DENVER | Transportation Thread

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The challenge here will be the simple fact that our freight rail spines are few and mostly at capacity. That’s what this, and every other study, will be about - how much it will cost to buy out freight capacity. We are not the Midwest where there are multiple parallel freight lines. And we have topography. Even six movements a day will cost a mint; that’s the puzzle to sort out for whatever team wins this work. (It’s also what will at least warrant a look at new ROW and new track, though as other have said, we could never afford it.)

The decline in coal will help greatly here. Freight tonnage is down ~10% from it's high point driven entirely by the shift from coals towards renewables and gas in electrical production and shows no signs of stopping. Some forecasts project that freight tonnage being moved through Colorado will decrease by ~33% by 2040 and this is probably being optimistic as coal for power production is pretty much entering a death spiral. Metallurgical coal is another issue, but that primarily heads north and east out to Wyoming and won't affect freight movement in Colorado.


So access probably isn't a $500M-$1B issue anymore. Particularly for access north of Denver.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The decline in coal will help greatly here. Freight tonnage is down ~10% from it's high point driven entirely by the shift from coals towards renewables and gas in electrical production and shows no signs of stopping. Some forecasts project that freight tonnage being moved through Colorado will decrease by ~33% by 2040 and this is probably being optimistic as coal for power production is pretty much entering a death spiral. Metallurgical coal is another issue, but that primarily heads north and east out to Wyoming and won't affect freight movement in Colorado.


So access probably isn't a $500M-$1B issue anymore. Particularly for access north of Denver.

Good points.

Over the summer Xcel indicated they would accelerate their plans to close the Comanche 1 & 2 coal burners in Pueblo and only keep their new whiz bang facility. That will eliminate not quite half of the coal needs at Pueblo. Not aware of any plans to close the Pawnee Generating Station in Brush though.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Over the summer Xcel indicated they would accelerate their plans to close the Comanche 1 & 2 coal burners in Pueblo and only keep their new whiz bang facility. That will eliminate not quite half of the coal needs at Pueblo. Not aware of any plans to close the Pawnee Generating Station in Brush though.

Pawnee will be retired sometime in the mid-2020’s.

[EngiNerd]

Although I imagine the Pueblo-Brighton-Windsor line has become busier due to Vestas wind turbine product manufacturing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Although I imagine the Pueblo-Brighton-Windsor line has become busier due to Vestas wind turbine product manufacturing.

It has, but those trains are far less frequent than the couple dozen daily coal trains, now down by a few, that cut through Denver as late as 2015. Rail traffic through the Moffat Tunnel is a great example of this. There used to be five to six coal trains that went through the tunnel daily and that's down to one. It's one of the factors that has assisted the Winter Park Ski Train as it's not delayed by freight traffic.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The decline in coal will help greatly here. Freight tonnage is down ~10% from it's high point driven entirely by the shift from coals towards renewables and gas in electrical production and shows no signs of stopping. Some forecasts project that freight tonnage being moved through Colorado will decrease by ~33% by 2040 and this is probably being optimistic as coal for power production is pretty much entering a death spiral. Metallurgical coal is another issue, but that primarily heads north and east out to Wyoming and won't affect freight movement in Colorado.


So access probably isn't a $500M-$1B issue anymore. Particularly for access north of Denver.

Idea:
From some point near or in Castle Rock, build a Greenfield track that branches off the existing freight corridor (BNSF) and out to around Parker, then up to Colorado Air and Space Port, and then into DIA (with a freight DIA bypass through Aerotropolus). At DIA, disembarking passenger trains would branch off into two lines. One would reconnect with freight bypass line and continue on to Greeley and then Fort Collins. The other would fully grade separate and upgrade A-line track and then share it with RTD into Union Station. From there, extensions would run it up the B-line and then share and upgrade the freight corridor into Boulder. From Boulder into Loveland and Fort Collins (Boulder-Longmont would be a separate RTD concern). Another branch from Union station would share and upgrade the G-line then continue through Golden and on West up I-70 as a passenger only Greenfield rail line, going through a third Eisenhower tunnel bore that is two levels one for automobiles and one for passenger rail.

Construction this starter corridor Between Castle Rock and DIA, should be done with 5 tracks, the entire length. Construct the tracks to be rated for up to 220 mph passenger service (to be utilized only in future upgrades). Each outer track designate for passenger rail only. The next track in on each side, designate for shared passenger and freight service, but with 90% it's capacity designated as freight and only 10% passenger (only serving passenger rail as a side track used only when needed). The single track in the middle designate as a freight only track which can be used in either direction, based on volume needs. Engineer the entire corridor for easy upgrade to electrify all 5 tracks in the future, if/when needed. This means passenger rail could be electrified in the future and the corridor would be rated for up to 220 mph, which could transition this corridor to HSR with minimal upgrades. This would also mean fast, efficient, electrified freight trains could be operated along much of the Front Range. But at first, use diesel commuter trains with 85 mph max speed rating.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Idea:
From some point near or in Castle Rock, build a Greenfield track that branches off the existing freight corridor (BNSF) and out to around Parker, then up to Colorado Air and Space Port, and then into DIA (with a freight DIA bypass through Aerotropolus). At DIA, disembarking passenger trains would branch off into two lines. One would reconnect with freight bypass line and continue on to Greeley and then Fort Collins. The other would fully grade separate and upgrade A-line track and then share it with RTD into Union Station. From there, extensions would run it up the B-line and then share and upgrade the freight corridor into Boulder. From Boulder into Loveland and Fort Collins (Boulder-Longmont would be a separate RTD concern). Another branch from Union station would share and upgrade the G-line then continue through Golden and on West up I-70 as a passenger only Greenfield rail line, going through a third Eisenhower tunnel bore that is two levels one for automobiles and one for passenger rail.

Construction this starter corridor Between Castle Rock and DIA, should be done with 5 tracks, the entire length. Construct the tracks to be rated for up to 220 mph passenger service (to be utilized only in future upgrades). Each outer track designate for passenger rail only. The next track in on each side, designate for shared passenger and freight service, but with 90% it's capacity designated as freight and only 10% passenger (only serving passenger rail as a side track used only when needed). The single track in the middle designate as a freight only track which can be used in either direction, based on volume needs. Engineer the entire corridor for easy upgrade to electrify all 5 tracks in the future, if/when needed. This means passenger rail could be electrified in the future and the corridor would be rated for up to 220 mph, which could transition this corridor to HSR with minimal upgrades. This would also mean fast, efficient, electrified freight trains could be operated along much of the Front Range. But at first, use diesel commuter trains with 85 mph max speed rating.

Why not just shoot for maglev while you're at it?

Hell, put in transporter pads every mile and a dozen fusion reactors.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why not just shoot for maglev while you're at it?

I am.

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Although I imagine the Pueblo-Brighton-Windsor line has become busier due to Vestas wind turbine product manufacturing.

What an impressive success story they have been for Colorado.

Stapleton Neighborhood To Get Protected

[TakeFive]

Some people don't want no stinkin' "high comfort" bike lanes

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/...mfort-bikeway/

The current bike lanes along Marion Street Parkway, according to Denver Public Works, are among those identified that could benefit from some becoming a “high comfort” bikeway.

So what's the problem?

However, some people who live in the area want the city to pump the brakes on that idea. “It’s really not necessary,” Voradel Carey, who has lived on Marion Street Parkway for nearly three decades, said.

Carey told CBS4’s Kelly Werthmann the city’s proposal would put her neighborhood at risk, threatening the parkways’ protected status as a historical landmark. “That would destroy the beauty of the current parkway and it doesn’t go with the Denver design guidelines,” she explained,

“Either leave things how they are,” Carey said, ”or put it back where it was when I moved here 27 years ago, next to the parkway not between traffic and the parking lane.” Carey is among the more than 100 neighbors, she said, that have signed a petition opposing the city’s bike lane project in its current form

So there.

[TakeFive]

I did the math on my mechanical calculator

Illinois population is 12.74 million noses. Colorado's population is 5.76 noses or right at 45% of the nose population of Illinois.

State of Illinois legislature passed a $45 billion transportation package. 45% of $45 billion would be $20.25 billion or the equivalent amount in Colorado.

So What Happened?

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/5/31...ion-taxes-vote

Governor JB Pritzker proposed a $45 billion plan to repair Illinois’ deteriorating infrastructure over six years. The proposal calls for nearly $1.8 billion in tax increases. “After years of neglecting our state’s roads, bridges, mass transit, and buildings, Illinoisans’ health and safety have been jeopardized, and job creation has been hindered,” said Governor Priztker. “The Rebuild Illinois plan will reinvigorate our economy and strengthen our rightful status as the transportation and supply chain hub of the nation.”

How will funding be allocated?

https://chi.streetsblog.org/2019/06/...than-expected/

the bill that passed this weekend, which includes a $33 billion, six-year transportation capital program, turned out to be much better for sustainable transportation than many advocates had anticipated.

The bill also includes longterm, sustainable funding for public transportation, with transit receiving $4.7 billion over the first six years and $281 million for each year afterwards. That represents 23 percent of the total transportation spending, or about twice as much as was indicated in the initial proposal.

To compare if Colorado approved a transportation package of $20.25 billion with 23% allocated to 'multi-modal' that would be $4.66 billion. Illinois' $33 billion for a six-year capital program is 73% of the total $45 billion package.

If you're curious the 1st link above provides a bullet point summary of tax increases. For example:

• Hike the gas tax from 19 cents per gallon to 38 cents.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Some people don't want no stinkin' "high comfort" bike lanes

So there.

So there?..... These folks are the worst NIMBY's i've ever seen in my life. Anyone who is bitching about having protected bike lanes put in front of their house has too much time on their hands.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by twister244

So there?..... These folks are the worst NIMBY's i've ever seen in my life. Anyone who is bitching about having protected bike lanes put in front of their house has too much time on their hands.

Agreed. Aside from the objection to plastic bollards, which are not strictly-speaking necessary to create a parking protected bike lane, I cannot find a single valid argument in there. This change will not reduce the vehicle carrying capacity of the street, and even if it did, Marion Parkway is not a crucial link in Denver's automobile network. So these neighbors want a 1970's style on-street bike lane, and ENORMOUS 13' wide travel lane maintained for what reason exactly? Because they don't like change in their lives? Because bikes are perceived to be used primarily by young hipsters and it is cool to be reactionary against them? Or because they can't visualize the street with the parking zone moved a few feet to the center, and nobody has explained to them the relationship between roadway width and vehicle speed?

Aesthetically, there may be an argument for maintaining the existing tree lawn, sidewalk, roadway configuration to remain true to the original landscape design. But I find it pretty hard to believe that there is anything sacred in the parkway design guidelines about the way the space between the curbs is striped for use by bikes, parked cars, and moving cars. Especially considering that the "historic" design for Denver parkways looks something like the below image - completely and totally divorced from the way that modern automobiles move and the way that we use our streets in the 21st century. I suppose these are the same people who would try to say that adding sidewalks to Monaco might "infringe on the historic design intention."

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why not just shoot for maglev while you're at it?

Hell, put in transporter pads every mile and a dozen fusion reactors.

I was proposing something that would give a considerable resources to freight rail companies to enhance the movement of goods along the front range and also divert freight traffic away from the consolidated mainline and SW corridor and out of the city core. This in turn, would open up more passenger service on the existing inner city freight corridors. I was also proposing something that could be phased so that a smaller initial investment could be made but engineered for simplistic upgrades to the corridor as demand and population increases. A mag-lev corridor wouldn't give anything back to freight rail operators and it would require all financial investments to be made up front.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

A mag-lev corridor wouldn't give anything back to freight rail operators and it would require all financial investments to be made up front.

All financial investments made up front?
By whom?
Estimated cost?
Debt/equity mix? Sources? Cost of capital?
Repayment source?
Risk?

Get real...

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

All financial investments made up front?
By whom?
Estimated cost?
Debt/equity mix? Sources? Cost of capital?
Repayment source?
Risk?

Get real...

Is that an argument against, my argument against mag-lev? I don't have any of that information, as it wasn't anything I was considering as an option.

What I proposed was a collaboration between CDOT and freight rail companies to construct a new corridor and upgrade existing corridors for conventional, diesel powered, non-HSR passenger and freight rail. It would be a PPP, that would benefit freight rail as well as achieve CDOT's goals for passenger rail. I proposed engineering the Greenfield line east of Denver, to be upgradable in the future, to electrified and/or HSR, without major reconstruction, if/when it is ever deemed necessary.

CDOT is soliciting for ideas now and this is one way I can envision achieving their goals for a Front Range passenger rail service. If you have your own ideas, feel free to share them as well. Perhaps we could merge all our ideas into the one best concept possible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

What I proposed was a collaboration between CDOT and freight rail companies to construct a new corridor and upgrade existing corridors for conventional, diesel powered, non-HSR passenger and freight rail. It would be a PPP, that would benefit freight rail as well as achieve CDOT's goals for passenger rail. I proposed engineering the Greenfield line east of Denver, to be upgradable in the future, to electrified and/or HSR, without major reconstruction, if/when it is ever deemed necessary.

Makes a lot of sense to me.


United lays out plans for continued growth at Denver airport
Jun 7, 2019 By Monica Vendituoli – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

United Airlines reached a major milestone Friday when it officially began offering 500 daily departures three times per week out of Denver International Airport. The announcement comes after a record year of DIA growth for United, which is the largest passenger carrier serving the airport.

The airline has also grown its employee base in Denver. Since Jan. 1, 2018, United has hired 970 employees and currently employees 7,000 people in the city.

Holy Cow; I didn't realize United has so many employees locally.

What about Southwest? Will they become a laggard?

At Southwest Airlines’ annual shareholder meeting, which was held in Denver last month, CEO Gary Kelly said that the airline would like all 16 gates being added to concourse C. Southwest Airlines is the second-largest passenger carrier serving DIA.

Frontier has been adding a lot of flights also.

Looks like most of DIA's gate expansion could be spoken for before the paint is dry.

[TakeFive]

Who is this masked man?

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/...ted-bus-lanes/

This latest bus lane experiment stands in contrast to the city’s earlier experiments with bus only lanes, says the site’s Dan Malouff:

[TakeFive]

FasTracks Update

RTD Explores Money Options To Catch Up On Unfinished FasTracks Trains
JUN 19, 2019 By NATHANIEL MINOR - CPR

Unless more funding is generated, Regional Transportation District staff now say that a passenger rail line to Boulder and Longmont won’t open in full capacity until after 2050, though under one scenario limited service may begin in 2042.

Nice recap of where FasTracks currently sits.

bunt, wong, or anyone smarter than myself, I have a couple of questions?

Is there even a sunset provision in FasTracks and if so how does it work. My understanding is that the operating expenses come from the generic six-tenths percent that RTD collects. Deductive reasoning has me thinking that the FasTracks specific tax can/would be used for maintenance and replacement over time. This would actually be comforting to know that needed replacement costs are already built in via the existing FasTracks tax. Obviously the majority of this tax is currently used to pay off the bond funding used during construction.

[TakeFive]

Who is this mystery TOD developer?

Eh, it only took a couple of years and in the big scheme of things that's not bad.

12.5 Acres of Land Along TOD Development Sells for $6.5M
June 18, 2019 by MILE HIGH CRE

A 12.5 acre site on Tollgate Creek in Aurora, has sold for $6.5 million. The site is strategically located adjacent to the 13th Avenue Light Rail Station in Aurora which serves the Fitzsimmons Medical Campus and the Denver Tech Center.

“The buyer intends to develop the land into 350+ Class-A Multifamily Units,” stated Chase Grimes, advisor at Pinnacle Real Estate Advisors who represented the out-of-state buyer in the transaction.

What pulled this deal together and made it happen?

During the transaction, Chase Grimes worked closely with the Buyer, the City of Aurora, and RTD (Regional Transportation District) to negotiate the construction of a new road and bridge that will serve the vibrant station.

“This transaction is a perfect example of an out-of-state buyer leveraging Pinnacle’s local expertise to achieve its long-term goals in the fast growing sub-market that is Aurora,” noted Chase Grimes.

Presumably this will be the typical three-story walk-up style apartment complex which would keep the investment risk more appealing.

I can recall when I rode the R Line last year thinking how much potential existed given the amount of vacant land sitting there. I also had wondered about infrastructure needs and costs.

It's a start.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

FasTracks Update

RTD Explores Money Options To Catch Up On Unfinished FasTracks Trains
JUN 19, 2019 By NATHANIEL MINOR - CPR

Nice recap of where FasTracks currently sits.

bunt, wong, or anyone smarter than myself, I have a couple of questions?

Is there even a sunset provision in FasTracks and if so how does it work. My understanding is that the operating expenses come from the generic six-tenths percent that RTD collects. Deductive reasoning has me thinking that the FasTracks specific tax can/would be used for maintenance and replacement over time. This would actually be comforting to know that needed replacement costs are already built in via the existing FasTracks tax. Obviously the majority of this tax is currently used to pay off the bond funding used during construction.

I mean.... that PPT link lays out some alternative solutions not really discussed in the article (earmarks, etc). However, nobody in CO has enough political sway in DC to pull off something like that. Could the voters vote in a new chunk of tax increases to fund a train from FoCo to Trinidad while tossing in the NW line? Sure..... but I doubt that will happen. I still think RTD, and local municipalities should invest more in true BRT. It can work just as well as the train, at a fraction of the cost. With Bustang continuously exceeding ridership expectations, I don't see why this isn't explored more.

Another fly in the ointment here is the CO supreme court decision that could pave the way to have TABOR repealed by the voters. If that happens, all bets are off.