DENVER | Transportation Thread

[mhays]

I think it's a given that more people will work from home in the future. But I suspect it'll still be a relatively small percentage.

At least three new advantages from March will move things in that direction for the typical office:
--Companies have suddenly leaped their infrastructure forward, even if mostly in small and ad-hoc ways and via easy third-party services.
--Employees have tried it, and many like it.
--Sick people will be encouraged to stay home until a vaccine, but also in future years.

That said, we'll have to learn more about productivity. For the self-chosen WFH people of 2019, it apparently works in many cases but not others, as some firms have found anecdotally. For the rest of us, the jury is out. It's hard to compare today's work with 2019's. I find myself productive and efficient, but have only tried that for certain types of functions and limited online meetings.

I suspect a relatively limited number of office jobs will go all-home, but that a lot more will go to mixed models such as working from home one day a week. And a large percentage will liberalize their sick rules.

[TakeFive]

DIA CEO Kim Day wants to modify the airport's Planned Improvements


Image courtesy DIA

DIA looks to add $560M to construction contracts for accelerated renovations
May 5, 2020 By Monica Vendituoli – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

“... Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there are new opportunities to complete additional work as passenger traffic volumes are low and this will create additional efficiencies and savings by potentially accelerating additional concourse upgrades,” said a fact sheet presented during the Local Disaster Response Committee meeting.

Let's talk dollars and sense.

The $560 million total contract increase will be distributed to several firms include Dallas-based construction firm Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (NYSE: JEC) and Kansas City-based design firm HNTB Corporation. The Denver City Council will vote on the contract expansions in about two weeks... Day said the airport plans on accelerating some projects and replacing some older parts of the airport while passenger traffic remains low due to the virus. Two of these projects include the 39-gate expansion project and updates to the airport’s overall existing facilities, such as bathrooms and conveyance walkway belts.

The article talks about the 39-gate expansion which we all know about and was headed towards the finish line anyway.

“Currently, the Gate Expansion project employs 800 to 1,000 people each day, and we have successfully worked with our contractors to ensure they enforce appropriate measures to protect workers’ health and safety,” the fact sheet said.

What about the new whiz-bang baggage handling projects including bags that have been flagged for a followup inspection?

Day also said DIA’s two baggage construction projects will continue as planned. Greenwood Village-based aviation engineering firm Logplan is currently providing maintenance support and consulting services related to the projects. The $96 million project, which will improve checked bag transportation, is scheduled to be completed by June and a $150 million project to improve checked bag security should go live in August 2021.

Anything being delayed?

Day said DIA plans on “deferring lower priority projects” to after 2023 due to the pandemic. She specifically noted that the renovations to Pena Boulevard and parking lots have been temporarily suspended and that the scope of both projects is being reevaluated. Furthermore, DIA’s Great Hall project under the airport’s main hall in the Jeppesen Terminal will be “adjusted” to reflect an “extended delivery date,” though construction on Phase I of the project will continue

The plot for DIA's future thickens.

Additionally, DIA is reevaluating its broader land development plan, though specifics were not released. DIA owns 16,000 acres of land surrounding the airport.

Kim Day also confirmed that the over $2 billion in previous sold bonds/funding have to be used for the purposes stated in bond sale.

[TakeFive]

Jacob Rees-Mogg and his staff taking government advice by cycling in to parliament


Source

[TakeFive]

Rumors of a new train a comin'

One Thing Not Derailed By Coronavirus? RTD’s N Line Now ‘On Track’ To Open By September
May 20, 2020 By Nathaniel Minor - CPR

The Regional Transportation District's long-awaited N Line from downtown Denver to Thornton and Northglenn is on schedule to open in September.

"Everything is on track, pun intended, for September," Paul Ballard, RTD's interim general manager and CEO told the agency's board of directors Tuesday evening.

[TakeFive]

Will Cap Hill Bike Lanes Remove Hundreds of Parking Spaces?
JUNE 1, 2020 by Alan Prendergast - Westword

Parking frustrations in Capitol Hill may be about to multiply. Quietly, without much public discussion or buy-in from neighborhood groups, city planners are moving forward with plans for a north-south bike route through the heart of Capitol Hill; the preferred route would involve installing protected bike lanes on Washington and Clarkson streets...

"We're used to seeing protected bike lanes in the downtown business district," notes Brad Cameron, president of Neighbors for Greater Capitol Hill... Here, what we're talking about are impacts on parking for residents. In terms of the size of it, it's unprecedented."

"We've hammered on the planners to do parking surveys before they made these plans, and they've pretty much refused to do that," Schomp says.

This is a good example of - if you are a bike enthusiast, then you're plugged into planning - implementing and you express your support. If you're an ordinary Joe or Juanita who's not a bike rider, then you may be totally clueless about plans for bike lanes.

I'm generally supportive of biking and bike lanes

If you're a long-time resident of Capital Hill then such changes can be unsettling, challenging. But just as Denver has experienced lots of Gentrification in various forms, this is just one more example. For those who can't live w/o a car it's time to consider packing your bags and finding a more suitable place to live. For those who want both their car and good biking access it's not so much a problem if you can afford an apartment that provides for both.

And the beat goes on...

[TakeFive]

City, Cap Metro Commit to “Historic” Transit Expansion Plan
JUNE 12, 2020 BY MIKE CLARK-MADISON - The Austin Chronicle

On what Mayor Steve Adler dubbed "truly a historic day," the Capital Metro Board of Directors and Austin City Council unanimously adopted the Project Connect System Plan and Locally Preferred Alternatives, setting the stage for the two entities to seek funding from the Federal Transit Administration – and voter approval of local funding – for the $9.8 billion vision for transit expansion.

For all the hullabaloo, they still need to determine how they plan to fund all this as well as when to send the proposal to voters. Still the unanimity of support (so far) is impressive.

From previous discussion here, they have since converted a BRT proposed route over to another light rail route so there will be 3 instead of 2 light rail routes.

[Cirrus]

Worth noting that Austin's first rail line was an "easy" DMU line that didn't go to dense parts of the city, nor provide especially useful service. Its ridership is negligible, and when Austin proposed expanding that system with more of the same, there was basically a rebellion against it. This new plan is a reaction to that lesson, and is more along the lines of what TakeFive would describe as "textbook."

Not to say Austin and Denver are the same, although obviously I'm subtweeting previous exchanges. Austin's existing line is like an exaggerated/much worse version of the issues we've discussed about FasTracks.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Worth noting that Austin's first rail line was an "easy" DMU line that didn't go to dense parts of the city, nor provide especially useful service. Its ridership is negligible, and when Austin proposed expanding that system with more of the same, there was basically a rebellion against it. This new plan is a reaction to that lesson, and is more along the lines of what TakeFive would describe as "textbook."

Not to say Austin and Denver are the same, although obviously I'm subtweeting previous exchanges. Austin's existing line is like an exaggerated/much worse version of the issues we've discussed about FasTracks.

Used to live at the Lamar/Crestview stop on the Red Line in Austin. Even though I was 2 blocks from it, I rarely rode the train, as it was pretty much relegated to commuters who lived in Cedar Park and worked downtown. The rail itself is owned by, I think, CSX, and they still used the line at night for freight. Therefore, a late night line never happened, which would have been my one main use for it.

Trains were nice and clean though, so there's that.

[TakeFive]

Oh Boy; a chance to talk transit and trains

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This new plan is a reaction to that lesson, and is more along the lines of what TakeFive would describe as "textbook."

Not to say Austin and Denver are the same, although obviously I'm subtweeting previous exchanges. Austin's existing line is like an exaggerated/much worse version of the issues we've discussed about FasTracks.

I've re-acquainted myself with the latest, greatest Project Connect update so try to keep up.
Actually, since I'm unfamiliar with the 'lay of the land' perhaps jbssfelix can add valuable descriptions.

With the 3rd light rail line added there's now three lines covering 36 miles. If a guestimate that $7 billion (of the $10 billion) is for light rail that's a cool $195 million per mile - which isn't terrible considering Seattle is spending closer to $300 million per mile. For reference RTD built ~96 miles for less than $70 million per mile.

To be fair, Project Connect includes a 1.6 mile subway in downtown which is smart. Not unlike Seattle I suspect this a key piece.

Speaking of Seattle, Austin, like Seattle is a whole level higher than Denver. While Denver is building/planning 30-story towers Austin is building 40 to 60-story towers. FWIW, I'm less enamored by height than others; just sayin' that Austin will have awesome Big Boys and added density.

Here's the latest map. Here's the Project Connect website.

Typical of most cities the first LRT line, the Orange Line copies the busiest bus route; in that respect it's good textbook stuff. At 21 miles it may be similar to RTD's SE Corridor but (mostly) along streets so more like Phoenix which also connects two hot spots in downtown Phoenix and Tempe/ASU.

The Blue Line is more 'airport textbook' except it appears to have more of an urban component to go with the suburban component. With 22 stations over 15 miles, be sure to pack a lunch if you're going to the airport. By comparison RTD's A Line has (only) 8 stations over 22.5 miles.

The conversion of the Gold Line from BRT to light rail was presumably very smart and does appear to be highly street-based, good textbook stuff including both urban/suburban (developing) areas. It will have 15 stations over 9.5 miles.

What could go wrong?

Chances are high given the nature of the plan that they will need all of a 25% contingency which at a revised cost of $243 million per mile even sounds more realistic. But for high-brow Austin it's only money.

The other Big Problem is final determinations on how much grade separation they'll build in as apposed to stopping at the same street lights as cars. The added infrastructure costs are (obviously) a bit mind bending.

P.S. - btw, it's nice to know you're still out there....

[TakeFive]

Missed Opportunities

Technically RTD's W Line broke ground May 16, 2007 but RTD didn't receive their FFGA until Jan of 2009. Full construction with a contractor in place actually started in June of 2009.

Cirrus has often tried to bait me into "what should have been done" and with over a decade behind us it's good time for a retrospective. I still haven't detached myself from the hard realities but one major revision to FasTracks has become crystal clear. (Btw, 12 years ago I knew virtually nothing about transit)

First Priority

First priority was correctly the W Line. Since RTD-FasTracks was and is regionally funded anything outside of Arapahoe (and Denver) counties was a good idea. The Taj Mahal, the seat of Jefferson County obviously had good political pull.

I'm eternally grateful for the schooling provided by EngiNerd about how the W Line was more of a drainage project than light rail project. Even if a bit tongue-in-cheek it was useful to learn how cities take advantage of major (transit) projects to pack in other valuable infrastructure needs. It's also worth pointing out there's some mighty fine bike paths along the way.

Second Priority

The Eagle P3 project was rightly 2nd in priority. Nothing was more valuable than the 'Train to the Planes' and with the necessity to switch to Commuter Rail rolling stock, including the Gold Line and attaching the B Line to the Westminster Station (providing a slice of Adams County) made total sense.

Third Priority (should have been)

The U/S Line (for Urban Signature) running from the Civic Center down Broadway, along Speer Blvd and then along Leetsdale/Parker Rd to Iliff Ave, then east along Iliff to what is now Iliff Station. Iliff Station should have been the end of the U/S line while the H Line extended/ended at the Florida Station (instead of Nine Mile Station). For those unfamiliar the Iliff Ave segment would have included urban/suburban density.

Why this would have mattered

I eyeball a $1 billion price tag for the U/S line and H Line extension from Nine Mile Station up to the Florida Station. All this should have easily qualified for an FTA grant of ~$450 million.

Fourth Priority (should have been)

Phase Two to include the Boulder Choo Choo, the N Line and the R Line addition through Aurora.

That revision would definitely have been the Cat's Meow.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Oh Boy; a chance to talk transit and trains
jbssfelix can add valuable descriptions.

I'll see what I can do. That spine that Orange runs along is the highest density of homes to jobs in all of Austin...which is why the city got a lot of backlash for building the cheaper Red Line instead. Past Crestview going noth, there is pretty much nothing that the Red Line stops at that's worth visiting. Even Kramer Station, which stops near the Domain (think Cherry Creek on steroids), suffers from the R-Line/Anschutz effect of not being close enough to actually be useful.

Going back to the Orange Line, a lot of the pushback was due to the fact that Lamar has forever been a 5-7 lane stroad that fed thousands of cars into downtown, and people were very weary about removing two lanes for a choo choo that "nobody would take" (even though the 801 bus line that runs the same route is often packed to the gills).

Expect a ton of fighting over the Orange Line, but if it does get approved and funded, it'll be a game changer for Austin.

As for the Blue Line, it's mostly just a bone to throw to get the "build an airport line!" folks on board.

[Cirrus]

I guess you admitted this already, but I wouldn't categorize Austin as a "higher level than Denver" on much of anything. Denver beats Austin in every meaningful way to measure population or density. Austin does have taller buildings under construction currently. It's biggest asset over Denver is probably that UT is one-mile from downtown, and so gigantic.

Anyway, I appreciate your priority list. I like the Broadway/Leetsdale line, but disagree completely with leaving Colfax out to dry, and would unquestionably trade away the 225 line to get it. Other stuff, like making the W line faster, is worth talking about but maybe outside the scope of re-imagining where to put lines.

[Cirrus]

You know what, let's play the armchair re-imaging game a little more.

Here are the game parameters: Pretend we are re-planning FasTracks from start, and in so doing changed the following:

1. We build the Airport, SE, SW, and W corridors as built more or less in real life. Minor tweaks are acceptable if you want to call them out, if they're relevant to one of the other changes below.

2. We do NOT build the I-225 R line at all.

3. We DO build TakeFive's Civic Center-Broadway-Speer-Leetsdale line.

4. We DO build a Colfax line, beginning at Civic Center, running east on Colfax as light rail into Aurora.

5: We DO build a 1-mile Civic Center to Union Station subway.

Now, the questions to answer as part of the game:

Q1: Where do you end the Colfax line? Do you end it by curving north to meet the A line, south to meet Aurora Town Center or Buckley, or something else? Where do you turn off Colfax

Q2: Where do you end the Leetsdale line?

Q3: Where do you end the Civic Center-Union Station subway? At Union Station, or do you carry it into Highlands somehow?

Q4: Without changing them too much, are there any minor tweaks you'd make to lines we're keeping in order to make your new re-imagined system work better together (for example, maybe you find a way to connect the A line to the Colfax line that requires moving an A line station somewhere).

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I'll see what I can do.

Thanks that does add value.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Anyway, I appreciate your priority list. I like the Broadway/Leetsdale line, but disagree completely with leaving Colfax out to dry, and would unquestionably trade away the 225 line to get it. Other stuff, like making the W line faster, is worth talking about but maybe outside the scope of re-imagining where to put lines.

With respect to East Colfax I've thought so long and hard over it I've gotten headaches. I've had nightmares over Colfax.

But I still have to disagree and I believe that if they do BRT right, that it will do the job. I understand the historical ridership numbers but the City of Denver has never cared about East Colfax. They've even had trouble getting buy-in for BRT.

If you think about it, while East Colfax is seeing growth most of the density being added near downtown has been or will be in a different direction/area.

I'm familiar with two urban light rail projects: in Phoenix and the Twin Cities Green Line.

Phoenix light rail, originally 20 miles, had a north-south segment along with its primary east-west route. It goes between two hot spots when you consider that Tempe has 55,000 students at its main campus and now another 10,000 students in downtown Phoenix. Downtown Tempe is now where all the corporate decision makers want to be.

With respect to the Twin Cities Green Line it goes between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St Paul as well as as the University of Minnesota. East Colfax goes from the edge of downtown Denver to nowhere north Aurora.

The original I-225 route was the H Line and was built as a part of T-REX for ~$42 million per mile. The H Line has always had the best ridership of all the suburb to city lines. The SE Corridor, now with both the E and F Lines does carry more riders than the H Line extended to and ending at the Florida Station. The new Florida Station however does have the best ridership of any station with zero parking and Nine Mile Station is still one of the top three stations for ridership outside of downtown.

Yeah, they never should have built the R Line.

[The Dirt]

TakeFive sure can't answer questions directly, can he? Even if you give him a yes or no choice, instead of saying yes, he'll go off on a tangent about picking crab apples as a kid in rural Kansas or some shit. I'll bite, though.

Q1: Where do you end the Colfax line? Do you end it by curving north to meet the A line, south to meet Aurora Town Center or Buckley, or something else? Where do you turn off Colfax
- You end it 2 blocks east of Peoria at Children's. Let the development along the line mature and increase ridership then let the line extend further east with short extensions over the decades, like they did in the olden days (TakeFive can relate).

Q2: Where do you end the Leetsdale line?
Monaco or Quebec... unless you're including the part where it turns into Parker Rd. If so, extended it to 9 Mile and turn it SW into the old 225 stub line and let it continue to the Tech Center.

Q3: Where do you end the Civic Center-Union Station subway? At Union Station, or do you carry it into Highlands somehow?
End it underneath the Union Station plaza on the SE side and connect it to the building via a tunnel and have escalators exit directly onto the plaza. Highlands isn't worth the cost to tunnel under the Platte River and I-25, especially since there's not a whole lot of density along 17th street. Highlands would have to allow to much denser development for it to be worth it, otherwise it just becomes a parking/commuter station.

Q4: Without changing them too much, are there any minor tweaks you'd make to lines we're keeping in order to make your new re-imagined system work better together (for example, maybe you find a way to connect the A line to the Colfax line that requires moving an A line station somewhere).
The A line suffers from a pretty slow turn around York, where the train slows to a crawl as the wheels scrape against the tracks. Figure out a way to reroute here a little, and now knowing what we know about the crossing signal system, have the line bridge or go under more of the intersections. Peoria is decades away from being anything other than a busy transfer station. Just run a frequent bus down Peoria within a dedicated lane from the Colfax line up to the A line Peoria station. Oddly, the best parts of the R line are the parts that go right along the highway (usually a bad idea) simply because they are the straightest and allow for the most speed. The whole jog around the Aurora Town Center / Aurora grassfields and all of the turns and bends around the University make that line completely noncompetitive with the automobile.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I guess you admitted this already, but I wouldn't categorize Austin as a "higher level than Denver" on much of anything. Denver beats Austin in every meaningful way to measure population or density. Austin does have taller buildings under construction currently. It's biggest asset over Denver is probably that UT is one-mile from downtown, and so gigantic.

Anyway, I appreciate your priority list. I like the Broadway/Leetsdale line, but disagree completely with leaving Colfax out to dry, and would unquestionably trade away the 225 line to get it. Other stuff, like making the W line faster, is worth talking about but maybe outside the scope of re-imagining where to put lines.

I would agree. Austin definitely has the tech boom going for it, but it's downtown is only as tall as it is because it's core downtown acreage is more geographically limited compared to Denver (bounded by the river, and MoPac/I-35), so a lot of space tries to cram into those confines.

Denver has a lot of open land within the urban core, so there isn't as much incentive to build tall when you can still build out.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

TakeFive sure can't answer questions directly, can he?

I won't necessarily disagree but I would point out I typed my previous comment before seeing/reading Cirrus' new post.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You know what, let's play the armchair re-imaging game a little more.

Before I go there I want to make one key point.

I previously posted the data and IIRC Austin makes up over 80% of the Cap Metro district (population) so for the most part Austin residents will be funding transit.

In Phoenix, the city paid for their light rail; Tempe paid for it's portion of the original project and Mesa paid for the eastward extension into Mesa.

Minneapolis/St Paul is more fortunate in that the State has carried a lot of the financial burden.

[Cirrus]

That's relevant. I'm on board with the political necessities to give coverage to enough places to win funding. This is one of the reasons why, in our re-imagined FasTracks, I wanted to talk about where we might end the two lines that go to Aurora.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's relevant. I'm on board with the political necessities to give coverage to enough places to win funding. This is one of the reasons why, in our re-imagined FasTracks, I wanted to talk about where we might end the two lines that go to Aurora.

The Dirt is partly right in that I can't let you write All The Rules but I can come close enough.

With respect to the G (Gold) Line I would have had Phase One construction stop at Olde Town Arvada. Instead I'd add a (Phase One) segment of the N Line (only) up to 104 Ave.

From my "Third Priority" I'd still include the H Line extension to add the Iliff Station and ending at the Florida Station.

I'd still do the Parker Road to E. Iliff segment to the (new) Iliff station east of I-225.

Note: Leetsdale becomes Parker Rd at So Quebec St. which is where Denver turns into unincorporated Arapahoe County (and not Aurora) and in Cherry Creek School Dist. That area to the south called Indian Creek as well as the area east of Parker Rd has solid (urban-suburban) density. Turning east on Iliff ave (at Parker) which is Aurora, would also run through solid density whereas Parker Rd SE of Peoria St would be 7-lane light rail unfriendly.

At the end of Phase One, RTD should still have ~$1 billion to play with plus any additional FTA grants.

Next, I have RTD offer City of Denver a 50-50 split of costs for a Colorado Blvd LRT from the Colorado Station on the south up to the A Line 40th Street Station.

Similarly, RTD should offer Westminster a 50-50 cost sharing to extend the B Line up to the new Westminster downtown at U.S. 36.

[TakeFive]

FasTracks - a ten year retrospective of a visionary plan

When the N Line opens this September it will put a wrap on the FasTracks construction - for now (and forever?).

The vision of RTD's suburb to city spoke and wheel design was intended to direct future development along lines to create more TOD density instead of sprawl. (Life is what happens when you're making other plans).

With the N Line opening, downtown Denver will have six light/commuter rail spokes or routes into the city. Nobody anticipated back in the early 2000's the phenomenal development in the city's core and surrounding neighborhoods.

Is the City of Denver getting its share of benefit from FasTracks?

The short answer is "Yes, in spades". To a degree all you have to know is the A Line - train to the planes and the Denver Union Station Neighborhood.

Developers and/or the City have impressive TOD planned along all six of the routes (into downtown) with 8 stations identified for current and future intense development. More $billions of TOD projects have already been identified/planned by developers.

What's the panic?

The W Line opened in April of 2013 so 7 years ago. The A and B Lines opened in April and July of 2016 or 4 years ago; the N Line hasn't even opened yet, but soon.

Comparing Denver's transit rail system to cities with multiple times the density and rail lines that have been there for decades is a bit premature.

Denver is the heartbeat of the whole metro area

1. The four major sports teams all play in or on the edge of downtown Denver? Check!
2. The City of Denver has some amazing cultural arts facilities? Check!
3. Denver is where most of the state and city government facilities are? Check!
4. Denver downtown needs/wants to minimize vehicle traffic and parking? Check!

Your standards are not my standards

There's great value added when all parts of the metro area can access the sports and cultural facilities by rail as apposed to driving. I'm less concerned with ridership metrics (per mile) given the length of the various rail lines. With completion of FasTracks in September, give the whole system another decade before judging too harshly. I still expect more TOD to evolve along most of the lines in the suburbs as well as the city center. Much of it is already known.

The City of Denver versus RTD ??

Re-imagining RTD? That's fine; we'll wait and see. (I've ranted about the bus service enough already).

If the City of Denver wants much better transit within the City then they need to put on their Big Boy britches and plan/pay for it, just like other cities have done. Whining about RTD makes (Streetsbloggers) sound as bad as Trump who blames everybody but himself.