DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Zmapper]

RTD's board packets for next week are up. SE E/F/R lines extension is slated for a May 2019 opening. http://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpe...63&Inline=True

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

RTD's board packets for next week are up. SE E/F/R lines extension is slated for a May 2019 opening. http://rtd.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpe...63&Inline=True

Thanks for the heads up; I had no idea, thought it would be later in the year.

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Chariot shuts down: https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/...HEN1xC-56-7_Kg

I won't repeat my (whole) comment from there but this was merely Ford deciding they didn't need the distraction when bigger corporate strategies need to be determined.

[Denvergotback]

Driving into town via i70 today I noticed that the A line already has the extra two carts added to the trains. Pretty exciting its happening this fast, just goes to show you that the demand is there.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

Driving into town via i70 today I noticed that the A line already has the extra two carts added to the trains. Pretty exciting its happening this fast, just goes to show you that the demand is there.

Can confirm. My commute this morning had 4 cars. However, it was plagued with delays (not sure if related to the doubling or not), so it was still packed since it was running every 30mins vs ever ~15.

[Denver Dweller]

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...nCnkmGR7-2HqCY

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...nCnkmGR7-2HqCY

Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) has entered what is known in the transit industry as the Transit Death Spiral. Ridership has fallen 7 percent since 2015. This reduces the funds available to operate RTD buses and trains, so RTD has cut service and increased fares to be some of the highest in the nation.

Reduced service and higher fares will depress ridership further. This will force RTD to cut service and perhaps raise fares again. And so it goes.

So far so good. Interesting points and all.

Much of RTD’s problem stems from its mania for an obsolete form of transportation: trains.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...nCnkmGR7-2HqCY

Which is precisely why RTD needs to start embracing true BRT more than trains with time. I think the A line from downtown to the airport is great, and a good investment. However, to every whining Boulderite that wants their choo choo, I say pony up the money. I promise you if they built the rest of the B line up to Boulder tomorrow, it's ridership would not be as good as with the FF. The proposed route hits one stop near the Google campus, then continues up to Longmont. Many of the FF commuters are coming from Broomfield, or going to campus/downtown. Those folks would most likely keep taking the bus. If RTD embraces a true BRT approach, they can cover much more with less money. I get why RTD went big with the trains, but it doesn't always work well from a cost-benefit scenario.

[Cirrus]

Hm.

2008 RTD average daily ridership:
Bus: 218k
Rail: 65k
Total: 283k

2018: RTD average daily ridership:
Bus: 244k (up 12% from 2008)
Rail: 127k (up 95% from 2008)
Total: 371k (up 31% from 2008)

Yeah I don't think having trains is the problem.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So we offer anecdotal in place of a sss. Is a political poll a sss or just about right or do you rely on feedback from those you know? I assume Seattle for example means the whole city and not just the downtown/neighborhoods.

I didn't try to dig into either the survey or the League of American Bicyclists assessment. In sports like the NBA or MLB drawing conclusions from half dozen or even 10 games is definitely too sss but I'm not aware of how the census bureau conducts their surveys. I wouldn't automatically assume the sample size is faulty though. It's possible given the modest percentage of bike commuters a survey for one year is vulnerable to more variance.

For commuter breakouts into downtown Denver afaik they utilize a volunteer survey which means if you want to participate you click on the site. Is that a sss or is it even representative of what a scientific poll would show? I assume it's a guestimate which is better than nothing but might skew to those who are more passionate about being counted.

The ACS isn't accurate on "sliver" topics like this. It's a survey of a relatively small number of people.

Anecdotes aren't great evidence either. But anecdotes combined with a general sense from local tranportation media would trump the ACS in my opinion.

In this case, a sharp downward tick with no apparent trend behind it, not even scooters in our case...very suspect. It's a data point, and needs a multi-year curve to even suggest a change.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Chariot shuts down: https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/...HEN1xC-56-7_Kg

And the city sunk $250k into this failed operation.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Hm.

2008 RTD average daily ridership:
Bus: 218k
Rail: 65k
Total: 283k

2018: RTD average daily ridership:
Bus: 244k (up 12% from 2008)
Rail: 127k (up 95% from 2008)
Total: 371k (up 31% from 2008)

Yeah I don't think having trains is the problem.

2008 Denver-Boulder Population: 2,716,819
2018 Denver-Boulder Population: 3,196,704

Change in Population: 479,885
Change in Ridership: 88,000

I mean, I guess that's okay? But for $5.6 billion, we should have done better. I promise you CDOT would get more than 88,000 new cars out of $5.6 billion in capital funding if they had it. And I bet that $5.6 billion in BRT investment would get us more than 88,000 new riders too. If we are talking about "moving people" as the priority here.

[Cirrus]

That's an 18% population increase, compared to a 31% transit ridership increase.

We can all agree FasTracks has its problems, and that more recent ridership declines are a problem, but that's a great trend line. Debates about how efficient the system could be if we built it better are valid, but irrelevant to the original question here that having trains is clearly not what's causing RTD's recent decline.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's an 18% population increase, compared to a 31% transit ridership increase.

We can all agree FasTracks has its problems, and that more recent ridership declines are a problem, but that's a great trend line. Debates about how efficient the system could be if we built it better are valid, but irrelevant to the original question here that having trains is clearly not what's causing RTD's recent decline.

Not sure I agree. The operating costs of those trains are massive, and have really taken their toll on RTD's ability to maintain service levels across the board.

Also, percentages are disingenuous and the incorrect measure here, I would argue. Real numbers matter. Particularly when we have invested so much in transit at the expense of new capital investment in roads, which in Colorado is shockingly low. That is 400,000 new Coloradans who RTD has not converted into transit riders. Rather than looking at percentage increases within modes, what is the increase in share? That's about 11% increase in riders per 1,000 of population from 2008 to 2018. And RTD has gotten much more than 11% of our capital investment in new transportation capacity in recent years. There is not much controversy around the statement that RTD has failed. Also not much controversy around the prediction that it will not be getting more funding anytime soon.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

2008 Denver-Boulder Population: 2,716,819
2018 Denver-Boulder Population: 3,196,704

Change in Population: 479,885
Change in Ridership: 88,000

I mean, I guess that's okay? But for $5.6 billion, we should have done better. I promise you CDOT would get more than 88,000 new cars out of $5.6 billion in capital funding if they had it.

No doubt CDOT could get more bang for their buck if they weren't so buck-starved. Come March ADOT will start expanding 10 miles of the 101 in my neck of the woods from 8 to 10 (free) lanes. I'm not least bit upset.

With respect to BRT, Seattle certainly benefited from their half-dozen generally suburb to city RapidRide routes with 2 or 3 needing frequent service upgrades.

OTOH Seattle is on a pace to spend ~$25 billion on their own suburb to city routes and various extensions for light rail. Had they chosen to build that during the FasTracks time frame it might have cost closer to $10 billion.

I think (metro) RTD was wise to build the light rail bones that they did when they did. Most people prefer light rail to Big Bertha buses and that certainly includes the gentrified crowd.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's an 18% population increase, compared to a 31% transit ridership increase.

We can all agree FasTracks has its problems, and that more recent ridership declines are a problem, but that's a great trend line. Debates about how efficient the systemywar could be if we built it better are valid, but irrelevant to the original question here that having trains is clearly not what's causing RTD's recent decline.

The decline is ridership the last few years is being caused by three primary variables:

1.) Cheap gasoline
2.) Rise of Uber/Lyft and the ease of use
3.) Indirect bus routes that add unsatisfactory increases to travel time and mode transfers. Mode transfers to rail take too long (infrequent rail service).

To correct this problem, RTD needs to do these following three things:

1.) Switch to all electric bus fleet, with trains using 100% renewable energy.
2.) Partner to develop in-app intragration of RTD's electronic fair system with-in the Uber and Lyft apps to offer single purchase of Uber/Lyft ride and RTD fair, when the departure or destination is a rail station for transfer to/from Uber/Lyft. Including full RTD intragration within the apps route planning, maping and pricing, so as too recommend travel options which include transit for a portion of the journey.
3.) Straighten and realign bus routes to operate at higher frequencies, on smaller all electric buses, down major corridors and connecting with rail stations. Elimination of low frequency, suburb to suburb routes, to be replaced with ride share connections to bus and rail stations. Increased frequency of all train lines.

Throw in AI powered smart city tech to implement adapitive automation of the traffic signals along all bus corridors, to increase average rate of speed and minimize multimodal congestion along bus routes.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not sure I agree...

We are talking past each other and mostly saying the same thing. RTD could have made more efficient choices, but the choices they made are objectively not resulting in ridership decline compared to the pertinent baseline of before those choices began to influence ridership. Their choices are certainly resulting in less ridership than the theoretical maximum, but the theoretical maximum and the status quo are dramatically different conditions to compare against.

I can say this because ridership is down nationwide over the past couple of years. Thus claiming that Denver's ridership declines are due to something unique to Denver is illogical exceptionalism. Particularly considering the thing that is unique to Denver (FasTracks) has incontrovertibly resulted in large ridership increases compared to before it was implemented.

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The decline is ridership the last few years is being caused by:

1.) Cheap gasoline
2.) Rise of Uber/Lyft and the ease of use
3.) Indirect bus routes

To correct this problem:

1.) Switch to all electric bus fleet
2.) Develop in-app integration of RTD/Uber fares
3.) Bus system redesign w/ increased frequency on trunks

Cheap gas combined with ride-hailing are certainly major contributors to recent declines nationwide. We can say this because we can control at least one of the variables--the North American city experiencing the best ridership numbers over the past 3 years is Vancouver, which outlaws Uber. #3 on your list is not a recent development and thus is not specifically responsible for recent events. It certainly depresses ridership, but it has always done so, and only does so more today than in the past because of ride-hailing and cheap gas.

#1 and #2 on your solutions list are fine things to do but I'm skeptical they would increase ridership very much, because neither addresses the core reasons people are leaving buses (which is that they're comparatively more expensive than they used to be, and are usually slower than Uber). #2 would speed up key routes by reducing dwell time, so that's good. #3 would increase ridership, but unless you really supersize that strategy with robust and expansive BRT, it only solves for the pre-existing problem, not the problems caused by cheap gas and ride-hailing.

I think transit will live or die in the post ride-hailing age by two questions: How much do your land uses (and thus transportation arteries) cluster? And where/when do road congestion or gas prices get bad enough for people to accept prioritizing space for transit over cars?

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Cheap gas combined with ride-hailing are certainly major contributors to recent declines nationwide. We can say this because we can control at least one of the variables--the North American city experiencing the best ridership numbers over the past 3 years is Vancouver, which outlaws Uber. #3 on your list is not a recent development and thus is not specifically responsible for recent events. It certainly depresses ridership, but it has always done so, and only does so more today than in the past because of ride-hailing and cheap gas.

Where I was going with #3, is that a cultural shift being driven by ride hailing, is reducing societal tolerance for waiting to go someplace and taking extra to to get places. It is becoming all about speed and ease of use.

[TakeFive]

Color me highly impressed

Colorado House Speaker unveils plan to keep excess tax revenues for transportation, education
Jan 17, 2019 By Ed Sealover – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

House Speaker K.C. Becker, D-Boulder, confirmed the effort Thursday at the Colorado Chamber of Commerce’s Colorado Business Day luncheon. Becker said she is still working with elected officials and private-sector leaders to determine exactly what the initiative would say and exactly when statewide voters would be asked to weigh in on it, but she said it’s taken a leading position now in the ongoing discussions about how to fund transportation and education after tax-hike initiatives for both areas got killed in the 2018 election.

What will TABOR lovers do?

Such a move to retain revenue above the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights cap could net the state $350 million it otherwise would have to refund from the current fiscal and as much as $700 million that is expected to be its revenue in excess of the cap in the fiscal year that begins on July 1, Becker told a crowd The Ritz-Carlton, Denver.

This could be a much easier sell to voters since it's money that the State will have already collected. They need only agree to let the State keep it and put it to work for things they care about.

Republicans will piss and moan upfront but once this becomes a voter initiative would they be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the foot twice? Well, sure, some are that stupid but this could be too hard for many rural Republicans and in cities outside of Denver to NOT support.

[SnyderBock]

This is significant news regarding the NW Corridor rail line. A peak service only option is all the corridor currently needs, with the BRT and electrified section of NW Rail serving the corridor at all service times. Service upgrades can be built in the future as funded and warranted.

http://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/...tracks-forward

[vblack]

I'm a long time very occasional lurker here so I perhaps have missed much of the discussion. If I'm reopening old wounds let me know and I'll delete the post.

I'm a Denver suburb (Arvada) native that now lives in Boulder (30+years), and I'm intensely interested in the impact of the arrival of autonomous EVs, on Denver specifically.

I don't like to come across as a cultist, but I've followed the topic for some time now and have found Tony Seba's presentation on AVEVs to be very well-supported.

I'm curious to see what those knowledgeable about urban development and Denver specifically think about the subject. Given the recent actions on infilling, the rapid arrival of AVEVs may overturn a lot of our assumptions.

Thanks!