DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Much of the realities around any large capital costing steel and concrete projects relate to a kind of inertia that years of dedication towards designing, in dealing with consortiums of large private landowners, government agencies, and the electorate produce.

In our political economic system intrastructural projects (since the Interstate Highway system) that stretch across multigovernment juristictions take many years- so long, that employees of governmental agencies and property owners get older, raise their kids, send those kids to college, and, worry about their retirement. Naturally, this produces resentment towards those 'outside' who brazenly suggest or question the 'plan', as, in most cases correctly, these 'ideas' have been brought up in house, debated, and, discarded due to the realities of the time (of course with respect to time, change is constant..)


This naturally produces a two edged sword, as the time spent getting huge tasks accomplished is exponentially proportional to resistance to altering plans. This is evident throughout the growth of rail transportation in Denver, which, by necessity, has been a titanic compromise.

Ok, what about ridership statistics? Well, the statistics that will be generated will be such that getting federal money, and getting RTD district funding (by increasing tax rates etc) will be 'easier', rather than more difficult.This type of thinking is born of the endless studies ($100 million +) spent prior to dirt being turned over- over too many years-which has created vast numbers of theoretical data sets. These data sets can then be altered at low cost, as the 'data' in this case is more expensive than the algorithm set.

Hence the statistics will always be skewed in favor of the design work already accomplished.

For example, too, this type of thinking goes into the Colfax street car scenario where property owners and their political representatives have been lobbying long and hard to enhance their property values by a street car system. (which incidentally is the most 'local' -least Lodo centric rail infrastructural idea yet, to illustrate just how Lodo centric all this rail development is..)

So Bunt, IMO is correct in his reasoning about the 'nature' of ridership statistics and, Synderbock is correct in insisting these ridership figures are reasonable for the purposes of securing funding and maintaining the interest all the (important) parties.

The historians who will look at what actually has been built in hindsight, and, who will debate the MIRACLE that any large system even was created in Denver(!) will also debate why cheaper, more effective solutions were not built in the old days and why more 'money' was not directed towards a more transit user friendly system.

(I had a dream that about 2025 light rail stations were packed ten deep on the light rail, and, people were cursing how difficult entering and exiting was... Of course, in the dream, it still took 2 hours to travel where the hard rail spokes did not travel...)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

(I had a dream that about 2025 light rail stations were packed ten deep on the light rail, and, people were cursing how difficult entering and exiting was...

So, they were cursing us for not switching to low-floor vehicles when we had the chance.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

(I had a dream that about 2025 light rail stations were packed ten deep on the light rail, and, people were cursing how difficult entering and exiting was... Of course, in the dream, it still took 2 hours to travel where the hard rail spokes did not travel...)

Stood at the Auraria Station recently? 10-deep queue? Check. People cursing at the difficulty getting in? Check. Wondering just when in the hell RTD is going to start running 4-car trains? Check. Pulling into the Broadway Station and wondering why in the hell the #1 transfer station in the system (with an easy 200-300 hundred people waiting on transfers during rush hour) is merely a bare bones platform? Check.

[trubador]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not for spending tax dollars. Besides, ridership, to a large extent, is a function of services provided. If Boulder's bus services were cut back to the levels of other parts of the metro area, ridership would decrease too.

CU has 5 (maybe 6) home football games next year. And RTD provides special football day service anyways. That is hardly a justification for greater-than-average per capita transit spending. There is no good reason why RTD taxpayers in other parts of the metro should be subsidizing Boulder more than they already are.

Basketball? Ha. CU averages 5,000-6,000 people per game. If that's worthy of special service, then so is DU hockey, the Fillmore, Ogden, and about 2,000 other events in the metro area on any given weekend. I can see it now - the Cherry Creek HS PromRide RTD special service.

so are you suggesting they get rid of the 15 and 15L and use the streetcar instead?

From what I can tell DU hockey is already served via light rail, as is the Pepsi Center, Invesco Field and Coors Field. Would the next logical choice be CU which not only high ridership from the surrounding community, but the students as well. I was merely pointing out the CU football and basketball games as other times when ridership would be high beside weekdays, but one would merely need to look at traffic counts between denver and boulder to see how much potential this has.

[The Dirt]

Council approves nearly $1 million for DIA land-use plan

A Denver City Council committee has approved a nearly $1 million Denver International Airport contract with a consulting team that will prepare a comprehensive land-use plan aimed at increasing commercial development in the area.

DIA has had difficulty filling the space in its WorldPort commercial buildings across Peña from the rental-car complex, and the planned "Landings at DIA" retail project near the Conoco station has been shelved because of the weak economy.

The airport, Regional Transportation District and developers who own land adjacent to the Peña Boulevard corridor now are assessing whether to back construction of two additional stations on the DIA train line, one near East 64th Avenue and Peña and the other near East 72nd Avenue and Tower Road.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17476168

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by trubador

so are you suggesting they get rid of the 15 and 15L and use the streetcar instead?

From what I can tell DU hockey is already served via light rail, as is the Pepsi Center, Invesco Field and Coors Field. Would the next logical choice be CU which not only high ridership from the surrounding community, but the students as well. I was merely pointing out the CU football and basketball games as other times when ridership would be high beside weekdays, but one would merely need to look at traffic counts between denver and boulder to see how much potential this has.

A big difference here would be that each of the facilities you mentioned are directly serviced by a station. Anything at CU wouldn't enjoy such a luxury and would require shuttle buses.

Not that's it's the only point against this argument. The biggest argument is still that the NW corridor is in a terrible position to service most of Boulder. It's the BRT that provides the convenience and ease of use.

[Wizened Variations]

wong21fr's comments about Boulder and BRTset me to thinking (thanks, I need that...),

In the spirit of personal powerlessness wrestling with "what the Hell" I offer all of you this idea (used now in Bogota and in other cities worldwide).

BRT has a huge advantage in some situations, particularly if BRT's are designed as a bus freeway with it's own dedicated off line exits and extrances. As wong21fr very correctly inferred: a BRT bus- in addition to having dedicated right-of-way can use city streets (at least if the designers are not
enraptured by huge 'train like' buses). So, say in Boulder, a bus which has operated as a BRT from Denver to Boulder would be free- if street legal- to then have a flexible bus route via Boulder city streets.

This, type of BRT design would create a central trunk with stub routes and loops along it's length. Imagine a BRT local that would get off at Westminster and go into a local bus mode for 5 or so miles, then re-enter the BRT dedicated line and continue towards Boulder or Denver. (How about a bus that would start at the Wagon Road Park and Ride and go to Boulder as a BRT from a given entry point, for example. )


Think of the BRT as a back bone with changable route type appendages.

You don't drop local bus riders off at the BRT station like you might at a light rail or commuter rail stain: instead, the local bus you are riding gets on the BRT route and is absolutely design flexible to get off where ever physical routes are built. And then can go where the roads go.

This type of system, seems to me is very competitive with steel rail when per hour traffic levels are moderate. Combine this system with a real time bus slot scheduler, where late buses could just jump on the next 'packet' (LOL) and, in most weather conditions all would work.

(Of course, I love steel wheels and rail, and, I have absolute faith that huge traffic levels like the level that could develop between Colfax and Broadway on the light rail should be handled by rail. Triple track the Colfax to Broadway spine and 50,000 riders per hour is very doable. Of course you have to fix a few design mistakes....)

I, however, do sense that too much fantasy and civic egotism will likely result in both BRT and heavy rail being built to Boulder. And both will not live up to their design potential

Oh well, just an idea...

[Pizzuti]

^BRT from Boulder to Denver already meanders through Boulder stopping at busy places before it goes down HWY-36. It starts on Pearl, but goes down Broadway so that it can stop at City Hall and then the CU campus and then on Baseline in a couple places, before making a final stop on Table Mesa.

Of course if you want to go straight from Boulder Transit Station to Union Station, all those extraneous stops and curves are rather annoying. If you're on the BX it only takes 25 minutes to get from Table Mesa Park and Ride to Downtown Denver. It takes another 15 minutes just to get from one part of Boulder to the other so you've added an additional 60% to your trip time just to get through town because the route is curvy. If you're on the B Local, which stops in Louisville, 2 Broomfield stops and Westminster, it's a 60-minute trip to Denver from pickup to drop off. It ends up being late maybe 25% of the time due to traffic and in those cases it takes between 5 and 15 minutes longer.

I've taken that trip probably 150 times and have pretty well memorized it.

...

However, this just occurred to me based on your thought... trip times may be a reason why the rail may be more competitive than everyone is suggesting. Walnut Street to Market Street is an hour and five minutes on average. (If you are travelling during rush hour ONLY where you can take the BX, it's 50 minutes on average.)

However, to get from Market Street to Boulder Transit Village going THROUGH the 29th Street development for that important stopis an 8-minute trip according to Google Maps. Let's assume a 2-minute stop on Canyon and a 2-minute stop in 29th street; that's 12 minutes to the transit village. Getting to the Transit Village from the CU campus (Muenzinger Psychology right outside Norlin Library) is 5 minutes by road/bus.

(To calculate time to Transit Village from campus, Google Maps tries to force you to not take the street through campus which is closed to traffic but buses are able to take. So to time it accurately you have to force it on to that "restricted" route.)

How long will the train take from the Transit Village to Denver? That I can't answer; I'm sure many people who comment here have it memorized but I was unable to successfully Google it. However, if you assume that bus to the Transit Village is timed to leave and arrive at the commuter train with only a 5-minute wait, your trip is only 17 minutes longer to transfer to Boulder's transit station.

So if Boulder to Union Station ends up taking less than 48 minutes by train, you are saving time from Market Street, with all transfer time and wait time included. From Folsom Field it can be up to 55 minutes and you save time.

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17476168

Given the constraints that exist on the airport and retail shopping thanks to the annexation agreement, I really don't see any benefit of multiple stops, unless you are treating those stops as airport services. Slowing down the speed to the airport is a issue.

One about the boulder related discussion, I still don't get why people are criticizing the decision to follow the existing right of way into 29th street. Boulder is already focusing on making that area one of the densest areas of Boulder, and their high-frequency bus routes already are routed through there. Boulder's old train depot has already been moved to the site of the new station.

It would be nice to serve some of the downtown pearl area with the light rail line, but the east boulder (proposed) station is in great position to service the business park at 55th and Arapahoe. Anyone who has to go through boulder at Rush Hour can tell you that foothills (which serves east boulder) is the epicenter of gridlock, because it feeds that business park among others.

[SnyderBock]

I think Boulder should eventually build a streetcar line, to connect the transit village, Pearl Street, Downtown and the Bus stations.

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I think Boulder should eventually build a streetcar line, to connect the transit village, Pearl Street, Downtown and the Bus stations.

I don't think you have enough room up and down pearl street to put in that line - certainly not once it turns into a walking mall. If they were to do this, I suspect that they would like to try and turn the hop ring route into a streetcar, which goes from 29th street, into University of Colorado, and the boulder garage.

[SnyderBock]

I never said it should run on Peal Street. The 29th Street loop idea is far better, imo.

[Pizzuti]

I guess the key being the word eventually. I am not sure how a streetcar line fits in aesthetically with the look and feel of Boulder, which, in spite of being pretty dense and transit-oriented, also seems to pride itself on a small-town feel. I think the population there would be just as happy to invest in bike lanes, and in Boulder, unlike most places, bike lanes are actually sufficient to get people to give up cars. I don't think they'll ever tolerate a street car line on Pearl Street itself because you'd have to cut a lot of the trees and bulldoze the planters and I think Pearl Street is quite functional as is; maybe down Pine and Walnut though.

Where would you route the streetcar?

[CastleScott]

Heres a cool read:

RTD to try out concrete, recycled-plastic railroad ties on West light-rail line
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/01/2011 01:00:00 AM MSTUpdated: 03/01/2011 08:56:36 AM MST


RTD contractors install railroad ties made from recycled plastic on the West Corridor light-rail line. RTD officials hope the more-flexible ties will outperform their wooden counterparts as the soil beneath them shifts near bridges. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)RTD is dropping a little bit of "green" into 12 miles of gray on its $710 million West Corridor light-rail line.

The Regional Transportation District is using about 40,000 concrete railroad ties on the train line that will serve Lakewood and Golden from downtown Denver.

The transit agency also is putting about 200 ties made from recycled plastic in the area of the track bed immediately before and after bridges on the West line.

Ties are the crosspieces on which steel track is fastened to make the rail right of way.

Historically, ties were made from wood treated to withstand weather deterioration. More recently, concrete ties have become a strong competitor to wood for the rail industry, in both its freight and transit segments.

For the West Corridor line, which is due to open for passenger service in 2013, the Denver Transit Construction Group is installing six plastic railroad ties at the ends of bridges where the track transitions from being supported by the span's structure itself or a 25-foot-long concrete "transition slab" that extends from the bridge end, said DTCG Track Superintendent Mike Spalding.

The more flexible recycled plastic ties are being installed where the track will sit on rock ballast and compacted soil beneath the ballast, he said.

There can be a tendency for the soil at approaches to bridges to settle a bit in the area just before the track encounters the transition slab or the bridge structure itself, said Cal Shankster, who oversees track, overhead power and signal system maintenance for RTD's rail operations.

The transit agency is using 10-foot-long plastic railroad ties — longer than the project's standard 8-foot, 3-inch-long concrete tie — to determine whether the longer crossties made from the more flexible recycled material will help "spread the weight and cause less compaction, less settling" in the critical locations at the ends of bridges, Shankster said.

The limited installation of plastic railroad ties on the West rail line offers a chance to assess whether they will perform as well as wood at the transition points just off the elevated structures, said Jim Starling, RTD's manager on the light-rail construction project.

"If there is an opportunity to look at a sustainable material and evaluate how the composite (recycled plastic) ties perform, RTD is interested," he said.

New Jersey-based Axion International makes the plastic ties that RTD is using, and Axion president Steve Silverman said that "the total installed cost of our ties are competitive with concrete."

His company recently signed a deal to deliver 50,000 ties to a major freight railroad, Silverman said.

According to the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council, "the railroad ties market is huge since each tie requires 200 pounds of plastic — equaling 1,200 bottles."

As many as 20 million railroad ties are replaced each year, according to industry estimates.

Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or [email protected]





Read more: RTD to try out concrete, recycled-plastic railroad ties on West light-rail line - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17506851#ixzz1FN2cOSyb
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[trubador]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

A big difference here would be that each of the facilities you mentioned are directly serviced by a station. Anything at CU wouldn't enjoy such a luxury and would require shuttle buses.

Not that's it's the only point against this argument. The biggest argument is still that the NW corridor is in a terrible position to service most of Boulder. It's the BRT that provides the convenience and ease of use.

totally agree. I think I said earlier it is a big mistake that the transportation doesn't go closer to CU.

[SnyderBock]

Honolulu is constructing an elevated light rail line for ~$262 million per mile (including stations). A $5.5 billion, 20-mile, 21-station elevated rail line. We all know, everything in Hawaii, costs much more, because it all has to be shipped in. Everything, including construction costs and labor, are heavily inflated there.

If this type of elevated rail could be constructed in Denver for 20-25% less, than in Hawaii, then we are looking at ~$200 million per mile (including stations).

This could end up being the way to expand LRT from Broadway/I-25 to Civic Center and from Civic Center to Union Station. Retailers complained about an earlier RTD proposal for an elevated line here, as being too ugly. They were obviously thinking of the elevated lines in Chicago and New York. This Honolulu line may both prove this option to be more affordable than subway and esthetically pleasing. Here is a rendering:

[bunt_q]

Actually, no, the rendering that people screamed bloody murder about looked a lot like the Honolulu concrete structures (minus the straddle bent).

And it wasn't the retailers who complained about the elevated. The retailers wanted grade separation to preserve parking, but really, wanted no rail at all.

Regardless, there's no structure that's going to look good flying between the City & County Building and the State Capitol. It's a non-starter.

[SnyderBock]

You are right, I still see it being tunneled through Civic Center then. I guess from Union Station to Civic Center Station all subway and then subway through Civic Center Park and south about a mile, before coming up to elevated. Then run it elevated the rest of the way to Broadway/I-25 Station.

[Denver Dweller]

By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/02/2011 01:00:00 AM MST

RTD directors were warned in the strongest terms yet Tuesday night that this is not the year to ask metro Denver voters to approve a sales-tax increase for the financially stressed FasTracks program.

"Based on recent research, we do not believe 2011 is the year to ask for any sort of tax increase," said John Huggins, executive director of the pro-FasTracks group Coalition for Smart Transit.

Huggins and RTD political consultant Maria Garcia Berry listed numerous reasons why voters this year would probably reject a tax measure aimed at closing the FasTracks funding gap.

Berry said recent polling focused on what typically is an older and more conservative electorate in off-year elections and survey results showed "trying to pursue an election in 2011 is a very risky proposition."

Huggins said it is unlikely FasTracks proponents could raise the millions of dollars needed to win a campaign for a tax increase.

Regional Transportation District directors plan to decide Tuesday whether to propose a FasTracks tax hike this year, and if their answer is yes, how much of an additional tax to ask for.

FasTracks, which includes six new train lines in metro Denver and extensions to three existing RTD light-rail lines, is short at least $2 billion of what is needed to finish the project by the end of this decade.

In 2004, metro-area voters approved the original FasTracks sales tax of 0.4 percent, or 4 cents on a $10 purchase. Since then, forecasts of lower-than-expected sales-tax collections and construction costs that were higher than planned have combined to create the program's funding shortfall.

That gap means that some projects within FasTracks, including the East Corridor train to Denver International Airport, are funded, and others, including the North Metro train to Thornton/Northglenn, and the Northwest train to Boulder/Longmont, are largely unfunded.

Last month, the Metro Mayors Caucus said RTD's directors should propose a measure for this November's ballot that would double the existing 0.4 percent FasTracks tax as a way to complete the project by 2019.

The mayors' group acted after hearing results from a Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce-sponsored poll showing 58 percent of voters surveyed would back such a tax increase to get the project done.

Huggins said that survey was taken in December and that since then, "the fiscal climate has changed significantly," with voters' minds even more focused on "jobs, the economy and taxes."

Especially in recent weeks, "the public is much more aware of the federal government's and the states' financial distress," he said.

RTD's financial analysis shows FasTracks also could be completed by 2019 if voters approved a tax increase of 0.4 percentage points in 2012.

If directors chose next week to reject a tax vote this year, they probably will postpone consideration of a 2012 vote until early next year.

RTD director Bill McMullen acknowledged that he's been a "cheerleader" for a tax vote this year for the full increase of 0.4 percentage points. Possibly postponing the vote for a year may be acceptable, he added.


http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17515985

[trubador]

if they can still finish in 2019 if they double it starting in 2013, then that is fine.