DENVER | Transportation Thread

[SnyderBock]

Keep in mind, the alignments are not perfect, just rough estimates. ^

[blm3034L!fe]

Is that map accurate? Or is this a forumer proposed map? Just curious? Either way it looks great! I am so freaking excited about Denver's Future I don't think any other US City is expecting the volume of improvments that Denver has coming in the Future. At least not at this time. Not only the Light Rail and Union Station, but also the Developments of towers is truly impressive.


IMHO The best part is Denver currently is ahead of the Nation our unemployment and job loss is realtively low, the City still press's on with development and we will soon have under construction a multi Billion dollar urban lightrail system that until now has been unheard of that is UC! All of these factors will help to propell Denver above and beyond the rest of the Nation in quality of life and corporation relocation interests, as well as population increase, more tax rev, not to mention MORE URBAN DEVELOPMENTS!!!

DAMN I LOVE DENVA!!!

[SnyderBock]

It's an RTD map I made alterations to, to show my ideas for delivering the NW Corridor as promised to voters, at a more efficient cost and higher ridership. As promised, it incorporates both commuter rail (EMU instead of DMU which is a positive change) and BRT and it keeps Longmont in mind by keeping the Express bus service which runs straight south to Denver active and adds a fast BRT route from Longmont to Boulder and all the way south the Broomfield.

It kind of makes Boulder a mini-transit hub for it's micro metro region, but while still connecting it efficiently to the greater Denver metro area mass transit system.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by electricron

Dallas's Dart and Fort Worth's T are also looking at ordering FRA complaint DMUs in the near future for the ex-Cotton Belt Line. So, it's not like RTD will be stepping out on a limb alone.

I don't have the slightest idea how busy the rail line to Boulder is. If it's not too busy, like one or two local trains a day, BNSF may allow temporal separation. If there's through freights on this line, forget it. I just wanted to point out that Colorado Railcar wasn't the only possible manufacture for that type of train.

Interesting. Where do you find all this great info? How definite are the plans of these other transit agencies? Sounds like their orders could really save the NW corridor.

[SnyderBock]

My plan could also save it. My alterations would make it likely eligible for Federal funding. Even if it doesn't get any Federal funding, my plan will be more cost effective than the current plan, imho.

[blm3034L!fe]

Nice I like it Snyder, good work my friend, I cannot wait until the construction starts up on Union Station. OMG 10 years from now Denver is going to be a whole new and improved City!!!

[SnyderBock]

Here, I will delete the revised plan from tha bottom of last page and post it here, so no one confuses it with the first plan I posted. This is the updated version reflecting your own feedback:

Okay, I took in everyone's input on my new plan for the NW Corridor and tweaked it to reflect that input. Let me make some points which may help to interpret the map:

1.) The US-36 BRT no longer goes farther south than the Broomfield Station. BRT end-of-line stops are in Broomfield, Louisville and Longmont and all feed into Boulder.

2.) Express Buses from Longmont will continue to run straight south. The existing stop near Erie will remain. There will also still be the stop in Lafayette from which the route goes west a short distance to Louisville where it will share a station with the Commuter Rail and end-of-line BRT from Boulder. From there the Express Bus route continues south to US-36 and the Broomfield Commuter Rail stop.

3.) Between Broomfield and federal Heights, the Commuter Rail follows US-36 ROW and the Express Bus route from Longmont runs down existing US-36 lanes (possible Bus/HOV lanes in future).

4.) From this point, the Commuter Rail goes back to the freight railroad ROW and the Longmont Express Bus runs down the US-36 HOV lanes to I-25.

5.) At US-36 & I-25, in highway ROW there is a Regional Express Bus Hub/Transfer Station. From this point, express buses can be taken north up I-25, northwest to Longmont, south to Denver Union Station and southeast to Montbello & Smith Road Commuter Rail Station serving the East Line to DIA. This station is totally optional.

6.) The north I-25 Express Buses would operate only a few times a day, during peak times. However, there would be feeder buses also operating from these I-25 park-n-Rides which would run south on I-25 to a point where they would turn east and end at a North Corridor Commuter Rail station. These would be feeder buses for the North Corridor Commuter Rail and would operate all day on 15-30 minutes headways (for timed transfers with the commuter trainstrains).

7/) Both the North Corridor and NW Corridor Commuter Rail Lines would be EMU. In the NW Corridor, by ending the BRT at the Broomfield stop and diverting the EMU into the US-36 ROW, the route is shortened. Also by ending it in Downtown Boulder instead of Longmont, the route is significantly shorter.


Here it is!

[electricron]

Whereas I would normally suggest rail is a better option than bus if there's enough passengers, sometimes bus is better and most often cheaper.

What's are the possibilities the FTA will full fund either NW corridor project in the New Starts program? It's been my experience that the FTA will not fund two projects in a MSA at the same time, much less in the same corridor; the RTA will have to choose one project or the other to proceed first.

Which project does RTA have programed first?

Looking at Google Earth, US 36 is 6 lanes to US 287, and 4 lanes the rest of the way into Boulder, with no median at all in the entire ROW. I don't see room to build a rail line because there is no median, at all.

The FRA and FHA require 35 feet clearance at grade between the centerline of a rail line and highways. Check out the clearances New Mexico's Railrunner has on I 25 approaching Santa Fe, and check out Amtrak's clearances in Austin on SH 1. Therefore, at a minimum, one would need a 75 feet wide median for a rail line, or build the rail line the entire route at different grades, either as an elevated guideway or as a subway.

I suggest the only thing you'll possibly see on US 36 is HOV Express lanes, which only require an additional 12 to 14 feet per lane beyond what the existing highway uses. That can be attained fairly cheaply by adding the additional lanes on the outer edges of the existing highway.

Maybe that's why RTD didn't place the commuter rail line down US 36 in the first place.

To add, commuter trains often run only during the am and pm rush hours, although they can run all day usually with much larger headways. An Express Bus can run all day in the new lanes too.

If you're looking at capital funding shortages, like RTD is, building the more expensive option now maybe is too expensive. RTD should be looking at building the cheaper lines first.

[Teshadoh]

snyder - meant to ask before but why do you choose Twin Peaks Mall in Longmont as the terminus? Longmont has been planning on redeveloping the area where the proposed commuter station near downtown is.

I understand for Denverites that believe suburbs & exurbs like Longmont are the antithesis of urbanism. But don't completely write them off - many can capitalize off of transit just as Denver can with new urbanism. Just suggesting you reconsider the cnynical Longmont terminus at the largely abandoned mall (though there are some proposals for redevelopment) for a proper downtown terminus (there are people - like me - that live near the town center of suburbs & exurbs).

[SnyderBock]

I didn't choose anything. I simply used the station already on the map. I don't know if its Twin Peaks or Downtown and it doesn't really matter which one it is. Downtown is fine as far as I am concerned.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by electricron

Whereas I would normally suggest rail is a better option than bus if there's enough passengers, sometimes bus is better and most often cheaper.

What's are the possibilities the FTA will full fund either NW corridor project in the New Starts program? It's been my experience that the FTA will not fund two projects in a MSA at the same time, much less in the same corridor; the RTA will have to choose one project or the other to proceed first.

Which project does RTA have programed first?

Looking at Google Earth, US 36 is 6 lanes to US 287, and 4 lanes the rest of the way into Boulder, with no median at all in the entire ROW. I don't see room to build a rail line because there is no median, at all.

The FRA and FHA require 35 feet clearance at grade between the centerline of a rail line and highways. Check out the clearances New Mexico's Railrunner has on I 25 approaching Santa Fe, and check out Amtrak's clearances in Austin on SH 1. Therefore, at a minimum, one would need a 75 feet wide median for a rail line, or build the rail line the entire route at different grades, either as an elevated guideway or as a subway.

I suggest the only thing you'll possibly see on US 36 is HOV Express lanes, which only require an additional 12 to 14 feet per lane beyond what the existing highway uses. That can be attained fairly cheaply by adding the additional lanes on the outer edges of the existing highway.

Maybe that's why RTD didn't place the commuter rail line down US 36 in the first place.

To add, commuter trains often run only during the am and pm rush hours, although they can run all day usually with much larger headways. An Express Bus can run all day in the new lanes too.

If you're looking at capital funding shortages, like RTD is, building the more expensive option now maybe is too expensive. RTD should be looking at building the cheaper lines first.

US-36 is 4 lanes from Federal down to Boulder. The additional 2 lanes that you see are actually extended off-ramps that turn into on-ramps at the next exit. The area past 287 is not a problem as there is plenty of room to expand, granted the bridges get upgraded. The 287/Wads bridge over US-36 is very old and there are plans to replace it. Same goes for the Sheridan bridge. The other major bridges: 92nd Ave, Westminster Blvd, and Church Ranch/104th are fairly new and have room to expand. There is plenty of room to move the lanes out to create a wider center median. As a side note, today, I noticed that a couple of the side tracks for the freight line have been removed.

the biggest problem with putting down a train along US-36 (something that I would strongly be in favor of) is the lack of expansion in the Federal Heights area. The bridges there are narrow and the highway is right up against residential neighborhoods. Expansion in this area would have to happen at the expense of either a lane of traffic or with the use of imminent domain. There is plenty of room for highway widening from Sheridan down to Foothills/S. Boulder Rd. in Boulder.

[SnyderBock]

I don't know if this matters, bu on the map I threw together, the commuter rail line would go along railroad ROW until at about or just after the Federal Heights area station.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I don't know if this matters, bu on the map I threw together, the commuter rail line would go along railroad ROW until at about or just after the Federal Heights area station.

That's a pretty good plan actually, as the freight rail corridor veers within a hundred feet of US-36 right before the Sheridan bridge. It should not be too difficult in veering the commuter rail line away from the freight corridor where it crosses Sheridan, have it move along Sheridan, create a stop at the Westminster mall (future TOD redevelopment already), and then continue along US-36 along the west edge of the highway.



Next, the line can follow US-36 and rejoin the freight corridor at Lower Church Lake and continue all the way down the freight corridor. Instead of being locked into the freight corridor, I would rather continue down the US-36 ROW on either side of the highway (purple line).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

That's a pretty good plan actually, as the freight rail corridor veers within a hundred feet of US-36 right before the Sheridan bridge. It should not be too difficult in veering the commuter rail line away from the freight corridor where it crosses Sheridan, have it move along Sheridan, create a stop at the Westminster mall (future TOD redevelopment already), and then continue along US-36 along the west edge of the highway.



Next, the line can follow US-36 and rejoin the freight corridor at Lower Church Lake and continue all the way down the freight corridor. Instead of being locked into the freight corridor, I would rather continue down the US-36 ROW on either side of the highway (purple line).

Having checked Google Earth again, what's wrong with following the railroad ROW the entire way?
The maximum distance it strays from US 36 is a mile or so. It'll be far cheaper for RTD to remain in the RR ROW. Since there isn't much density, EMUs/DMUs should suffice.

I believe you'll find the reason it strays is to avoid grades. While passenger trains can take higher grades than freight trains, they still operate more efficiently, ie burn less energy, if they keep to the lower grades.

As an example of potential costs, TXDOT made two studies for building a possible passenger rail line around or through Austin. The estimated costs for building new double track railroad line for 80 miles in the median of a new turnpike ran $2.1 Billion. The estimated costs for double tracking an refurbishing an existing single track railroad line for 250 miles ran $1.2 Billion. Get my drift

Three times total miles for half the costs. RTD has financial problems, your suggestion isn't the way out of it.

Here's my solution for saving capital on the NW Corridor. Make US 36 a turnpike again, the tolls collected allows the turnpike authority to sell bonds to rebuild the highway to 6 lanes. RTD spends nothing on the highway. RTD builds the commuter railroad line using DMUs. Austin's CapMetro will be launching DMU commuter rail service on its 31 mile Red Line in March for around $120 million capital costs. All the tracks were refurbished or replaced as needed to maintain Class 4 (79 mph) speeds. Eventually, after the present RTD capital pinch has pass, RTD could electrify the route and buy EMUs with an additional expenditure of $100 million ($2 to $3 million per mile plus new train sets). The DMUs bought now can later be used on a new rail project or used to lengthen the EMU trains if their 30 year life hasn't expired.

[The Dirt]

I understand your point, and I can agree with you on the cost savings. The above was just an illustration of how the commuter rail can be moved in certain spots to serve the same exact stops as the BRT - thus making the BRT redundant and unnecessary. Although, probably not the cheapest, a commuter rail along US-36 with no BRT service is the most "attractive" option for me.

[SnyderBock]

Remaining in the Railroad ROW the entire distance increases the length of the line considerably. Plus the railroad companies are asking prices for their ROW which are several time greater than their value. RTD can not use eminent domain on that railroad ROW. Along US-36, RTD can use eminent domain to acquire necessary ROW.

So it both shortens the route length (reducing cost) and it limits expensive railroad ROW needed, maximizing affordable US-36 ROW usage.

[diablo234]

This might sound like a pipe dream, but does anyone else think that RTD should extend the commuter rail line via a tunnel to downtown Boulder. According to Google Earth it is only about 1.61 Miles plus it would probably increase ridership estimates since it would serve a wider area with more pedestrian traffic.

[SnyderBock]

If Boulder comes up with the money for it and wants RTD to do it,... sure.

[Teshadoh]

Snyder - thanks for clarifying that, my apologies for misunderstanding.

But electricon brought up a good point about railroad grade. Has anyone considered how a train is going to handle the hill between Superior & Boulder? Obviously the grade isn't bad enough that a freeway can't handle, but what are the limits with trains?

[Octavian]

The R2C2 (to move the CML to the Eastern Plains) study comes out on Thursday

Time Flies and Drinks Flow on German High-Speed Rail

from Wired: Autopia by Dave Demerjian

Germany's high-speed rail system whisks passengers around the country at more than 186 mph, providing a convenient and cost-effective alternative to driving and flying. It's fast, it's efficient and many rail advocates say it's an excellent model for high-speed rail in America.

At the heart of the system is nine north-south lines and three main east-west lines with tributaries serving destinations that include Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Zurich and Innsbruck. Shuttle-like "sprinter" services connects major business routes like Frankfurt-Berlin and Koln-Munchen, making it easy to go almost anywhere by rail.

The system is widely considered on-par with the Shinkasen in Japan and TGV in France. A recent trip to Europe provided an opportunity to see what train travel on the Continent is like and whether it lives up to the hype.

For the journey, I bought a $160 round trip ticket between Munich and Vienna, leaving on a Thursday afternoon and returning on a Saturday. The trip started at Munich’s giant Hauptbahnhof (train station), a cosmopolitan whirlwind of rushed passengers, indecipherable overhead announcements, and frantic energy.
There were issues right off the bat.

Instead of a sleek, streamlined marvel of German engineering was a dirty red train that looked like it had been built pre-unification. Nothing at all about it said "high speed." I wondered if this dumpy little train was going to make it to Austria.



Turns out the first leg of the trip would be on a Regionalbahn (RB) train before connecting to the high speed line in the town of Plattling. As plain as it is, the RB is the workhorse of the German rail system, called the Deutsche Bahn (DB). Thousands of the sturdy, if unsexy, cars cross-cross the country. Although my particular car was filthy and the woman across the aisle kept spitting into a cup, the ride was comfortable.

But I was stressed out about my connection, which my ticket indicated I would have four minutes to make. Visions of a mad dash through the station filled my head, but the conductor told me not to worry. The high-speed train that would carry me to Vienna was literally five steps across the platform where my dirty little RB pulled in, a perfect example of German organization and efficiency.

If the Regionalbahn is the Wal-Mart of German rail, the high speed Intercity Express (aka ICE), is Nordstrom. I booked the cheapest ticket I could find ($160) but found myself in 1 Klasse, or first class. It puts the airlines to shame, what with the plush leather seats, oak tables, high ceilings, and sparkling glass doors. A little voice inside my head thought it was a bit extreme, but it was quickly drowned out by a uniformed Deutsche Bahn attendant politely asking if I'd care for a drink and offering a selection of complimentary newspapers. Later, I was served a meal on real china with proper flatware.



The experience underscored how miserable air travel can be. I had plenty of space for my bulky bag, and the legroom - imagine that! legroom! - was like nothing I've experienced on a commercial flight. The experience was calming and relaxing, with passengers whiling away the time reading, tapping away at laptops, or sleeping in comfortable reclining seats. A glowing sign at the front of the car informed us of our speed and arrival time. For the next five hours I glided through Germany and into Austria on the smoothest, quietest train I’ve ever experienced, sipping German beer in frosty glasses most of the way.

DB runs five models of high-speed train on its Intercity Express routes, and I was on a Siemens-built model called the ICE T. It's a newer model with a narrower nose and sleeker look than its predecessors. The ICE T shares much of its underlying technology with Siemens older models, the first of which went into service in 1991, but adds tilting capabilities into the mix so the trains can serve corridors not originally designed for high speed trains. Siemens says ICE T trains can tilt into curves up to 8 degrees, cutting the time of some journeys by up to 20 percent. A seven car unit has an AC 15 kV/16.7 Hz power system, weighs 366 tons, and can reach speeds of up to 230 kph (142 mph). Other trains and other lines can reach speeds of 186 mph.



Unfortunately, we didn't get close to that kind of speed. I talked the engineer into letting me join him for a few minutes. He told me that although he'll push the ICE T to about 136 mph on an 80 mile stretch of track linking Wurzburg and Frankfurt, the Munich-to-Vienna run tops out at 98 mph. That was disappointing, but looking out that front window, the world still seemed to be flying by pretty quickly.

You can argue that a fast train doesn't necessarily mean a fast trip. The five hours ride from Munich to Vienna would have taken three and a half in a car and about four in a plane if you account for the time it takes to get to the airport and make your way through security. But with gas going for about $8 a gallon in Germany and airfare only getting more expensive, it seems tough to beat riding the rails.

Such a system would be great in the United States, particularly west of the Mississippi River. It would provide an efficient, affordable means of getting around and help ease mounting strain on our airports and highways.

Five hours on the Intercity Express, and I’m a believer.

(Videos if you follow the link)