DENVER | Transportation Thread

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Cheers, hadn't seen that analysis previously. I'm definitely for the improvements they plan on making, just hopeful that, given the "diet-BRT" that's going in, it wouldn't then take until 2022 to implement. I think the sooner they get it in place and see the benefits, the sooner we could see some improvements to the Broadway/Lincoln lanes as well.

I believe that the $12M slated for Broadway Corridor Multi-Modal improvements includes the 2-way cycle lane and transit improvements from Colfax to I-25. But I can't remember if both Broadway and Lincoln are going to get transit only lanes (at least along a portion of the corridor) or if it's just Lincoln. There's also Federal that will have ~$10M in funding for transit improvements as well, though this doesn't include a dedicated transit lane. So, there are three corridors (Colfax, Broadway, and Federal) that will see transit improvements up to the point that we might be able to call service along them enhanced bus at the least.

[TakeFive]

A Thousand Miles

How 'bout the first and last mile and more ordinary miles?


Photographer unknown courtesy of AustinInno

SF-Based Chariot Is Bringing Its Smart Buses to Austin's Uberless Streets
10/6/16

While Austin has plenty of transportation options, one of the biggest challenges is getting people to and from work without so much trouble they’d just as soon take a car.

On Thursday, San Francisco-based Chariot announced Austin will be their second market, beginning operations on Monday running a route from the MetroRail Downtown stop and Republic Square bus stop to West 6th market district by GSD&M and Whole Foods, then heading in the reverse at the end of the day.

“This is exactly the kind of tech-enabled transportation option that's going to give Austinites more ways to get around town in a way that will address traffic congestion,” said Mayor Adler in a release.

Chariot CEO says Ford-owned shuttle service will help alleviate Seattle’s ‘transit deserts’
June 21, 2017 BY NAT LEVY - GeekWire

Ford-owned shuttle service Chariot is launching in Seattle today. For the time being, it will focus primarily on working with big companies and other institutions to take their employees to and from work, but eventually it will branch out into a public commuting option.

I'd assume Denver is on their radar.

[TakeFive]

Moar TOD Coming


Rendering courtesy Oz Architects via Denverite

112 apartments planned near RTD’s Yale Station in University Hills
June 28, 2017 by Adrian D. Garcia - Denverite

Construction of the Yale 25 Station apartments in Denver’s University Hills neighborhood is nearing the halfway mark, putting the project on pace for early spring completion.

Rendering courtesy Greystar via 7Denver ABC

New development will bring nearly 300 apartments to Lakewood
May 31, 2017 by Kurt Sevits - 7Denver ABC

LAKEWOOD, Colo. – Construction crews will break ground Thursday on a new mixed-use development that will bring nearly 300 apartment units to Lakewood.

The development, called Oak Street Station, will be located near the intersection of West Colfax and Oak Street, a short distance from the Oak Street RTD station.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I believe that the $12M slated for Broadway Corridor Multi-Modal improvements includes the 2-way cycle lane and transit improvements from Colfax to I-25. But I can't remember if both Broadway and Lincoln are going to get transit only lanes (at least along a portion of the corridor) or if it's just Lincoln. There's also Federal that will have ~$10M in funding for transit improvements as well, though this doesn't include a dedicated transit lane. So, there are three corridors (Colfax, Broadway, and Federal) that will see transit improvements up to the point that we might be able to call service along them enhanced bus at the least.

Broadway/Half of Lincoln are going all-day exclusive lane in late August.

http://denvermovesbroadway.com/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to Phoenix they are a great FUNDING model for transportation. Denver is a totally different type of metro area so what works for Phoenix isn't appropriate for Denver and vice versa. Each city/metro area must determine what is best for themselves but it all boils down to having the necessary funding. I would point out that the (now) 26 miles of light rail in Phoenix has a ridership per mile that is right up there next to Portland's ridership so perhaps they have done this right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

What?! No!

Phoenix has a greater population than Portland and less than a third light rail miles. It is not enough to gather some numbers and put them in a ranked list. Without understanding other numbers (like population and line miles) I can see how phx light rail would seem impressive but it totally is not.

First 26 miles for a metro that size is dreadful under investment and shows a serious lack of planning. Second I would hope that a larger metro with fewer miles would look respectable when measured in trips per mile. Third To rehash the second point a smaller population is using 3 times the rail miles as a larger one aND doing so at a higher rate per mile!

Don't look to PHX for transit answers, ever. Srsly you can pretty much completely ignore PHX. Denver already has a larger system than PHX with better numbers per mile. If Denver should be looking anywhere it should be at larger cities like SF or NY that have grown while maintaining amd improving impressive ridership numbers and smaller metros like Portland and Salt Lake that are punching above their weight class. Don't look to similar sized cities with inferior transit for answers. That's dumb

Here is a better yet still not perfect ranking(PHX clocks in at less than half the trips per capita as Denver. PHX is just behind El Paso Tx, yuck)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethi...stacks-up/amp/

You seem to have significantly misread my post. It's primary point was defined by the 1st sentence and by two words: transportation and funding. Not only did you miss the 1st and most important sentence you may have missed another couple as well.

Denver is a totally different type of metro area so what works for Phoenix isn't appropriate for Denver and vice versa. Each city/metro area must determine what is best for themselves but it all boils down to having the necessary funding.

Putting aside LA's recent passage of Measure M and while Seattle and Phoenix may be very different places from each other and from Salt Lake City and Denver what they do have in common is the best ongoing funding model for transportation in their respective city/metro area in the country.

But to your comment... Cirrus, whose most recent post is on the previous page, introduced me to the concept of ridership or boardings per mile. Given that each city/metro is unique and may have a different number of LRT lines of varying length, the advantage of "ridership per mile" is that it equalizes the usage efficiency. Perhaps one reason why you don't prefer it is bcuz the numbers for both Salt Lake City and Denver kinda suck. That said, I'm not claiming that ridership per mile is the "Be All End All" way to look at transit-systems.

As my OP wasn't primarily about transit neither did it suggest that Phoenix was a model for transit. Rather Phoenix is a model for both funding and execution of a superior transportation system. It has a First in Class freeway system and LRT line that enjoys very good ridership. Given the nature of metro Phoenix they've executed what is best for them and what the voters wanted.

And No, I have no interest in looking to SF or NYC. They are not peer cities and neither is listed on my linked Wikipedia page (except for SF's streetcar) as neither even has light rail. While we all know about Portland the impressive city that you overlooked is the Twin Cities. Check out their eye-popping light rail ridership numbers or better yet check out the March article in Politico Mag by Erick Trickey.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You seem to have significantly misread my post. It's primary point was defined by the 1st sentence and by two words: transportation and funding. Not only did you miss the 1st and most important sentence you may have missed another couple as well.

Putting aside LA's recent passage of Measure M and while Seattle and Phoenix may be very different places from each other and from Salt Lake City and Denver what they do have in common is the best ongoing funding model for transportation in their respective city/metro area in the country.

But to your comment... Cirrus, whose most recent post is on the previous page, introduced me to the concept of ridership or boardings per mile. Given that each city/metro is unique and may have a different number of LRT lines of varying length, the advantage of "ridership per mile" is that it equalizes the usage efficiency. Perhaps one reason why you don't prefer it is bcuz the numbers for both Salt Lake City and Denver kinda suck. That said, I'm not claiming that ridership per mile is the "Be All End All" way to look at transit-systems.

As my OP wasn't primarily about transit neither did it suggest that Phoenix was a model for transit. Rather Phoenix is a model for both funding and execution of a superior transportation system. It has a First in Class freeway system and LRT line that enjoys very good ridership. Given the nature of metro Phoenix they've executed what is best for them and what the voters wanted.

And No, I have no interest in looking to SF or NYC. They are not peer cities and neither is listed on my linked Wikipedia page (except for SF's streetcar) as neither even has light rail. While we all know about Portland the impressive city that you overlooked is the Twin Cities. Check out their eye-popping light rail ridership numbers or better yet check out the March article in Politico Mag by Erick Trickey.

You are misinterpreting the data in this case. SL, Denver, and PHX are all growing western metros. None of them should be near the top of ridership per mile. If any one of them is it likely means that they are under investing in transit. Another way to say that is they are under funding transit. Yet another way to say it is that they are playing catch up. If a cities highways had a high number of trips per lane mile you wouldn't say that they have a well funded effecient highway system. You would say they have too few lane miles to handle their traffic.

We could look at the numbers and say that SL and Denver have over invested in light rail, that we have put in too many miles but again we are growing metros. Our populations are not static. We have built systems that not only serve our current needs but that will be able to absorb future demand. If SL or Denver were near the top of ridership per mile it would mean that we had only invested in (funded) the low hanging fruit, as PHX has done.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

You are misinterpreting the data in this case.

No, actually I was reporting transit data and its meaning; you are giving your SLC-Denver transit view/argument. That's fine; I generally hold a similar view and have made much the same arguments. That you guessed at my thinking partly bcuz you're not familiar with my previous comments and thinking is understandable.

Let me throw you a couple of curve balls. Perhaps you're aware that there are those - I'll call them transit textbook elitists - that would contend places like SLC and Denver shouldn't waste money building light rail systems as they don't have the requisite density. Growth by itself, is not a good reason if its not creating enough density. Then there's our conservative friends that will give their own reasons why investing $billions in light rail is a boondoggle.

Why this is potentially important has to do with future federal funding. In fact, there's even a smaller group that contends any future federal funding for rail transit should only go to the original/traditional Big Six transit cities. In other words if cities like SLC and Denver wish to invest in transit w/o federal funding then fine, knock yourself out, do whatever you wish.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Perhaps you're aware that there are those - I'll call them transit textbook elitists - that would contend places like SLC and Denver shouldn't waste money building light rail systems as they don't have the requisite density.

Whoa whoa whoa. Since that's a thing you like to call me, hold on a second. I have never contended that Denver shouldn't build rail. I contend that the *design* Denver has chosen for its rail system, and the half-hearted TOD zoning Denver has put in place to support it, are not the right *way* for a city like Denver to build rail.

It's an important distinction.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Whoa whoa whoa. Since that's a thing you like to call me, hold on a second. I have never contended that Denver shouldn't build rail. I contend that the *design* Denver has chosen for its rail system, and the half-hearted TOD zoning Denver has put in place to support it, are not the right *way* for a city like Denver to build rail.

It's an important distinction.

I don't believe I've ever suggested that you were an "elitist" (but may I have). Textbook biased, "yes;" if I've ever said elitist then I retract it. You're not inflexible, just (understandably) biased. There are some who are adamant by principle which is not applicable to you.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

No, actually I was reporting transit data and its meaning; you are giving your SLC-Denver transit view/argument. That's fine; I generally hold a similar view and have made much the same arguments. That you guessed at my thinking partly bcuz you're not familiar with my previous comments and thinking is understandable.

Let me throw you a couple of curve balls. Perhaps you're aware that there are those - I'll call them transit textbook elitists - that would contend places like SLC and Denver shouldn't waste money building light rail systems as they don't have the requisite density. Growth by itself, is not a good reason if its not creating enough density. Then there's our conservative friends that will give their own reasons why investing $billions in light rail is a boondoggle.

Why this is potentially important has to do with future federal funding. In fact, there's even a smaller group that contends any future federal funding for rail transit should only go to the original/traditional Big Six transit cities. In other words if cities like SLC and Denver wish to invest in transit w/o federal funding then fine, knock yourself out, do whatever you wish.

Ridership per mile is not evidence of robust funding in the same way that large classroom sizes are not evidence of robust education spending. It's just not, at all.

We can discuss the merits of light rail in places like Denver or SLC but we gotta clear that up first.

[TakeFive]

Photo: Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren, special for USA TODAY

Blockbuster expansion: Frontier to add 21 cities, 85 routes
July 18, 2017 - USA TODAY

Frontier Airlines revealed a massive route expansion Tuesday...

Frontier's biggest expansion surge will come in Denver, the carrier's hometown and biggest hub. With the move, Frontier appears to be refocusing on its Denver hub after several years of emphasizing growth elsewhere. Frontier will be adding more than 20 new destinations to its Denver flight schedule, suggesting that it's looking to funnel more connecting passengers through the airport.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Photo: Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren, special for USA TODAY

Blockbuster expansion: Frontier to add 21 cities, 85 routes
July 18, 2017 - USA TODAY

That's exciting for DIA, but I can't help but complain at how awful frontier is... I frequently fly in Asia and asian regional carriers spoil me. I paid $135 roundtrip for a SilkAir flight from singapore to Phnom Penh that I flew last week. They fed me really good food (the flight was 1h45m - delta used to not do meal service to honolulu, 6 hours) , the FA's were really nice, the airplane was clean and new, and the seats were big.

Legacy carriers have too many expenses to afford better inflight experiences, and the only thing that low cost carriers have to offer is their price. I don't know why, but its sad that US carriers haven't cracked the code for service / price. I usually fly on southwest and alaska when I can... but I made the mistake of flying on United to Singapore once lol. No IFE for 17 hours. Hopefully frontier can cut the crap with extra fees before they continue their march out into the open.

[BG918]

Nice to see Frontier adding back service at DEN. Concourse A is starting to get more crowded, maybe time for an expansion soon?

These are the new cities served:
- Buffalo
- Charleston, S.C.
- Jacksonville
- Ontario, Calif.
- Pensacola

And restoring service to the following cities:
- Albuquerque
- Boise
- Calgary
- El Paso
- Fargo
- Fresno
- Grand Rapids
- Jackson Hole
- Little Rock
- Louisville
- Oklahoma City
- Palm Springs
- Reno
- San Jose, Calif.
- Spokane
- Tulsa

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

That's exciting for DIA, but I can't help but complain at how awful frontier is... I frequently fly in Asia and asian regional carriers spoil me. I paid $135 roundtrip for a SilkAir flight from singapore to Phnom Penh that I flew last week. They fed me really good food (the flight was 1h45m - delta used to not do meal service to honolulu, 6 hours) , the FA's were really nice, the airplane was clean and new, and the seats were big.

Legacy carriers have too many expenses to afford better inflight experiences, and the only thing that low cost carriers have to offer is their price. I don't know why, but its sad that US carriers haven't cracked the code for service / price. I usually fly on southwest and alaska when I can... but I made the mistake of flying on United to Singapore once lol. No IFE for 17 hours. Hopefully frontier can cut the crap with extra fees before they continue their march out into the open.

Agreed. Frontier sucks to fly on. Constantly cancelling flights that aren't booked fully, regular delays, terrible service. The only airline that is worse is Spirit.

I brought up the fact that Frontier is a shitty airline a few months ago and SevenTwenty called me a selfish, and entitled Boulderite (even though I live in downtown Littleton now).

[twister244]

Yeah, Frontier does indeed suck. However, it's still nice to see positive economic news on the DIA front, even if it's from an airline we all despise. Best way to fly Frontier is for a nice quick weekend getaway where you know what the service is going to be like. I do like seeing Palm Springs come back.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Legacy carriers have too many expenses to afford better inflight experiences, and the only thing that low cost carriers have to offer is their price.

Yup... and to think that most have gone BK at least once and merged and they still have high legacy costs. Then there's all our legacy airports in need of $billions in upgrades/expansion which are now making those investments.

Originally Posted by BG918

Nice to see Frontier adding back service at DEN. Concourse A is starting to get more crowded, maybe time for an expansion soon?

DBJ mentions that 6 new gates will open on the A concourse later this year.

Originally Posted by Scottk

Agreed. Frontier sucks to fly on. Constantly cancelling flights that aren't booked fully, regular delays, terrible service. The only airline that is worse is Spirit.

How ya doin'? We've missed your pithy transit critiques.

[CharlesCO]

I actually think this is the golden age of air travel in this country. More people are flying than ever, fares are at their lowest point in 35 years (even adjusted for inflation *and* including ancillary fees!), and airlines are actually making money as sustainable business operations instead of barely getting by quarter-to-quarter on razor thin profit margins. DIA is within striking range of processing 60 million passengers this year with three hubbed airlines. In 1996, DIA processed half that number with little more than United as a major operation there.

I would also argue that the product offerings are better than ever too. Airlines have done a poor job of communicating to customers why fare unbundling has ultimately been good for the consumer, but there are now better options on all ends of the spectrum. Budget travelers who are willing to pack less and go with the flow can truly get a low fare from a number of airlines. On the higher end, the flat bed business class offerings from United, American, and Delta are better than ever and are very competitive with many foreign products. And there are plenty of options in the middle now, too — elevated Economy Plus/Comfort+/Premium Economy options for shorthaul and longhaul, and the fares for confirmed domestic first class have come way down. The key difference now is that if you want a better product, you have to pay a little bit for it. Rock bottom fares no longer guarantee full service with a meal that most people probably won't eat anyway. Insert some line about no such thing as a free lunch, etc. etc.

As for Frontier, most people in Denver were worried a decade ago whether Frontier would even survive. I do miss the mid 2000s era Frontier that was almost a western analogue to JetBlue, but that business model no longer worked for them in the face of a strengthening United and a fledgling Southwest operation at DIA. They had to figure something out to differentiate themselves, and after many failed attempts, they've figured out that the low fare, ultra-low-cost carrier model works for them. Denver should be so proud that we have not only a world class airport that's bursting at the seams for expansion, but we also have a healthy hometown airline that filed IPO this year, even if that airline offers a product that isn't for everyone.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Ridership per mile is not evidence of robust funding in the same way that large classroom sizes are not evidence of robust education spending. It's just not, at all.

Sorry, but that analogy went waaay over my head; I have no clue and I'm not good at all at reading people's minds.

Wait... perhaps you're overly sensitive about this:
UTA ranks well at keeping costs low — but has trouble attracting riders, according to new report
Jul 17 2017 By LEE DAVIDSON - The Salt Lake Tribune

...Bob Biles, UTA vice president of finances, who prepared the comparison as part of an annual financial report to UTA's board. "We do fall lower" on ridership, he conceded.

Ridership • UTA ranked second-worst for its bus and FrontRunner commuter-train ridership. It was a bit better on its TRAX light rail — either third or sixth worst, depending on the measure used.

TRAX attracted 3 passenger trips per mile — more than double the number on UTA bus or FrontRunner, but still below the average of 3.96 among other agencies for light rail. It was third lowest among 10 agencies compared.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Sorry, but that analogy went waaay over my head; I have no clue and I'm not good at all at reading people's minds.

Wait... perhaps you're overly sensitive about this:
UTA ranks well at keeping costs low — but has trouble attracting riders, according to new report
Jul 17 2017 By LEE DAVIDSON - The Salt Lake Tribune

Let me restate without an analogy. For simplicity's sake I will use County populations and restricte it to light rail. No commuter rail or street cars.

Maricopa County has 3.8 million residents. With the help of 80% Federal funding they built 26 miles of light rail meaning that locally they funded a little more than 5 miles of light rail. That's about 1.4 miles of light rail locally funded per million residents.

Salt Lake County has 1.1 million residents. It has 45 miles of light rail built in two stages. The first stage is 19 miles and was 80% federally funded meaning that local residents founded a little less than 4 miles. The second stage is 26 Mi and was 80% locally funded that's another 20 miles. So with 1.1 million residents Salt Lake County has funded just under 24 miles of light rail. That's about 22 miles of light rail locally funded per million residents.

That's what has been funded. Ridership per mile will not measure that.

[seventwenty]

I think my favorite thing about this thread is how easy it is to troll ScottK.