Denver Area Transportation Thread

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The people in Clear Creek County are. If you've followed the history of studies in the corridor, that much is obvious.

My interpretation of that is Idaho Springs is sick of feeling like the Globeville of the mountains. I never really got a sense of the county as a whole being adamantly pro-transit and anti highway.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But at what cost? It doesn't have to serve every conceivable destination. But the fewer it serves, the less benefit you get for the same cost. And like it or not, highway widening would, in effect, serve every conceivable destination.

Cost is of course a huge concern. Cost relative to capacity and the cost of how expensive/feasible it will be to add capacity after adding those toll lanes is also a concern.

If we want to get hypertechnical about it plenty of destinations in the mountains are not reachable by even road.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The simple fact is that we haven't been able to come up with a transit alternative for that corridor that isn't $10 billion-plus.

So you tell me. How much ridership do we need to justify a system that costs more than double the entire Fastracks program? Believe it or not, transportation funding is not unlimited.

I have agreed in the past we have much bigger priorities, but mountain tourism is an important aspect of the economy. I 70 congestion hurts tourism as well as taking up front rangers free time, and hurting the quality of life in the mountains.

This of course needs to be thoroughly and objectively analyzed, but I think it has enough of a potential benefit to keep moving forward.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bobg

Idaho Springs is sick of feeling like the Globeville of the mountains.

Haha, I am going to steal this if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by bobg

This of course needs to be thoroughly and objectively analyzed, but I think it has enough of a potential benefit to keep moving forward.

It sounds like we're generally on the same page. But the problem is that we've moved past analysis and selected a preferred alternative. Politics trumped analysis during the EIS process and we got yet another all-of-the-above solution with no plan for paying for it.

Which, coming full circle, is why I am glad there's this RFP out there. A fresh set of eyes can only help at this point.

(I don't trust any studies coming out of a public process in that corridor anymore. Sticking with the Globeville comparison... I expect that CDOT planners are afraid of getting shanked...with a dug up miner's axe. Or getting eco-terrorized, take your pick.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Which, coming full circle, is why I am glad there's this RFP out there. A fresh set of eyes can only help at this point.

(I don't trust any studies coming out of a public process in that corridor anymore. Sticking with the Globeville comparison... I expect that CDOT planners are afraid of getting shanked...with a dug up miner's axe. Or getting eco-terrorized, take your pick.)

I wonder how this RFP correlates, if it even does, with the unsolicited bid that Parson's submitted to CDOT last year? I can't imagine that there's no relation between the two.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You don't think widening I-70 constitutes a wicked problem?

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not at all. For a couple reasons. First, the highway widening was about one-third the cost of the train. And second, any alternative - highway, train, or a combination of the two - requires the tunnels to be widened.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't trust any studies coming out of a public process in that corridor anymore. Sticking with the Globeville comparison... I expect that CDOT planners are afraid of getting shanked...with a dug up miner's axe. Or getting eco-terrorized, take your pick.)

I think you need to take off the engineer's hat and put on the politician's. If widening the highway is a deal breaker for the communities it goes through, that is a big problem.

It's true the state could force it on them, but every time we do that there are long term consequences. When we teach the public not to trust us, every future project is harder. The whole reason our process is so dysfunctional today is that there were too many forced-upon-the-public projects a couple of generations ago. You're lamenting this terrible process we have, but proposing the exact solution that resulted in our terrible process in the first place, and will surely exacerbate it in the future.

I'm not necessarily saying your solution is wrong. Maybe it's the right one, even if every town along I-70 hates it. But I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as your mental spreadsheet wants it to be.

[bunt_q]

My politician hat says we don't do anything. Because the only thing worse than making 5,000 folks in small mountain communities angry is coming out publicly in support of a $14 billion transit solution in a statewide election. Don't forget TABOR. In Colorado, any project is going to anger roughly half the state, and we can't do much of anything without an election. Except that the highway improvements can be done incrementally, the transit can't. So my politician hat says no matter how bad the traffic is, it's a political loser to push anything big.

EDIT: I will add, though, that the lessons of the past should not lead us to allow small groups of citizens to stop any and every project that they don't like. That's called NIMBYism. Landfills, industry, and highways (LULUs) have to go someplace. We don't have to tear down whole neighborhoods of low income folks...but if you live in a narrow mountain valley, guess what, you might have to make space for transportation infrastructure for the greater public good. You think they'll complain any less when they see that the proposed train is elevated? I bet they complain plenty. That doesn't mean we should do nothing - they don't get to just wish away Front Range growth. That approach just leads to unaffordable gold plated alternatives or nothing happening at all.

[wong21fr]

Bunt, you're missing the obvious solution that's going to happen: usage fees. CDOT will toll the hell out the additional lanes that will be added and that is what is going to fund the AGS. Whatever it ends up being. Thus TABOR is avoided like the terrible, somewhat necessary, cancer that it is.

I don't look forward to I-70 in twenty years time. You're going to be looking at either a 4 hour drive to Eisenhower, or a $40 toll, and a half-assed mass transit solution that was ruined by trying to please everyone.

[Cirrus]

Oh yeah. They'll toll the ever-loving christ out of any new lanes. No doubt about it.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Haha, I am going to steal this if you don't mind.

Steal away. Odds are I read it or heard it somewhere else anyway.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It sounds like we're generally on the same page. But the problem is that we've moved past analysis and selected a preferred alternative. Politics trumped analysis during the EIS process and we got yet another all-of-the-above solution with no plan for paying for it.

Which, coming full circle, is why I am glad there's this RFP out there. A fresh set of eyes can only help at this point.

(I don't trust any studies coming out of a public process in that corridor anymore. Sticking with the Globeville comparison... I expect that CDOT planners are afraid of getting shanked...with a dug up miner's axe. Or getting eco-terrorized, take your pick.)

IIRC they did do a tier 1 PEIS and they really had potential preferred alternatives when it came to transit. Which I kind of thought opened the door to additional analysis on Tier II or in this case the RFP's. I think the RFP's are a good way to move forward on this primarily due to the unique nature of the project, and how hard it must be for CDOT to nail down an accurate cost.

So like you I am glad they went this RFP route. Like Wong I am also curious as to how this relates to the other bids on that corridor. A lot of interesting things happening behind closed doors that we can only read the tea leaves on (or get friends at CDOT drunk and hope they spill something).

[LAM]

I found this interesting article on the Next American City website about one potential disadvantage of Bus Rapid Transit if not handled correctly. It would be nice to know if the BRT to Boulder will have any kind of contractual clause to prevent it from becoming just another HOV lane. Perhaps with the stations in the highway, the way it is presently designed (I think), that will make it too costly and perhaps even unsafe to expand to allow cars.

http://americancity.org/daily/entry/...asy-to-destroy


The Shirley Highway in Northern Virginia, which gradually opened its once-exclusive bus lanes to cars. Credit: Aaron Landry on Flickr

[bunt_q]

Umm, the BRT is planned to be shared with HOVs and the stations are not on the mainline highway.

It's all part of the US 36 camel.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Umm, the BRT is planned to be shared with HOVs and the stations are not on the mainline highway.

It's all part of the US 36 camel.

The photo below from RTD's BRT line at Fastracks looks pretty much like it's in the mainline. They also have route animations that show the BRT line stays in the mainline. If it isn't a dedicated line than it really isn't BRT, it's HOV. I couldn't find anything on the Fastracks page indicating that the BRT would allow vehicle traffic. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. I just couldn't find it. Although, the slip ramp project that is presently ongoing - as to what that is for and how it affects this - is confusing to me.


RTD BRT Visualization, Artist Unknown

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by LAM

I found this interesting article on the Next American City website about one potential disadvantage of Bus Rapid Transit if not handled correctly.

I wrote that. Check the byline.

[bunt_q]

That's the new BRT. Not what's part of original Fastracks. I'll believe it when I see it. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a real fan of real BRT. But if we're going to insist on wasting money on a duplicative rail line, we *should* open it up as a HOT lane.)

Nice work Dan. Making us CU planner types proud!

[LAM]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I wrote that. Check the byline.

Nice article Cirrus Dan :-) I bookmarked that website to keep up with it.

Bunt: I am so confused on what they are doing on the Boulder line and apparently so is RTD. They say it's BRT on their web site yet they are adding slip lanes and HOV lanes now. I agree that the redundancy of two lines seems to be a little silly at first glance, but then again, that part of town might actually get enough stations to make it more transit oriented. After all, if we want to make a dent in the transit situation, Fastracks would be just the start.

[SnyderBock]

It was originally supposed to be BRT. However, after budget constraints, it was reduced to nothing more than an enhanced Rapid Bus Line. If the new sales tax is passed, RTD has said it would expand the system into a true BRT system. However, US36 would obviously have to be the BRT spine, with the other elements being feeder lines. The problem with this theory, is that RTD has not indicated at all, that US36 would ever have dedicated bus lanes with on-line elevated stations. Nor have they indicated that any elements of the proposed BRT system would be BRT. It's more of a proposed Enhanced Rapid Bus System. Not the same thing. BRT is a rail line, using rubber tire buses in place of trains.

[bunt_q]

That's not entirely true, the new deal does have BRT being built by 2020, we're just not entirely sure yet how BRT-ish it'll look. If you look at the new animations on the Fastracks page, the station locations all still look to be on the ramps or on new slip ramps. So I guess it depends on how you define BRT.

I do enjoy these maps, not sure if anybody has posted this yet:



I think something will have to give. I can't imagine 22 buses per hour moving quickly up and down the McCaslin off ramps.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by LAM

The photo below from RTD's BRT line at Fastracks looks pretty much like it's in the mainline. They also have route animations that show the BRT line stays in the mainline. If it isn't a dedicated line than it really isn't BRT, it's HOV. I couldn't find anything on the Fastracks page indicating that the BRT would allow vehicle traffic. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. I just couldn't find it. Although, the slip ramp project that is presently ongoing - as to what that is for and how it affects this - is confusing to me.


RTD BRT Visualization, Artist Unknown

That would be what I'd call BRT. But instead, it's going to be shared lanes (HOV/HOT lanes) with automobiles. From what I can tell, buses will have to leave the dedicated lanes, merge across all free lanes, exit on the ramp and pull off the highway to the station. I don't see how this can be upgraded to the full BRT plan originally visualized for US36, unless the HOV/HOT lanes are converted in to pure dedicated BRT lanes. Only then, will buses be able to have stations in the actual dedicated lanes (without leaving the highway via exit ramps), without having HOV/HOT automobile traffic pilling up behind the buses when they stop at each station.

[bunt_q]

Or you have a passing lane at the stations. I don't particularly think a BRT lane has to be exclusive to work. I think HOT would work just fine -if it's getting too crowded, you simply adjust the pricing. The weaving/exiting., however, *is* a problem.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

That would be what I'd call BRT. But instead, it's going to be shared lanes (HOV/HOT lanes) with automobiles. From what I can tell, buses will have to leave the dedicated lanes, merge across all free lanes, exit on the ramp and pull off the highway to the station. I don't see how this can be upgraded to the full BRT plan originally visualized for US36, unless the HOV/HOT lanes are converted in to pure dedicated BRT lanes. Only then, will buses be able to have stations in the actual dedicated lanes (without leaving the highway via exit ramps), without having HOV/HOT automobile traffic pilling up behind the buses when they stop at each station.

Agreed, but, we are in the middle of hard economic times...

The keys, IMO, to sharing bus lanes with POVs would be:

A) The POVs should pay a toll to share the lanes.*

B) near stations, the left lane in each direction, should be for buses only. Therefore platforms should be the center of the dedicated lanes, not on each side as shown in the illustration posted by LAM. If the dedicated bus line is to be 2 lines wide, the roadway needs to be 4 lanes wide at stations.** The inner 2 lines should be seperated from the outer lane by concrete blocks.

C) More economic designs will be very noisy for the waiting passenger- but that would be the inevitable consequence of sharing roadway with POVs.

D) No trucks with axle weights over X should be able to use the toll way- cars and pickups only

*Toll road exits and entrances should not be at or near BRT stations. Entry/exit ramps should be of the "H" pattern, with the East West leg part of an overpass. Tolls should be flat rate, and, yes, use people to collect too.

**6 lanes combined width would be even better, as the POVs could then pass one another going through BRT stations.

Becoming a poorer nation does not mean that public transit solutions cannot be developed that work for the future. Rather than worry about metro-Denver's place in the world (hey, in the 21st Century world we're small potatoes), concentrate instead on practical solutions based on what has already been done in poorer countries.

[SnyderBock]

Tolls should be flat rate, and, yes, use people to collect too.

Well what the hell does that have to do with it? If tolls are a flat rate, it would be very simple to automate the tolling system and reduce overhead.


Other than that, I more or less agree. Platforms should be in middle. Passing lanes would be needed for non-bus traffic in the controlled access lanes. This would require using more of the existing free lanes ROW, which in return would likely require adding a new free lane in each direction to the shoulders of US36, which in turn would require all bridges to be reconstructed to be longer. Any bridges being rebuilt now, should take this into account. Any pedestrian bridges being constructed now, should also have long enough spans, to accommodate this possible future widening.