equally responsible for the 'pain and suffering' that DTP has endured.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Mother fuckin' cyclists.....

Worries about cyclist safety prompted two-plus years of snags on RTD’s A-Line and G-Line, lawsuit says



Seems like a huge stretch on DTP's part, but if this is a case of cycling advocates (either directly or indirectly) causing inexcusable delays to our commuter rail system than I advocate a public tarring and feather of their most public advocate- David Sachs.

I thought the same thing...but how/why does the FRA care about cyclist crossing enough to deny certification? I just can't see where RTD caring about it gets to the FRA/PUC regulating it and having to certify?

I was always on RTD's side of this because it seemed DTP was inept at something that seemed so trivial since we have had rail systems and cars for a hundred years not, but this is not out the realm of possibility for a bunch of people (RTD) sitting around a table thinking they know best and asking for something of DTP that is not proven, such as tech required to ensure bicyclists don't cross rail lines when they shouldn't. IMO a cyclist should be treated as a pedestrian in this case instead of as a car when it comes to the gate, and they should just use common sense to make the crossing. Probably asking too much these days...

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I thought the same thing...but how/why does the FRA care about cyclist crossing enough to deny certification? I just can't see where RTD caring about it gets to the FRA/PUC regulating it and having to certify?

I was always on RTD's side of this because it seemed DTP was inept at something that seemed so trivial since we have had rail systems and cars for a hundred years not, but this is not out the realm of possibility for a bunch of people (RTD) sitting around a table thinking they know best and asking for something of DTP that is not proven, such as tech required to ensure bicyclists don't cross rail lines when they shouldn't. IMO a cyclist should be treated as a pedestrian in this case instead of as a car when it comes to the gate, and they should just use common sense to make the crossing. Probably asking too much these days...

This was pretty close to my thoughts too when I read this article in the Post the other day. The language in the article isn't 100% clear, but it sounds like DTP is claiming that the actual mandate to make the change came from RTD. The article says that the concern was raised by a PUC staff member, but it does not say that either the PUC or FRA actually mandated the change (so many acronyms).

So if I understand what DTP is claiming, the FRA doesn't necessarily care enough about cyclist timing to deny certification - but the timing change was designed into the system anyway, and that is now causing timing malfunctions (these timing malfunctions being what is actually causing the final certification delay). If this is true, then it does in fact sound like a "bunch of people [at RTD] sitting around a table thinking they know best," and DTP may have a case.

I think the devil is in the details - did either of the regulatory agencies (state or federal) actually demand such a change? Or did they simply scare somebody at RTD into thinking they would be denied approval if they did not respond to the bicycle safety "concern"?

Either way, somebody dropped the ball, as one would think that it would make sense to clear everything up in writing with the regulators before proceeding. DTP says that they protested the change, presumably because they knew it could cause unanticipated problems. Wouldn't it make sense for somebody to clear up whether the regulators considered it a mandate vs. just a suggestion before moving forward? I could then also see a case be made that DTP shares fault with RTD, because they may have had an opportunity to simply say "no," or do some follow up with the regulators themselves before proceeding with the change.

[SnyderBock]

RTD and Denver need to use electric buses on the Colfax BRT project. They continue to inact "Breathe Easy" smoking bans in outdoor places, even though I have not once EVER been bothered by someone's second hand cigarette smoke in an outdoor environment. What I am bothered by on a daily basis is diesel exhaust fumes. And according to an extensive 10 year study and science community validated UN Report, diesel exhaust is 1000 times more dangerous than outdoor exposure to second cigarette smoke.

So how is it these groups keep successfully getting these outdoor smoking bans passed, but no one is even considering a diesel ban? I'll be honest, I am outraged and have had enough of this forced exposure to diesel. It is killing all of us. I am so infuriated, that I want to sue every operator and owner of every diesel vehilcle in this nation. And precidence and basis of case and argument? Breathe Easy bans are the precidence, that something 1000 times safer is so dangerous, that it is being banned. So should diesel then, I shall argue.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

This was pretty close to my thoughts too when I read this article in the Post the other day. The language in the article isn't 100% clear, but it sounds like DTP is claiming that the actual mandate to make the change came from RTD. The article says that the concern was raised by a PUC staff member, but it does not say that either the PUC or FRA actually mandated the change (so many acronyms).

It actually does:

The $2.2 billion contract the consortium signed with RTD in 2010 never spoke to the need for bicycle detection at crossings, DTP argued, and amounted to a “change in law” against which the consortium is legally protected. It said the PUC staffer’s “insistence that an exit gate delay be employed at the project was based upon misinterpretation of Colorado traffic law, which provides that bicyclists must obey traffic rules.”

So if I understand what DTP is claiming, the FRA doesn't necessarily care enough about cyclist timing to deny certification - but the timing change was designed into the system anyway, and that is now causing timing malfunctions (these timing malfunctions being what is actually causing the final certification delay). If this is true, then it does in fact sound like a "bunch of people [at RTD] sitting around a table thinking they know best," and DTP may have a case.

I think the devil is in the details - did either of the regulatory agencies (state or federal) actually demand such a change? Or did they simply scare somebody at RTD into thinking they would be denied approval if they did not respond to the bicycle safety "concern"?

Either way, somebody dropped the ball, as one would think that it would make sense to clear everything up in writing with the regulators before proceeding. DTP says that they protested the change, presumably because they knew it could cause unanticipated problems. Wouldn't it make sense for somebody to clear up whether the regulators considered it a mandate vs. just a suggestion before moving forward? I could then also see a case be made that DTP shares fault with RTD, because they may have had an opportunity to simply say "no," or do some follow up with the regulators themselves before proceeding with the change.

It sounds as if this DTP did accept this change order after pushing backing against RTD while RTD did not budge insisting that this was the original law. So, DTP is going back to the original contract and arguing that it's a change to the law and DTP shouldn't be held liable for any cost penalties associated with accommodating such a change.

At the end of the day- let's just say the hell with the cyclists and turn off this goddamn feature if it truly is the cause of all of the issues. Just put Sach out there as a flagger- it would be a better use of his limited skillset.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It actually does:

The $2.2 billion contract the consortium signed with RTD in 2010 never spoke to the need for bicycle detection at crossings, DTP argued, and amounted to a “change in law” against which the consortium is legally protected. It said the PUC staffer’s “insistence that an exit gate delay be employed at the project was based upon misinterpretation of Colorado traffic law, which provides that bicyclists must obey traffic rules.”



It sounds as if this DTP did accept this change order after pushing backing against RTD while RTD did not budge insisting that this was the original law. So, DTP is going back to the original contract and arguing that it's a change to the law and DTP shouldn't be held liable for any cost penalties associated with accommodating such a change.

At the end of the day- let's just say the hell with the cyclists and turn off this goddamn feature if it truly is the cause of all of the issues. Just put Sach out there as a flagger- it would be a better use of his limited skillset.

Interesting, I stand corrected. I must have missed that part about the staffer's "insistence." Still, I can see why lawyers are getting involved here. A "change of law" would suggest legislative change. Can an administrative staffer "change" a law simply by how they apply (or misapply) it? It seems like the law is what it is, and interpretation is a different matter, but I suppose that's not for me to decide. Getting to the bottom of that earlier on may have required litigation and delays, so I can see why DTP may have just been tempted to cave.

But again, that raises the question if any of this is valid, since DTP did accept the change order in the end. It feels like they share some fault, but I can see why they would at least try to recover damages. On a cynically positive note, might the fact that DTP is claiming firm numbers for damages mean that they believe the end of delays is really in sight?

In any case, this definitely sounds like bureaucrats, engineers, and lawyers behind closed doors. This sounds to me a lot more like somebody in a suit feeling pressure to "think more about the bikes." Is there any indication here that bicycle advocates were in the room for any of these discussions? And is the exit delay even reversible at this point?

[TakeFive]

Building Highways for Future Cruisers


Source

Drivers should expect to pay for cruising Colorado’s busiest highways
October 2, 2018 By Marshall Zelinger, Philip Maravilla/9 News

DENVER — Coloradans love to grumble about driving. Roads seem to become more crowded every year, even every month. That means more time spent in the car – commuting to work, taking the kids to soccer, or heading to the mountains – when we would rather be doing something else.

... Monday, at an off-session committee meeting to discuss future transportation legislation, lawmakers heard why CDOT defends the use of tolled express lanes.

I'm all ears...

"Without express lanes, we wouldn't have been able to finance as many projects as we have in the last five years," said CDOT's Highway Performance Transportation Enterprise Director David Spector. "Unlike tolled roads, express lanes are not a route-based choice, these are a lane-based choice."

So why are we doing this?

Spector explained to legislators how Express Lane revenues are being leveraged to help finance several managed-lane projects across the Front Range.

Spector told legislators that Express Lanes in Colorado are projected to generate $1.27 billion in revenue. These revenues will allow the state to borrow funds for capital construction projects and repay loans and bonds on projects.

In the desert this would be considered Double Taxation but truth be told - give the Valley another decade or so and I'll guess they'll start adding express lanes also.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Building Highways for Future Cruisers


Source

Drivers should expect to pay for cruising Colorado’s busiest highways
October 2, 2018 By Marshall Zelinger, Philip Maravilla/9 News

I'm all ears...

So why are we doing this?


In the desert this would be considered Double Taxation but truth be told - give the Valley another decade or so and I'll guess they'll start adding express lanes also.

So it's double taxation because the government is the source of the offering, but if a private investment firm spotted the bill for an express lane it would be capitalism?

At least the government's motivation is to deliver/maintain new and existing infrastructure for everyone, not profit.