HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10741  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2017, 8:26 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
QUESTION: Does anybody (ie PLANSIT) know if RTD ever calculated or has figures for how much it cost on average per parking space at Park n Rides for both surface lots and garage parking?


RTD Makes Request To Start G Line Testing Again
September 18, 2017 By Jamie Leary - CBS4 Denver

Nice coverage and video by Jamie Leary at CBS4.

Since this is a first of its kind system means decisions are precedent setting according to RTD's Nate Currey. Therefor the FDA wants to make sure this isn't just Opioids in disguise. Who knows what the FRA is doing or thinking? The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is checking the first three crossings now.
Typical industry standard around Colorado is around $3,000 - $4,000 per space on a surface lot, and $15,000 - $17,000 for above grade structured parking. It can double that for below grade levels.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10742  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 1:25 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,025
EngiNerd... Appreciate the feedback. I'll assume that RTD likely managed the lower part of those numbers, maybe even less given their timing.

One reason why I was curious goes to a recent article about the escalation of new garage parking costs in Seattle to now about $118,000 a space, at least in one case. When the recession hit they postponed building a promised garage facility and made the mistake of not at least acquiring the land. Now everything has doubled in cost. Seattle is high on everything at this point though.

A second reason is articles often pop up on StreetsBlog about parking not worth the price, yada yada. Since with me context is everything and everything is local I became curious what RTD might have paid - so thanks again.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10743  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 3:18 AM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is offline
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/26...ty-light-rail/

Colorado Cross Disability Coalition chalks up another win for the forgotten and oppressed.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I ride the train 4 days a week and have seen disabled people in the aisle maybe once. This is a 64 seat reduction per 4 car train. That is insane.

Thing that really bothers me about this is that with the new setup there is barely any more space for wheelchairs then there was before.

Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10744  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 11:44 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
This is absolutely ridiculous. I ride the train 4 days a week and have seen disabled people in the aisle maybe once. This is a 64 seat reduction per 4 car train. That is insane.

Thing that really bothers me about this is that with the new setup there is barely any more space for wheelchairs then there was before.

Unbelievable.
I think it's great. We already have child-sized transit vehicles with aisles that where two people literally can not pass each other; it slows the whole process down unnecessarily. These are not the trains of a real city. Fewer seats is exactly what they need.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10745  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 1:58 PM
mojiferous mojiferous is offline
Landbarge Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
I think it's great. We already have child-sized transit vehicles with aisles that where two people literally can not pass each other; it slows the whole process down unnecessarily. These are not the trains of a real city. Fewer seats is exactly what they need.
I was thinking this very thing when trying to push past people to get on a train and seeing that there were a bunch of double seats that were taken by single travelers - people with luggage heading to the A, random yuppie manspreaders, weird stinky crackheads...
It's made worse because the only places to stand where you aren't annoyingly close to people sitting AND blocking the aisle is the 4 spots in the middle of the train or right in front of the doors.

I'm amazed that they haven't removed all the seats and just put in benches on the sides - it's how every subway in the world packs more people into a train car.
__________________
Mojferous Industries
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10746  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 6:13 PM
seventwenty's Avatar
seventwenty seventwenty is offline
I took a bus pic, CIRRUS
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Soon to be banned
Posts: 1,678
Here's how the Berlin S-Bahn does disabled seating:


Source

Note that the are spring-loaded seats flip up when not in use. It's great because the seats stay out of the way for people with luggage, bikes, wheelchairs, baby carriages, and yuppies who get irritated easily.


Berlin is updating their S-Bahn trains, so this will be the new look.



Video source.
__________________
The happy & obtuse bro.

"Of course you're right." Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10747  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 9:14 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
EngiNerd... Appreciate the feedback. I'll assume that RTD likely managed the lower part of those numbers, maybe even less given their timing.

One reason why I was curious goes to a recent article about the escalation of new garage parking costs in Seattle to now about $118,000 a space, at least in one case. When the recession hit they postponed building a promised garage facility and made the mistake of not at least acquiring the land. Now everything has doubled in cost. Seattle is high on everything at this point though.

A second reason is articles often pop up on StreetsBlog about parking not worth the price, yada yada. Since with me context is everything and everything is local I became curious what RTD might have paid - so thanks again.
$100k+ per stall is completely absurd, especially for a big garage. The most I have ever seen was on The Hill in Boulder where a small multi-story below grade parking garage was being proposed below a new apartment building, which was going to be around $60k per stall. This was mainly due to the inefficiency (area per parking stall) of the site to accommodate parking layouts and because the garage was being built below the water table.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10748  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 10:20 PM
ddvmke ddvmke is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 69
Not sure if this technology was ever talked about in the forum, but I want to throw a new idea! into the ring for Colfax BRT (and Broadway for that matter)

Streetcar capacity with BRT cost and zero vehicle emissions? I like the sound of that. And the fact that it only needs 10 minutes to charge for a 15 mile run means vehicles could do the ~11 mile segment from I-25 to Anschutz/I-225 (and Elyria/Swansea to Englewood Station) with 12 minute (or fewer with an extra tram in each direction) headways and still leave cushion for people's battery range anxiety. Obviously the technology is totally unproven and I'm just dreaming here, but if it works out in Zhuzhou...maybe it could be worth a look in our transit cash strapped city to get the capacity and permanence of rail stations without the added cost of in road utility and rail/paving costs?
__________________
-----------------------

Denver - City by the bay!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10749  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 11:23 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
This is absolutely ridiculous. I ride the train 4 days a week and have seen disabled people in the aisle maybe once. This is a 64 seat reduction per 4 car train. That is insane.

Thing that really bothers me about this is that with the new setup there is barely any more space for wheelchairs then there was before.

Unbelievable.
I've only got this to say about that...

(Although it can go both ways but more typically) is it any wonder why Republicans complain about our over-regulated society? Talk about unintended consequences or maybe I should say those who use and abuse well-intended regs to an unnecessary extreme. Why? Because they can.

And isn't that a lot of what got Trump elected? Lot's of people not a member of some special interest class asking "Who's looking out for me; who cares about my life and my challenges?" Not supporting anybody here, just making an observation.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10750  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2017, 11:48 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke View Post
Not sure if this technology was ever talked about in the forum, but I want to throw a new idea! into the ring for Colfax BRT (and Broadway for that matter)

Streetcar capacity with BRT cost and zero vehicle emissions? I like the sound of that. And the fact that it only needs 10 minutes to charge for a 15 mile run means vehicles could do the ~11 mile segment from I-25 to Anschutz/I-225 (and Elyria/Swansea to Englewood Station) with 12 minute (or fewer with an extra tram in each direction) headways and still leave cushion for people's battery range anxiety. Obviously the technology is totally unproven and I'm just dreaming here, but if it works out in Zhuzhou...maybe it could be worth a look in our transit cash strapped city to get the capacity and permanence of rail stations without the added cost of in road utility and rail/paving costs?
I had posted the video that's with that article some time back as well as featuring the Proterra zero emissions buses that use the same 10-minute recharge enroute and is well-tested and collecting lots of orders. A good post and good idea just the same.

One thing I notice with this Chinese version, which is more train-like, is that the batteries are on top as opposed to the Proterra bus. That would allow for low-floor, all-door boarding for example.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10751  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 6:57 AM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is offline
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
I think it's great. We already have child-sized transit vehicles with aisles that where two people literally can not pass each other; it slows the whole process down unnecessarily. These are not the trains of a real city. Fewer seats is exactly what they need.
I do not think this is great. 90% of the time these trains are not running at capacity, so the aisles being full is not an issue.

There is no way I can consider a 64 seat reduction for a minor improvement in accessibility an improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10752  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 11:17 AM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
I do not think this is great. 90% of the time these trains are not running at capacity, so the aisles being full is not an issue.

There is no way I can consider a 64 seat reduction for a minor improvement in accessibility an improvement.
They typical thought laziness on this board that would have someone whine about accommodating certain populations while simultaneously noting the seats given up to accommodate them weren't needed because of capacity shortfalls is why my posts are years apart now.
__________________
Denver - ".....Like every other city."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10753  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 2:13 PM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 973
Does anyone have a description of the new layout vs old?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10754  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 3:17 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,276
The thought-laziness I'm thinking of is my city being required to spend $300,000,000 on handicapped ramps on existing sidewalks, while large sections of the city (post annex) don't have sidewalks at all. Accessibility for a few, while 200,000 people can't walk safely at all...which could be probably 30% solved if the money went to that, or probably 100% solved on arterials.

It's actually laws taking precedence over public benefit. But thought laziness and a screwy system got us there.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10755  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 4:34 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
They typical thought laziness on this board that would have someone whine about accommodating certain populations while simultaneously noting the seats given up to accommodate them weren't needed because of capacity shortfalls is why my posts are years apart now.
Well. We can't all be brain-surgeon-smart. Good to see your name pop up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10756  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 4:36 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
The thought-laziness I'm thinking of is my city being required to spend $300,000,000 on handicapped ramps on existing sidewalks, while large sections of the city (post annex) don't have sidewalks at all. Accessibility for a few, while 200,000 people can't walk safely at all...which could be probably 30% solved if the money went to that, or probably 100% solved on arterials.

It's actually laws taking precedence over public benefit. But thought laziness and a screwy system got us there.
Oh, I really enjoy when a house on a corner lot in my neighborhood gets scraped, and the builder is required to put in a new ADA ramp at the corner. But is not required to put in sidewalks. So there's a ramp up on to the grass. That just happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10757  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 4:49 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,804
The discussion wasn't whether money could also or better have been spent to link wheelchair accessible ramps and other ADA compliant features of the city. It was that a bunch of wheelchair wielding marauders had somehow stolen precious precious seating space that was then offhandedly admitted to being unnecessary to the vast majority of train trips.
__________________
Denver - ".....Like every other city."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10758  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 4:51 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
They typical thought laziness on this board that would have someone whine about accommodating certain populations while simultaneously noting the seats given up to accommodate them weren't needed because of capacity shortfalls is why my posts are years apart now.
Last time you crossed my mind was Irma; is this the Irma backlash? Isn't often that Disney World closes, eh?

Srsly, welcome back, it's always good to read your pithy perspectives and protestations. Is the I-5 widening now done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
I do not think this is great. 90% of the time these trains are not running at capacity, so the aisles being full is not an issue.

There is no way I can consider a 64 seat reduction for a minor improvement in accessibility an improvement.
It's always good to remember that with bunt he's always at least half tongue-in-cheek. But do take the other half very seriously.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10759  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 5:22 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
$100k+ per stall is completely absurd, especially for a big garage. The most I have ever seen was on The Hill in Boulder where a small multi-story below grade parking garage was being proposed below a new apartment building, which was going to be around $60k per stall. This was mainly due to the inefficiency (area per parking stall) of the site to accommodate parking layouts and because the garage was being built below the water table.
Since last we visited... I happen to come across this from 2016 via StreetsBlog using Donald Shoup who is Editor of ACCESS and Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA.


Image courtesy of Dan Shoup, ACCESS Magazine

I assume this is an estimate of All-in costs including land and soft costs as well as construction costs? There's a pdf which I didn't bother with.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10760  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 5:40 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland District, Denver
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Since last we visited... I happen to come across this from 2016 via StreetsBlog using Donald Shoup who is Editor of ACCESS and Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA.


Image courtesy of Dan Shoup, ACCESS Magazine

I assume this is an estimate of All-in costs including land and soft costs as well as construction costs? There's a pdf which I didn't bother with.

No, I would assume it does not include land costs. Also, those are probably metro averages. Costs in the urban core are definitely higher.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.