Denver Union Station & FasTracks

[Octavian]

The bigger problem was that it's hard to fit a through station.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You fail to mention that another tiny factor was that the cost of the original plan hit the $1 billion mark and there was no political will to find a way to pay for it. Instead, this $450 million solution was devised.

While land interests are a factor, the constrained funding for the project was the ultimate reason for the changes to the master plan.

Yes looking at the plan that was because it required the building of complicated multi level station and an even more expensive underground bus station. They could have built something much cheaper. It might have had less developable land, but that would have not have mattered as the cost was lower, alternatively they could have allowed higher FAR on the remaining land.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You fail to mention that another tiny factor was that the cost of the original plan hit the $1 billion mark and there was no political will to find a way to pay for it. Instead, this $450 million solution was devised.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the other developer's proposal much more in line with the original plan? In other words, exactly this:

Originally Posted by RationalPlan

alternatively they could have allowed higher FAR on the remaining land.

We choose the inferior transportation plan because we wanted shorter buildings.

Unless I remember incorrectly.

[Cirrus]

Plus, of course, there's the issue of RTD not budgeting enough money in the FasTracks vote in the first place, which as you know has resulted in problems all over the map and not just at Union Station.

And for the record, the only reason I'm bringing any of this is up is in response to the gushing comment with the implication that it's all so fabulously planned. At the end of the day I'm OK with making practical compromises in order to get projects built. But I don't like pretending that the compromised plan is perfect. If we're going to do better the next time we need to be honest about our shortcomings.

[ardecila]

There are realistic constraints you have to work around in any design challenge. In this case, there wasn't the funding available to combine everything at a centralized underground facility as that master plan shows. As I mentioned before, other efforts will create additional connection points elsewhere in the city.

The focus on the physical rail connections seems a little odd. When the rail lines only run on 15-minute frequencies, the average transfer time is 7.5 minutes - and that's during peak periods. The time to walk from the light rail platforms to the heavy rail platforms is, what, 5 minutes? 2 short blocks with one major street crossing, or none if you go underground.

Plus, the bus terminal is very well-designed, with spacious, pleasant waiting areas and efficient circulation patterns. Buses are and will continue to be the most-used component of Denver's transit network, so this cannot be discounted.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the other developer's proposal much more in line with the original plan? In other words, exactly this:

We choose the inferior transportation plan because we wanted shorter buildings.

Unless I remember incorrectly.

I believe that this plan was chosen because a) It didn't require a variance to the height restrictions, and b) When the economic comparison was done this one was decidedly less risky. The non-selected Cherokee Partners one needed two thirty-plus story buildings to meet the funding requirements for the transportation portion and wouldn't have been able to deliver on the transit portion given the lack of funding on Cherokee's part. RTD would have been stuck with a half-constructed project.

Hindsight's 20/20, but the focus on less risk and infrastructure sacrifices seems to have been the correct choice.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You fail to mention that another tiny factor was that the cost of the original plan hit the $1 billion mark and there was no political will to find a way to pay for it. Instead, this $450 million solution was devised.

While land interests are a factor, the constrained funding for the project was the ultimate reason for the changes to the master plan.

It also looks like all train platforms and bus terminals were underground in that plan...probably why it would of cost so much to implement this plan.

[SnyderBock]

It would have been too costly for the budget and yes it had far more risk than the plan they are constructing. Furthermore, it's not like ANY passengers HAVE to walk the 2+ blocks (be it underground or at-grade), as the 16th Street Mall shuttle (a free ride) stops right next to the LRT platforms, then stops again right next to the Commuter Rail Terminal. The 16th Street mall shuttle is low floor, three sets of double doors; in other words, very easy to board and get off.

However, there was another reason that lead to this refined design. The FRA said NO to underground Commuter Rail Terminal (as even this plan originally had the Commuter rail underground), because the approach was too short, so the FRA determined they would not approve it. That pretty much put an end to the idea of Commuter and Light Rail platforms, underground, right next to each other. This winning plan, seems to be an ingenious solution to all the problems with budget constraint, financial risk and FRA compliances. And at the same time, it extended the 16th Street mall and shuttle, all the way to the Millennium bridge and LRT platforms, which will help activate the entire Union Station area and integrate it with LoDo and downtown Denver.

Putting everything at-grade, as proposed by rational plan, would have really kept the entire Union Station Neighborhood and the CPV, cut off from the rest of LoDo and downtown. It would not have been as pedestrian friendly. I don't think pedestrians will hesitate from taking an escelator down into the Bus terminal, then back up again to their heavy rail tranfer platform. this is pretty much how most major mass transit systems in the world, work.

[Myomi]

I've have been watching the Denver forums for a while, but haven't really spoken up much. However, this discussion has intrigued me. Here in Austin, I wish we could have something this grandiose in terms of transportation infrastructure. I can't wait to see the final product.

One quote from bunt_q in particular got my attention:

No basis for this, but my gut also tell me that people prefer not to hang out in bus stations when they have a choice. Especially underground ones. Skylights and bright white decor might help enough, guess we'll see how it feels.

With all the talk about if people will use the bus terminal or not, I was wondering if there were any pictures of the inside of the bus terminal. One I found, and I don't think think it has been shown here, is this picture:



This picture is from the FasTracks page (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/dus_8). From that picture, it really looks like those skylights are going to bring a lot of light into the area. It's hard to believe that picture is of an underground corridor. I don't know whether pedestrians will go up or down to walk these couple of blocks, but I don't think we need to worry about the passage being a dark and dingy, Penn Station like experience.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

It would have been too costly for the budget and yes it had far more risk than the plan they are constructing. Furthermore, it's not like ANY passengers HAVE to walk the 2+ blocks (be it underground or at-grade), as the 16th Street Mall shuttle (a free ride) stops right next to the LRT platforms, then stops again right next to the Commuter Rail Terminal. The 16th Street mall shuttle is low floor, three sets of double doors; in other words, very easy to board and get off.

However, there was another reason that lead to this refined design. The FRA said NO to underground Commuter Rail Terminal (as even this plan originally had the Commuter rail underground), because the approach was too short, so the FRA determined they would not approve it. That pretty much put an end to the idea of Commuter and Light Rail platforms, underground, right next to each other. This winning plan, seems to be an ingenious solution to all the problems with budget constraint, financial risk and FRA compliances. And at the same time, it extended the 16th Street mall and shuttle, all the way to the Millennium bridge and LRT platforms, which will help activate the entire Union Station area and integrate it with LoDo and downtown Denver.

Putting everything at-grade, as proposed by rational plan, would have really kept the entire Union Station Neighborhood and the CPV, cut off from the rest of LoDo and downtown. It would not have been as pedestrian friendly. I don't think pedestrians will hesitate from taking an escelator down into the Bus terminal, then back up again to their heavy rail tranfer platform. this is pretty much how most major mass transit systems in the world, work.

Leaving aside the issue of the advisability of an underground bus station. There is no need for the light rail station to be three blocks from the commuter station, that can not be justified on transport integration grounds. It just can't be! It should have been light rail platform then bus station.

It's not as if the light rail stop takes up much space. If the heaviest pedestrian generators are kept next to the station, that keeps the need for grade separation down. It would not have been difficult to design a decent at grade pedestrian crossing of the Bus area.

The Bus station takes up so much space because they wanted it to be underground and out of sight. They will have to spend huge sums to keep an undergound bus station well ventilated and well lit. An above ground station can use much less space.

As an example another version of the plan. Here there is a three platform light rail station that is perpendicular to the main Station. Easy pedestrian orientation, with just one road to cross while maintaining quick pedestrian access to from the station to other sites without having to cross any other public transit station.

The 16th Mall circulator could be on the west side of the station opposite the light rail station, while the general bus station just to the East. All modes are in a short walk of each other with only one road to cross.

The ground floor spaces of the buildings facing the Station and the square could be retail and cafe spaces, with the high pedestrian footfall throughout the day theses could be quite animated spaces.

[wong21fr]

^The one thing with your plans seems to be that you've eliminated all of the development private development potential at Union Station asides from the wing buildings. That would make the entire project unfeasible w/o another funding source.

I do think that an eloquent solution would have been too run the LRT station along the 17th St axis from the CML. That would have eliminated the long transfer (not that it really is all that important since it will be a fairly low number anyway).

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

^The one thing with your plans seems to be that you've eliminated all of the development private development potential at Union Station asides from the wing buildings. That would make the entire project unfeasible w/o another funding source.

I do think that an eloquent solution would have been too run the LRT station along the 17th St axis from the CML. That would have eliminated the long transfer (not that it really is all that important since it will be a fairly low number anyway).

It does take up more space, but on the other it would be significantly cheaper. Hundreds of millions less.

How much does the current scheme contribute to the of the new station? I would be not be surprised if all it covered was the cost of the underground bus station.

[wong21fr]

^I believe somewhere in the realm of $150-200 million. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the total project cost.

It does come close to covering the cost of the bus terminal, but not quite.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

What I don't particularly like is the additional distance between the light rail and downtown (especially with the west corridor being our first Union Station-only line). That could amount to a real hit in ridership. I'm not yet convinced that the downtown circulator will be effective. The success of the 16th Mall Shuttle is more the exception than the rule. I am not sure if that is easily replicated over longer distances on regular city streets (18th/19th).

I agree there needs to be a better connection between Union Station and the existing downtown light rail. The only way I see to solve that problem is to run the light rail line that currently stops by the Millennium Bridge up 16th (or a 15th/16th couplet) connecting with the existing downtown light rail lines at Stout/California. The Union Station stop would be right next to commuter rail platforms at 16th & Wewatta. Of course that would then significantly alter the mall shuttle but it could still run up and down a closed-to-cars 16th along with the light rail, even more so if 16th is the eastbound line and 15th is westbound. Either that or sometime in the future put the connecting line underground...

[wong21fr]

^I think that the more viable, but far more expensive, solution would be to revisit the Broadway connector that was looked at in the early 2000's. It could be brought in along the Broadway corridor and then go underground along 17th St terminating under Union Station. Or it could run along 16th St replacing the Mall shuttle with all of DT turned into a fare-free zone, which it should be regardless.

This is all decades out, but it could be a serious discussion by 2040 or so.

[bunt_q]

A Broadway connector isn't necessarily decades out...

[wong21fr]

^If you know of a little rumor, it would be fortuitous for you to share. You know my history of acting on threats of violence and taking care of that fine coif of hair would be quite enjoyable.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

It does take up more space, but on the other it would be significantly cheaper. Hundreds of millions less.

How much does the current scheme contribute to the of the new station? I would be not be surprised if all it covered was the cost of the underground bus station.

I don't know that sacrificing urban density for cost savings in necessarily a good thing at all. I think as much cost/density/and grade separation as is feasible to build is the best plan! The underground bus station is actually MUCH preferable to some sort of traffic-clogged surface level mess. From the discussions here, it sounds like most people's complaint about light-rail proximity would be best solved with MORE grade separation, not less. Of course this plan gives us the most grade separation financially possible given current market conditions (the original master plan would be better, but if pursued would probably leave us with no station at all).

In terms of creating a "light-rail loop," I've always felt that the best way to do this would be to link the dead-end Union Station to the Central Corridor along 20th st. This would make the most sense if the Welton/Downing corridor is converted to streetcar creating an awkward dead end for the light rail at Broadway/Welton/20th. Some issues would need to be worked out, like how to find alignment around where 20th dips under the train tracks, but would otherwise be doable without a major reinvention of the existing light rail infrastructure. That said, it would be a rather wide loop (20th to the west side of Auraria) and wouldn't be an end-all solution to downtown transit. It would also probably work best if linked to a streetcar system as well (which could run down Broadway and/or one of the numbered downtown streets from Welton), but seems like a logical way to "finish" the downtown portion of the light rail system.

[SnyderBock]

The Broadway connector, grade seperated light rail line from the Broadway/1-25 LRT station to Civic Center Station, then on to Union Station, was proposed because they actually needed the capacity. With lines from 3 and soon to be 4 LRT lines all merging into the CPV line into Union Station, it was going to be over-capacity. The choice to solve this problem, by triple tracking the CPV LRT line, simply bought RTD some time, to address this with the next round of post-FasTracks projects (sometimes referred to as NexTracks).

As ridership grows, there will come a point where the need for additional capacity will outweigh the cost of constructing this Broadway Connector line. It will likely be all elevated south of Downtown and all subway through downtown to Union Station. It's only a few miles long, so it's nothing crazy, but elevated and subway construction would likely mean this will cost ~$300 million per mile on average.

Here is a side section of the Union Station plan under construction, but on the far left I added in a potential way to connect this Broadway Connector subway line into Union Station, dirrectly:

[mr1138]

Let's hope to god some ugly, "El-train" style light rail is never built down Broadway... I've always thought Broadway/Welton should form the north-south spine of a streetcar system, with Colfax forming the east-west spine and Civic Center station acting as a sort of hub (additional lines could go down any one of the numbered streets toward LoDo from Civic Center).

What exactly is the capacity issue? Would linking the Central Corridor down 20th to Union Station as I described above solve this problem by allowing some Union Station bound trains to bypass the CPV line? I'm all for a subway (though I think it's a bit of a pipe dream for Denver), but I would absolutely be opposed to a nasty viaduct being built along Broadway.