DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm kind of surprised this needs to be said, but Boulder is not a "guy." It is a community of over 100,000 people, each of whom hold their own individual points of view.

I don't know if I've mentioned this but I'm from Boulder (at least I used to be) and I would actually like to have the conversation about making the Northwest Rail project go away.

It IS ridiculous to treat an entire small city as if they speak with one singular voice, or as if everyone who lives there is unreasonable. And no - taking cheap shots at Boulder is not the least bit productive. Exactly whose mind has this rhetoric changed? Nobody's. All this does is to shut down the real conversations that should be happening.

I don't care about individuals. I care about the land use policies that small city has supported, collectively, and strongly, for decades. Is this where I truly embrace the social media approach to commentary and paraphrase what you just said as "Not all Nazis were bad people." And you respond with an equally absurd comment like "Did you just call Boulderites Nazis?" No, of course not. That would be ridiculous.

But Boulder, the City, has been the primary champion of policies I find to be offensive. If I need to say "it" rather than "he," or provide a carve-out for all of the conscientious individual objectors who just happen to live inside city limits (who have still gotten as rich out of their acquiescence as a Swiss banker)... cool, happy to add a few pointless words if it makes you feel better.

[wwmiv]

^agreed^

Also “bad guy” applied to a collective is a colloquialism that has existed for generations. Most of us knew what you meant.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm kind of surprised this needs to be said, but Boulder is not a "guy." It is a community of over 100,000 people, each of whom hold their own individual points of view.

I don't know if I've mentioned this but I'm from Boulder (at least I used to be) and I would actually like to have the conversation about making the Northwest Rail project go away.

It IS ridiculous to treat an entire small city as if they speak with one singular voice, or as if everyone who lives there is unreasonable. And no - taking cheap shots at Boulder is not the least bit productive. Exactly whose mind has this rhetoric changed? Nobody's. All this does is to shut down the real conversations that should be happening and puts the most unreasonable of Boulder's supporters on the defensive. It's toxic, and it's unbecoming of people who claim to be professionals.

That comes from having to deal with Boulder politics over the years. There is a very strong institutional arrogance in the advocacy/leadership classes of the community that has made discussions about directional changes extremely difficult over the years. The most obvious, and contentious, issues have been Northwest Rail and the electrical municipalization push. Both started out as the stereotypical, "We deserve this!" group think from a bunch of white yuppies. Then when presented with counter arguments that showed their positions might not be the most prudent, let alone rational, they double-down and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a settlement position that requires compromise. It's beyond draining and makes one wish for some sort of small-scale nuclear weapon employment at times.


Municipalization got settled in an ugly way because what the financial costs were going to be got into the astronomically expensive range on the Boulder side. Unfortunately, the "We deserve this!" teeth gnashing hasn't run its course yet up there for the Northwest Rail.

[mr1138]

Anybody else have Godwin's Law on their B Line bingo sheet?

Look - I'm not suggesting that Boulder is above criticism (if anybody thinks that I'm not critical of Boulder, they really haven't been paying attention). What I am saying is that the majority of us on this forum are not advocating for Boulder's position, and that the snide comments are unproductive and only serve to derail the conversation.

It is frustrating when some of us would like to have a rational conversation about the technical merits of the project and what is being reported in the media, and this immediately gets drowned out by cheap shots (when nobody was advocating for Boulder's position in the first place - at least not until two others took the trolling bait).

There are a myriad of reasons to criticise Boulder's policies, and we should absolutely be having those conversations. But throwing out schoolyard jabs at the mere mention of the word "Boulder" cannot be interpreted as a serious critique. This is trolling, and sends a message that you don't take the conversation seriously and don't respect your fellow forumers.

Are we seriously discussing the idea that cyberbullying can be socially constructive?

[TakeFive]

Well I'm a really lucky guy

I attended CU back in the long-haired hippy days of VW Beatle and bus mania.

One year I lived up in Four Mile Canyon. One of my neighbors, Marcus, was one of the Merry Pranksters in Ken Kesey's psychedelic school bus that traveled across country and later described in Tom Wolfe's book "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test." It was after Kesey had written "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" inspired from his night shift working at the Menlo Park Veterans' Hospital but well before it was adapted for the Big Screen in 1975 winning the "Big Five" top Academy Awards.

Fascinating memories for when Boulder and The Hill were just crazy, cool places.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Are we seriously discussing the idea that cyberbullying can be socially constructive?

That might be the most Boulder comment of all.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by mr1138

And no - taking cheap shots at Boulder is not the least bit productive. Exactly whose mind has this rhetoric changed? Nobody's. All this does is to shut down the real conversations that should be happening and puts the most unreasonable of Boulder's supporters on the defensive.

But you don't have to convince anyone in Boulder.. You just have to convince enough people in the rest of the metro area to ignore their tantrums. So it actually IS productive. In addition to all the very real moderation to the rest of the metro that pointing out Boulder's bad girl (better?) attitudes accomplished that Bunt pointed out. (which honestly never really clicked for me until it was spelled out.. which is why I still read this forum.. still learning all the time)

You can still love Cartman and not give in when he starts screaming.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

It is frustrating when some of us would like to have a rational conversation about the technical merits of the project and what is being reported in the media, and this immediately gets drowned out by cheap shots (when nobody was advocating for Boulder's position in the first place - at least not until two others took the trolling bait).

I think on this topic that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Most people give zero craps what kind of powertrain technology is going into the train units. They just want the choo-choo. Could there be some environmental groups that start an uproar and demand an electrified trainset or maybe one propelled by unicorn farts? Possibly. But what probably ends up happening is that instead of a DMU a hybrid unit like a DEMU or a DMU will be selected. Stadler's FLIRT comes to mind.

Hell run it on bio-diesel sourced from Colorado farmers and get a cross-aisle kumbaya moment going.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think on this topic that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Most people give zero craps what kind of powertrain technology is going into the train units. They just want the choo-choo. Could there be some environmental groups that start an uproar and demand an electrified trainset or maybe one propelled by unicorn farts? Possibly. But what probably ends up happening is that instead of a DMU a hybrid unit like a DEMU or a DMU will be selected. Stadler's FLIRT comes to mind.

Hell run it on bio-diesel sourced from Colorado farmers and get a cross-aisle kumbaya moment going.

Case in point, everyone still calls it "Light Rail" no matter what train you are on, because that is basically the brand now since it came first and its all under the RTD umbrella.

[mr1138]

Whatever. I've made my point about civility and I'm not going to keep beating on it after this. We all indulge in mockery from time to time, but there is an appropriate time and a place to do this, and a public discussion forum (that supposedly has rules against antisocial behavior) is not that place. It sounds to me like ya'll are just justifying what we all know is poor behavior, and I still think it reflects poorly on the character of everybody who chooses to engage in the pile-on. Honestly - sometimes it starts to feel a bit like a group of mean girls defending their queen bee. The truth is that a bully is a bully, and we all know it.

Boulder has ALWAYS been the black sheep of the metro area and I would sincerely argue that not a single person has ever changed their opinion about land use policy because of online taunting - much less an entire city. It just backs everyone into their respective corners. It is a disrespectful way to engage in online conversation and it Is. Not. Productive.

Obviously this taunting was SO SUCCESSFUL in shaming Lakewood not to try the same thing as Boulder.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think on this topic that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Most people give zero craps what kind of powertrain technology is going into the train units. They just want the choo-choo. Could there be some environmental groups that start an uproar and demand an electrified trainset or maybe one propelled by unicorn farts? Possibly. But what probably ends up happening is that instead of a DMU a hybrid unit like a DEMU or a DMU will be selected. Stadler's FLIRT comes to mind.

I see what you're saying - I agree most people don't give a crap about Diesel vs. Electric. But I think most people DO CARE about speed, travel times, delays, and reliability, and the chosen technology has a very real effect on those things (which then affects the ridership estimates). Again - I don't think anybody outside a discussion forum like this actually realizes how sub-par the Northwest Rail is designed to be, and I can't help but wonder how people would react if they learned the truth.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I see what you're saying - I agree most people don't give a crap about Diesel vs. Electric. But I think most people DO CARE about speed, travel times, delays, and reliability, and the chosen technology has a very real effect on those things (which then affects the ridership estimates). Again - I don't think anybody outside a discussion forum like this actually realizes how sub-par the Northwest Rail is designed to be, and I can't help but wonder how people would react if they learned the truth.

In this regard I think that technology selection has far less of an impact on the effectiveness of the route versus alignment. Routing the train along I-25 through Longmont and skipping Boulder entirely is probably the better way to go in terms of ridership gains. This would be coupled with robust BRT service between Longmont and Boulder, but we know that's not going to fly.

Boulder wants their choo-choo and, at the end of the day, the Faustian bargain that's going to be struck to get a coupled Northwest Rail/Front Range Rail/Amtrak mash-up is going to go through Boulder. If we can somehow avoid this prospect, than great. But I doubt that will happen.

[TakeFive]

The Good News

You all can debate Boulder's Choo Choo for many, many years to come. Finding the necessary $1.5 billion will be a frustrating fantasy for a long time.

Be very grateful for the iija's surge of transit investment funding; it's likely to be a long time before that reoccurs. Props to RTD for 'investing' nearly $600 million in curing hundreds of line item deferred maintenance needs and adding new buses & train stock.

I'm projecting and predicting a trend towards federal austerity over the next decade. With trending migration towards Red states transit funding will likely be limited to traditional levels.

The Bad News
is that RTD has bigger problems on today's plate which they are aware of.

https://denverite.com/2023/01/27/rtd...de-of-conduct/

The Regional Transportation District is considering banning passengers from riding on its system indefinitely and for other behaviors it deems undesirable as part of an ongoing effort to make buses, trains and stations feel safer.

"These proposed changes come as RTD is trying to attract commuters back to its buses and trains."

RTD is hoping to lure commuters like Stephanie Waechter of Lakewood, who drives to her downtown office — even though she could take RTD’s W-Line that runs through the western suburbs. “Mainly I don’t feel safe on public transit,” she said... “I’ve had encounters with people that I would prefer not to encounter.”

Current passengers are feeling unsafe on RTD, too. About a third of bus and rail customers that responded to an RTD survey last year said they thought they could become a victim of crime while riding or waiting at a rail station or bus stop.

No point in building more infrastructure if they won't come.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

In this regard I think that technology selection has far less of an impact on the effectiveness of the route versus alignment. Routing the train along I-25 through Longmont and skipping Boulder entirely is probably the better way to go in terms of ridership gains. This would be coupled with robust BRT service between Longmont and Boulder, but we know that's not going to fly.

Boulder wants their choo-choo and, at the end of the day, the Faustian bargain that's going to be struck to get a coupled Northwest Rail/Front Range Rail/Amtrak mash-up is going to go through Boulder. If we can somehow avoid this prospect, than great. But I doubt that will happen.

Well of course - if we're talking about Front Range Passenger rail, and not just the B-line, then it would definitely be faster to go the I-25 route. But then it would also miss Boulder and the opportunity to link Boulder directly with FTC and Loveland (and we'd still be left figuring out what to do with the B-line). Front Range Passenger Rail should absolutely connect through Boulder.

When you first mentioned route alignment, I was thinking about the meandering route that the B-line takes as compared to US 36. But my understanding was that a train cannot be built directly along the US 36 route because the grade gets too steep in some locations (this may not actually be correct, this is just my recollection from years ago).

Without pouring through old studies and documents - weren't the other commuter rail lines also originally supposed to be DMU on shared freight tracks? And didn't the switch to EMU, complete with dedicated train tracks, significantly improve upon the service that was originally envisioned by FasTracks? When I talk about DMU vs. EMU, I'm talking about the WHOLE package - dedicated tracks, reconstructed overpasses and underpasses, no need for freight trains to pull over on sidings, etc. Has anybody done an updated cost estimate for what this would take?

Obviously it would be more than $1.5 billion, but how much more? And if it could someday link up to FTC and Pueblo, might that be worth it? I don't know, but I sure hope somebody is asking this important question. The original idea behind the B-line was that it was only supposed to cost $791 million (that estimate was for the train AND the BRT). Given this reality, everyone should be okay with going back to the drawing board to reassess everything. If this is going to be the ultimate alignment for Front Range Passenger Rail, I sure hope we're looking at what it would take to one day fully separate it from the BNSF.

[TakeFive]

The State of Transit

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news...o-fare/641116/

Stimulus funds kept transit running during the height of the pandemic... But this month, S&P Global Ratings downgraded its view of the public transit sector from stable to negative.

Many transit agencies had relied on significant farebox revenue but with ridership remaining depressed many are facing a 'fiscal cliff.' RTD's farebox revenue is also down significantly but it was never a big revenue component.

RTD does share many of the same problems as other agencies however.

The credit rating agency blames remote work arrangements along with concerns about safety, reliability and levels of service.

Trouble hiring and retaining drivers and other staff aggravate these issues.

The good news is that RTD benefits from copious amounts of dedicated tax revenue.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Without pouring through old studies and documents - weren't the other commuter rail lines also originally supposed to be DMU on shared freight tracks? And didn't the switch to EMU, complete with dedicated train tracks, significantly improve upon the service that was originally envisioned by FasTracks? When I talk about DMU vs. EMU, I'm talking about the WHOLE package - dedicated tracks, reconstructed overpasses and underpasses, no need for freight trains to pull over on sidings, etc. Has anybody done an updated cost estimate for what this would take?

Obviously it would be more than $1.5 billion, but how much more? And if it could someday link up to FTC and Pueblo, might that be worth it? I don't know, but I sure hope somebody is asking this important question. The original idea behind the B-line was that it was only supposed to cost $791 million (that estimate was for the train AND the BRT). Given this reality, everyone should be okay with going back to the drawing board to reassess everything. If this is going to be the ultimate alignment for Front Range Passenger Rail, I sure hope we're looking at what it would take to one day fully separate it from the BNSF.

Nobody is talking about dedicated right-of-way and new track for either the northwest rail or the front range passenger rail. Neither is feasible. There will have to be shared track for anything to ever get off the ground, that's the simple fiscal reality. Right-of-way is what is going to kill the tunnel in Austin. Right-of way is what kills all train projects. Many many billions more. And these are long distances we are talking. Right-of-way is what makes Amtrak attractive.

[mr1138]

Well I can't say I'm surprised.

But for the record, I'm not talking about dedicated right-of-way on day one, I'm talking about a long-term vision. Of course it will need to share track in order to get off the ground - that's the whole reason we're talking about freight sidings and merging the project with FRPR in the first place. The A-line and G-line both acquired additional ROW, so it's not impossible - it's just very expensive (and sometimes not socially equitable if there are homes physically in the way of needed ROW). This isn't always worth it - I get it.

I also recall there is a feasibility study currently underway. If "nobody is talking about it" while a feasibility study is underway, then it's hard to make a strong case that it's "not feasible." Sounds to me like it's not even being studied. It seems like the public at least deserves to see some numbers and analysis for why it isn't feasible, and we should keep the door open to being able to one day upgrade the system.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Well I can't say I'm surprised.

But for the record, I'm not talking about dedicated right-of-way on day one, I'm talking about a long-term vision. Of course it will need to share track in order to get off the ground - that's the whole reason we're talking about freight sidings and merging the project with FRPR in the first place. The A-line and G-line both acquired additional ROW, so it's not impossible - it's just very expensive (and sometimes not socially equitable if there are homes physically in the way of needed ROW). This isn't always worth it - I get it.

I also recall there is a feasibility study currently underway. If "nobody is talking about it" while a feasibility study is underway, then it's hard to make a strong case that it's "not feasible." Sounds to me like it's not even being studied. It seems like the public at least deserves to see some numbers and analysis for why it isn't feasible, and we should keep the door open to being able to one day upgrade the system.

IIRC, the A, G, and N lines acquired surplus ROW from UP and BSNF where both companies were able to maintain their own lines with no impediment to their operations. The B line is fundamentally different in that the extra ROW that is easily attainable is non-existent. You're talking about eminent domain the likes of which hasn't been seen outside of China. Unless BSNF is willing to relocate by being given a gobsmack of money for the Front Range Railroad Infrastructure Rationalization Project which still doesn't deal with the BSNF line we are talking about. This would require the current joint line be extended northwards along UP's alignment at further cost.

My guess is that getting the freight ROW to Boulder free and clear would cost between $3-6B. Then there would be the cost of improving the existing line for passenger service which is probably another $2B for the fancy option (dual-tracking, high-frequency service, electrified, etc.). So $5-8B for the train to Boulder.

We can talk about it publicly and quickly kill the idea as being absolutely bonkers.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

IIRC, the A, G, and N lines acquired surplus ROW from UP and BSNF where both companies were able to maintain their own lines with no impediment to their operations. The B line is fundamentally different in that the extra ROW that is easily attainable is non-existent. You're talking about eminent domain the likes of which hasn't been seen outside of China. Unless BSNF is willing to relocate by being given a gobsmack of money for the Front Range Railroad Infrastructure Rationalization Project which still doesn't deal with the BSNF line we are talking about. This would require the current joint line be extended northwards along UP's alignment at further cost.

My guess is that getting the freight ROW to Boulder free and clear would cost between $3-6B. Then there would be the cost of improving the existing line for passenger service which is probably another $2B for the fancy option (dual-tracking, high-frequency service, electrified, etc.). So $5-8B for the train to Boulder.

We can talk about it publicly and quickly kill the idea as being absolutely bonkers.

NOW we're getting somewhere. Thank you - that all makes perfect sense.

I do still strongly believe that the project team should be talking about everything you just said publicly. And journalists like Nathaniel Minor and John Aguilar should be asking much more probing questions to bring all of this to light. This isn't intuitive to people - it needs to be spelled out for them. Let everyone know what it would actually take to build the train line that Boulder WANTS and let this process kill the idea. Nobody likes it when a bunch of bureaucrats kill ideas during the scoping process before they can even be discussed.

[mhays]

I can buy the necessary improvements costing billions (easily), but the land?

Let's assume 30 miles and 30' of added width -- 30 x 30 x 5,280 = 4,752,000 sf. The $3-6b range would average $1,000 per square foot. I'm looking at CoStar and things get commercial properties in places like Broomfield in the low two figures. Including urban properties I'd guess more like $200m in straight-up land value. I can be wrong on several factors of course.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

I can buy the necessary improvements costing billions (easily), but the land?

Let's assume 30 miles and 30' of added width -- 30 x 30 x 5,280 = 4,752,000 sf. The $3-6b range would average $1,000 per square foot. I'm looking at CoStar and things get commercial properties in places like Broomfield in the low two figures. Including urban properties I'd guess more like $200m in straight-up land value. I can be wrong on several factors of course.

30 feet is not enough - first factor.

Second factor - and the big one - is that you cannot always take just the 50' sliver you need under the Uniform Act - you could be paying damages to the owner of the remnant, or frequently forced to take the whole parcel, including improvements.

Third factor - the process alone on the acquisition is significant. Your consultants and lawyers for doing the work will be $20 million alone.