DENVER | Transportation Thread

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Just a couple notes. First time visiting Colorado and in Denver I rode a couple LRT lines just for shits and gigs and wow. what. a. joke.

If anyone follows my posting they will know I have a disdain for at grade train crossings and Denver takes the cake. The train moved soooooo slooooow. Denver should stop all expansions and focus on grade separation now!

I-70 also needs to be heavily expanded into the mountains and they need to work on light-rail through the mountains as well to Breckenridge. I used the tolls lanes but the amount of traffic on this corridor warrants 8 laning well past the Eisenhower tunnel. Colorado's roads were also horribly marked and woefully under-served in terms of capacity.

Other than Colorado had to be one of my favorite states and I reckon it isn't long until I get a place here. Denver is such a cool city and the skyline impressed me much more than I thought it would. Absolutely beautiful state!

I'm curious, which light rail lines did you ride?

-The SE Corridor is entirely grade-separated and travels at close to the maximum velocity for a light rail train, which is 65 mph.

-The SW Corridor is probably 90% grade-separated and travels at 55 mph.

-The West Corridor runs a good portion of its length down an old at-grade streetcar ROW and only travels at 35 mph on that stretch, but the western most third of that line is grade-separated and travels at 55 mph.

-Then of course as these lines go into downtown, they are at-grade. But the ones that go to Union Station have minimum street crossings and maintain solid speed. The ones that go into the downtown street grid are slow but are funtioning as more of a streetcar at this point.

That's how Light Rail was designed to be used, in a multitude of environments as both grade-separate commuter rail and urban street running rail.

Did you only ride the West Corridor Light Rail?

Another question...
Why would Light Rail ever be used on a long haul, commuter rail, mountain corridor? Obviously that would be the realm for a commuter rail or high-speed rail transportation technology.

Also, did you try any of Denver's EMU Commuter Rail corridors? These have a maximum speed of 85 mph. If so, what are your thoughts on those?
There is the A-Line to the Airport
The B-Line to Westminster (a spur)
The G-Line west to Arvada.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

Finally, the idea of a train to the mountains is always popular but I don't think it's realistic. Even if we disregard the cost (which would be in the billions), I think the vast majority of people who drive from Denver to the mountains wouldn't stay near the train stations. Let's pretend we had a train from Denver to Vail, roughly following I-70, that stopped in Idaho Springs, Georgetown, Loveland Ski Area/Eisenhower Tunnel area, Silverthorne, Frisco, Copper Mountain, and ended in Vail. In the summer most people want to head to remote trailheads and campsites far from these areas. Anyone who wants to go camping or hiking will probably still drive since there is almost no public transportation to these remote wilderness sites.

For those that want to ski in the summer this train could work, but it would require the resorts to pay for shuttles to run between the stations and their ski areas (or dramatically expand the Summit Stage and similar county bus systems). It could work to take a train to Silverthorne, for example, and then pick up a newly-created bus to Arapahoe Basin. As far as I'm aware, A-Basin is not currently accessible via transit in Summit County.

Plus when you consider the relatively few number of people that a train would move through the mountains it would seem to be better use of funds to expand I-70 to three, four or more lanes where possible and expand the Eisenhower Tunnel.

I'm all for transit, I would vote for just about any pro-transit ballot measure you can imagine. However, I think money for a train to the mountains would be better spent on a train from Cheyenne to Pueblo along the front range.

A train to the mountains could generate sufficient year around ridership to be feasible. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority did an extensive study on this.

But in order to generate healthy ridership year around, they concluded these things:

1.) It would need to be connected to a Front Range high speed rail system, to tap into the population base of everyone from Fort Collins to Pueblo, not just Denver.

2.) It would need to go at least to Glenwood Springs (to tap into the Roaring Forks/Aspen area, which also has solid BRT to move people around once they get there), and would probably need to go all the way to Grand Junction, to tap into ridership from the Western Slope.

3.) It would need to be HSR, of at least 150 mph, if not 220 mph technology, in order to offer an attractive enough time savings over driving, to attract people to planing their Mountain trips around what would be accessible from the train stations and supplemental bus/shuttle services.

So all in total, if Colorado builds a mountain train, they have to go all in on a $30-$40 billion Statewide HSR system. Doing a conventional speed commuter rail in the mountains would not be feasible, as its ridership would be far too low, especially during the summer. The report concluded the faster the speed and the higher the frequency, along with the larger the connections to population centers, results in exponential growth in ridership. Speed, frequency, connections.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

-The SE Corridor is entirely grade-separated and travels at close to the maximum velocity for a light rail train, which is 65 mph.

It does not exceed 55 mph.

It is grade separated... except north of Broadway. Which is where everyone goes.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

-The West Corridor runs a good portion of its length down an old at-grade streetcar ROW and only travels at 35 mph on that stretch...

But the ones that go to Union Station have minimum street crossings and maintain solid speed.

I think you're making his point. Our light rail is objectively slow.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

A train to the mountains could generate sufficient year around ridership to be feasible. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority did an extensive study on this.

They did not do an extensive study on this. They did a half-assed study - the equivalent of a bar napkin. CDOT did an extensive study, and it wasn't even close, it is not feasible.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The report concluded the faster the speed and the higher the frequency, along with the larger the connections to population centers, results in exponential growth in ridership. Speed, frequency, connections.

And the higher the capital cost, which is why it is impossible. Simply impossible. People should stop talking about it. Will not happen in my lifetime; will not happen in my kids' lifetimes.

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

I'm all for transit, I would vote for just about any pro-transit ballot measure you can imagine. However, I think money for a train to the mountains would be better spent on a train from Cheyenne to Pueblo along the front range.

Agree 100%.

[CharlesCO]

For what it would cost to build a train through the mountains, you could probably build a few crosstown subway lines and still have money left over.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It does not exceed 55 mph.

It is grade separated... except north of Broadway. Which is where everyone goes.



I think you're making his point. Our light rail is objectively slow.



They did not do an extensive study on this. They did a half-assed study - the equivalent of a bar napkin. CDOT did an extensive study, and it wasn't even close, it is not feasible.



And the higher the capital cost, which is why it is impossible. Simply impossible. People should stop talking about it. Will not happen in my lifetime; will not happen in my kids' lifetimes.




Agree 100%.

That was my point... In order for a mountain corridor rail line to have high enough ridership, it would have to be part of a $30-$40 billion system build out. So I was implying that it was NOT practical.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mrturbo

Sorry if this turned into a rant, but it is frustrating to watch projects like the I-25 "gap" go from study to construction in a couple of years, while East Colfax improvements are always "coming soon!"

Odd comparison to draw, but since you did, you know what the obvious difference between these two projects is, right? TOLLS. There's some prospect of the Gap project helping to pay for itself. Colfax will always suck money, from a City that doesn't have a ton of it.

[mrturbo]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Odd comparison to draw, but since you did, you know what the obvious difference between these two projects is, right? TOLLS. There's some prospect of the Gap project helping to pay for itself. Colfax will always suck money, from a City that doesn't have a ton of it.

Certainly the tolls will help pay for upkeep (even at $2.25 for the whole stretch), But at an expected $4 million a year starting in 2022, they don't make a huge dent in the project cost of 350 million. HOV/Toll lanes do explain the $65 million in federal grant money though.
I'm curious how accurate the toll projections end up being considering how tax/toll averse both Douglas and El Paso counties are.

Thankfully Colfax "sucking money" isn't eating up Denver or Aurora's public works budgets, but CDOT's.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mrturbo

Thankfully Colfax "sucking money" isn't eating up Denver or Aurora's public works budgets, but CDOT's.

You helped to trigger some additional thinking on Denver's BRT project. Couple of things:

Given CDOT's responsibility for East Colfax my guess is that Denver was begging for CDOT to help in funding the project. Ofc, CDOT isn't responsible for Denver's BRT but they could choose to help.

In the DP article, Nancy Kuhn with Denver Public Works mentioned that if Prop 110 had passed then Denver could have allocated another $70 million towards BRT. It's also logical that CDOT would have had the extra $'s to rationalize helping. It's not that they were putting all their eggs in one basket, it's more that this basket came along and would have made a BIG difference.

There's one other complicating factor. In applying for FTA Grants, they are now requiring a 30% contingency fund (up from 20% previously) due to the ongoing escalation of construction costs. So a $200 million project has to include another $60 million contingency for a Grand Total of $260 million. There's no use in even applying for an FTA Grant w/o being able to identify where the money is coming from. Assuming FTA would contribute 40% of the $200 million or $80 million that still leaves a hefty amount that needs to be identified.

bunt... does make a good point in that for all the (growing) revenue Denver has, there's at least $4 dollars in 'high priority' needs for every $ of new revenue.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mrturbo

Thankfully Colfax "sucking money" isn't eating up Denver or Aurora's public works budgets, but CDOT's.

That's actually not how that works, but okay...

[TakeFive]

Safety First, burst

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...improve-safety

DENVER — Mayor Michael Hancock on Wednesday announced plans to reduce speed limits on several high-traffic roads in an effort to improve safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Hancock said Denver Public Works had identified five major corridors with a history of speeding drivers. Those five streets will see their speed limits reduced in the next few months...

Tell me more, tell me where?

The five streets that will have their speed limits reduced are:

• West Evans Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Huron Street
• Cherry Creek Drive South from University to Colorado Boulevards
• 1st Avenue/Steele Street/Cherry Creek Drive North/Alameda Avenue from
• University to Colorado Boulevards
• Peoria Street from 47th to 39th Avenues
• 56th Avenue from Quebec Street to Tower Road

Anything else?

The city announced several other initiatives as well, including painting more high-visibility striped crosswalks in downtown Denver, adding more signage and bike corrals, improving existing protected bike lanes and increasing traffic enforcement.

[DenverDave]

Interesting things happening in SLC. I don't think I've heard any real discussion of free fares for RTD?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...gin-salt-lake/
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ear-ridership/

[TakeFive]

This one's for Wong

OFF TRACK: The little R Line train that could, can’t yet
August 8, 2019 By KARA MASON, Staff Writer - Sentinel

Based on RTD’s August 2018 calculations, the most recent, there are about 5,700 daily riders on the R Line, according to Regional Transportation District spokeswoman Christine Jaquez. She said 2019 numbers have yet to be calculated down to the exact number.

According to RTD statistics last year, the Aurora Municipal Center station ranks 44th out of the agency’s 59 train stations. The 1,300 riders the station averages daily doesn’t come close to other suburban stations like Englewood with 5,400, downtown Littleton with 3,500 and Belleview Station in Greenwood Village with 2,800.

Also noted in this piece:

The entire southeast corridor, which ranges from the Broadway Station down I-25 and up to Nine Mile Station, at I-225 and Parker Road, was projected to have about 33,800 riders each day in 2009. The projections for 2020 are set at 38,100 daily riders.

The H Line has always been popular and performed well. When they built the R Line through Aurora they extended the H Line by two stations: Iliff Station and Florida Station. This allowed riders at the crowded Nine Mile Station additional access points. It seems to have also added growth as Nine Mile Station numbers have remained largely flat while additional riders for the H Line now also board at Florida and Iliff.

Thinking people would ride from Lone Tree through Aurora to DIA on the R Line was stupid, in hindsight. Beyond the end-of-line Florida station for the H Line there is only 5 additional stations between Florida and the Peoria Station. If you think of the ride between Peoria and Florida as the City Center shuttle then ridership while not good isn't so terrible. Original expectations were way too high, obviously.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

This one's for Wong

OFF TRACK: The little R Line train that could, can’t yet
August 8, 2019 By KARA MASON, Staff Writer - Sentinel


Also noted in this piece:


The H Line has always been popular and performed well. When they built the R Line through Aurora they extended the H Line by two stations: Iliff Station and Florida Station. This allowed riders at the crowded Nine Mile Station additional access points. It seems to have also added growth as Nine Mile Station numbers have remained largely flat while additional riders for the H Line now also board at Florida and Iliff.

Thinking people would ride from Lone Tree through Aurora to DIA on the R Line was stupid, in hindsight. Beyond the end-of-line Florida station for the H Line there is only 5 additional stations between Florida and the Peoria Station. If you think of the ride between Peoria and Florida as the City Center shuttle then ridership while not good isn't so terrible. Original expectations were way too high, obviously.

I've said it before, do away with the R Line and run the H Line all the way up I-225.

RTD should also add an H Line Station over S. Tamarac ST/DTC BLVD. This would provide direct connectivity from the A Line Peoria Transfer Station to the H Line and the DTC.

RTD could also run a small fleet of peak time free electric shuttle buses down DTC BLVD through the DTC. This shuttle could run from Southmore Station at its Northern terminus, to the Arapahoe at Village Center Station at its Southern terminus. With that key Midway stop at the proposed S. Tamarac ST/DTC BLVD H Line Station. This will create a way to transfer from the E/F Lines at Arapahoe at Village Center, to the DTC BLVD H Line station, which you could then take the H Line all the way to Peoria and transfer to the A Line, if you really needed to.

Make the shuttle free and high frequency during peak times. During Off-Peak times, you could take the E/F Lines up to Southmore and transfer to the H Line there. Or you could go all the way to Union Station to transfer to the A Line.

It seems like this configuration would better serve more people, than the 5700 daily commuters currently using the R Line.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I've said it before, do away with the R Line and run the H Line all the way up I-225.

RTD should also add an H Line Station over S. Tamarac ST/DTC BLVD. This would provide direct connectivity from the A Line Peoria Transfer Station to the H Line and the DTC.

RTD could also run a small fleet of peak time free electric shuttle buses down DTC BLVD through the DTC. This shuttle could run from Southmore Station at its Northern terminus, to the Arapahoe at Village Center Station at its Southern terminus. With that key Midway stop at the proposed S. Tamarac ST/DTC BLVD H Line Station. This will create a way to transfer from the E/F Lines at Arapahoe at Village Center, to the DTC BLVD H Line station, which you could then take the H Line all the way to Peoria and transfer to the A Line, if you really needed to.

Make the shuttle free and high frequency during peak times. During Off-Peak times, you could take the E/F Lines up to Southmore and transfer to the H Line there. Or you could go all the way to Union Station to transfer to the A Line.

It seems like this configuration would better serve more people, than the 5700 daily commuters currently using the R Line.

Except Aurora has to have a line that doesn't also go to Denver to assuage its fear of inadequacy. Denver and Aurora are peer cities; equals in every way that matters.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I've said it before, do away with the R Line and run the H Line all the way up I-225.

Close. The H Line doesn't have good connectivity to the DTC (other than at Southmoor). Everybody hopping on the H Line is going into downtown or points along the way.

R Line should run from Belleview Station up to Florida, then stay along I-225 to 2nd/Abilene, etc. IIRC, Florida is one of the two busiest stations with No Parking; presumably more indication for how well the southern half of Aurora travels. The City Center shuttle can then run between 2nd/Abilene and Florida.

The other option, perhaps even better, is to have the City Center shuttle run from Florida up to Peoria; then let the R Line after stopping at Florida run along I-225 to 2nd/Abilene then stopping only at Fitzsimons on the way to Peoria. This would chop 10 current stops from the R Line.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except Aurora has to have a line that doesn't also go to Denver to assuage its fear of inadequacy. Denver and Aurora are peer cities; equals in every way that matters.

Yup, Aurora is right up there in privilege with Highlands Ranch - Littleton and Centennial - Lone Tree. All have a choice of going into the heart of downtown or going to DUS instead.

[TakeFive]

Replica - the next gen transportation system

Portland, Ore., Metro Tests Mobility Analytics Platform
JULY 18, 2019 BY SKIP DESCANT - Government Technology

A new urban travel planning tool called Replica, run by Sidewalk Labs, simulates transportation trends using anonymous data that is expected to be far more accurate than traditional analysis.

Transportation and regional planners say it helps to have a sense of where riders are coming from, where they’re headed, or even which bike paths are perceived as safest...

Why is this a better system?

Typically, transportation or planning departments conduct complicated surveys in an area to get a deep understanding of who is using the network and how. The surveys are time-consuming, expensive and generally lack the sort of frequency needed to accurately take into account significant movements in mobility modes like the rise in the use of ride-hailing, for example. Replica data is updated every quarter, providing a far more accurate view of how a transportation system is performing, or in flux.

• Video Link

Sidewalk Labs is an urban venture of Alphabet/Google.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

RTD could also run a small fleet of peak time free electric shuttle buses down DTC BLVD through the DTC.

I wouldn't really be in favor of adding any more light rail stops; lines are too slow as it is.
People that close to the DTC could benefit from your shuttle idea though.

So Tamarac Dr at Hampden Ave would be a great spot for a bus hub. Run BRT/enhanced bus service along Hampden all the way around and up Havana to I-70? Make So Quebec a robust bus corridor down to the Tamarac/Hampden Hub. Then run your fleet of shuttle buses from here down into the DTC. I like that greenbelt/Park going down to Quincy and a couple of shuttle routes could cross over I-25 via E Quincy Ave.

[SnyderBock]

It sounds like we are all in consensus that there are better configurations than the current R Line / H Line configuration. Now it's just a matter of finding the best solution.

[twister244]

DIA is officially taking their ball and going home....

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/08/...reat-hall-dia/

[lostknight]

Originally Posted by twister244

DIA is officially taking their ball and going home....

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/08/...reat-hall-dia/

Good on them.

This is exactly what you should do when it's clear that a partnership or a engineering program isn't working. Kill it before it gets out of control. The news that the concrete was in fact strong enough to support the construction, but that the developer still wanted a _3 year delay_ and was not hitting their benchmarks on minority hiring or safety just tells you the way this project was going to go. Ferrovial Airports is just in over their heads - they don't appear to know how to manage a project when they don't actually own or operate the airport.

Good riddance.