DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

Boulder eyes BRT along Arapahoe and Diagonal
Boulder Daily Camera

Officials are eyeing major potential changes to alignment and service, including bus rapid transit, along east Arapahoe Road and the Diagonal Highway.

But both projects are in early stages of exploration, and many questions of funding and intergovernmental cooperation remain.

Along Arapahoe Road (Colo. 7), the city and municipalities to the east are considering possible bus rapid transit.

The 15-year vision, planners said, involves expanded bus service. Various models have been floated for how this might look on the roadway, including one in which buses have their own dedicated lanes in the middle of the street. But for now, the leading contender is side-running bus rapid transit, according to city staff.

Meanwhile, the Regional Transportation District is early in an 18-month study on the potential for bus rapid transit on the Diagonal between Boulder and Longmont.

The Colorado Department of Transportation is also exploring the potential for managed lanes — with tolls, high-occupancy exemptions and buses — on the Diagonal, according to Boulder planners.

Mayor Suzanne Jones referred to using "the U.S. 36 model" for managed lanes as that study advances.

[LooksLikeForever]

So here's this... http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/27...l-safety-plan/

"RTD’s A, B and G lines remain in limbo after state regulators reject commuter rail safety plan"

This is just insanity at this point. How long can this possibly go on?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

So here's this... http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/27...l-safety-plan/

"RTD’s A, B and G lines remain in limbo after state regulators reject commuter rail safety plan"

This is just insanity at this point. How long can this possibly go on?

Hoo Boy... what a total clustermess. I had read the DBJ article that Denver Dweller links to which was informative but also confusing.

[CastleScott]

^ Interesting because sometime ago some in the Colorado Legislature were frustrated at RTD's inablitiy to get rail transit constructed in a timely manner with the full Fastracks buildout-so much so that they figured that CDOT should take over the authority to do it. Just something I remember back when I lived in the Denver metro (I had some friends that were on the RTD board back right after Fastracks was passed).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ Interesting because sometime ago some in the Colorado Legislature were frustrated at RTD's inablitiy to get rail transit constructed in a timely manner with the full Fastracks buildout-so much so that they figured that CDOT should take over the authority to do it. Just something I remember back when I lived in the Denver metro (I had some friends that were on the RTD board back right after Fastracks was passed).

Still wouldn't have made a difference if CDOT had opted to employ the same wireless PCC technology. I do wonder if the PUC doesn't want to put their dicks on the block and is waiting for the FRA decision before giving RTD the go ahead? I don't see the PUC as being particularly aggressive.

[TakeFive]

Wireless smireless it makes no sense to me. I can get the approach problems combining speed and distance although it still shouldn't be THAT difficult. But on the back end... once the train passes it shouldn't be that hard to trigger a gate release and there's prolly a couple of ways this could be done. I see no excuse for this problem.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Wireless smireless it makes no sense to me. I can get the approach problems combining speed and distance although it still shouldn't be THAT difficult. But on the back end... once the train passes it shouldn't be that hard to trigger a gate release and there's prolly a couple of ways this could be done. I see no excuse for this problem.

I think it's more that the wireless system is integrated with several other systems (crossing gates, PTC, signals, train position, etc.) and this is a software issue (as RTD and DTP has mentioned several times). So you have several systems talking together and the process logic probably has several conditions that have to be met by all systems before that gate goes back up.

That the PUC is quibbling over 20 seconds seems absurd on the face of it. If 20 seconds means a motorist is going to try and circumvent that gates then we need to just equip the trains with dozer blades and prune the gene pool.

[Denveropolis]

The Colorado PUC is being extremely picky here. Their main argument is that an extra 20 seconds of down gate time will cause people to skirt the gates and potentially be harmed. If someone is that stupid to go around the gate then I chalk it up to a "thinning of the herd". Jeffrey Ackermann of the PUC has zero transportation experience. His previous stints were at the Colorado Energy Office, mainly working with energy efficiency. He was appointed by the Governor earlier this year.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Denveropolis

The Colorado PUC is being extremely picky here. Their main argument is that an extra 20 seconds of down gate time will cause people to skirt the gates and potentially be harmed. If someone is that stupid to go around the gate then I chalk it up to a "thinning of the herd". Jeffrey Ackermann of the PUC has zero transportation experience. His previous stints were at the Colorado Energy Office, mainly working with energy efficiency. He was appointed by the Governor earlier this year.

Which is more indicative that, because the crossing gate times are regulated by the FRA, that the PUC is simply not willing to move forward without a decision from the FRA first. If the FRA grants a waiver to RTD, then the PUC will probably rubber stamp it.

[Denveropolis]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Which is more indicative that, because the crossing gate times are regulated by the FRA, that the PUC is simply not willing to move forward without a decision from the FRA first. If the FRA grants a waiver to RTD, then the PUC will probably rubber stamp it.

I hope you are right but I am not encouraged by Ackermann's last statement in the Denver Post article today:

“Maybe it’s time to try something different,” PUC Chairman Jeffrey Ackermann said during Wednesday’s meeting.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Boulder eyes BRT along Arapahoe and Diagonal
Boulder Daily Camera

Was good to see this project get a bit of press. Long term planning effort, but could be quite transformative for Arapahoe. If anybody is interested to know more, including some preliminary design concepts, head here: www.eastarapahoetransportationplan.net

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denveropolis

“Maybe it’s time to try something different,” PUC Chairman Jeffrey Ackermann said during Wednesday’s meeting.

Agreed but that's still an asinine statement by Ackermann.

Obviously you can't have trains running into things and people at crossings. But I don't care how much data the software collects etc but once the train clears the intersection it should be easy peasy to raise the gates. Sadly it seems as though RTD has again managed to buy barely functional software. If their software can't even handle a simple signal function to lift the gates as well as a 1970's era system, what good is it? Stupid is as Stupid does.

[Denveropolis]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Agreed but that's still an asinine statement by Ackermann.

Obviously you can't have trains running into things and people at crossings. But I don't care how much data the software collects etc but once the train clears the intersection it should be easy peasy to raise the gates. Sadly it seems as though RTD has again managed to buy barely functional software. If their software can't even handle a simple signal function to lift the gates as well as a 1970's era system, what good is it? Stupid is as Stupid does.

RTD has also hinted several times that driver speed variances are an issue. If for example, the wireless mechanism is set trigger the gate at 1,000 ft from the intersection and driver A is going 70 mph and driver B is going 55 mph, then the gate will be down longer with driver B. I take the A train frequently to the airport and have noticed a difference in drivers. One time it took a painfully long time to reach Union Station and I asked the driver through the window at the end why...her answer was we drive at a speed we're comfortable with.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denveropolis

RTD has also hinted several times that driver speed variances are an issue. If for example, the wireless mechanism is set trigger the gate at 1,000 ft from the intersection and driver A is going 70 mph and driver B is going 55 mph, then the gate will be down longer with driver B. I take the A train frequently to the airport and have noticed a difference in drivers. One time it took a painfully long time to reach Union Station and I asked the driver through the window at the end why...her answer was we drive at a speed we're comfortable with.

I understand the issue on approach. But it doesn't matter whether a train is going slow or fast when it clears the crossing by 40' (or whatever) then raise the damn gates. What's the point of having software that can't handle the most basic of functions? More technically the difference in time to travel 40 feet going 30 mph or 50 mph should be negligible... but I'm not a mathematician.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Agreed but that's still an asinine statement by Ackermann.

Obviously you can't have trains running into things and people at crossings. But I don't care how much data the software collects etc but once the train clears the intersection it should be easy peasy to raise the gates. Sadly it seems as though RTD has again managed to buy barely functional software. If their software can't even handle a simple signal function to lift the gates as well as a 1970's era system, what good is it? Stupid is as Stupid does.

It's the DIA BAE baggage system all over again!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I understand the issue on approach. But it doesn't matter whether a train is going slow or fast when it clears the crossing by 40' (or whatever) then raise the damn gates. What's the point of having software that can't handle the most basic of functions? More technically the difference in time to travel 40 feet going 30 mph or 50 mph should be negligible... but I'm not a mathematician.

I'm betting it's a function of the train no longer being present in the gate crossing "box" and it signaling so, not merely a set time after the gates are initiated.

[TakeFive]

Woot woot

RTD gets a 5-year waiver from federal railroad standards
By Cathy Proctor – Denver Business Journal

Federal railroad officials on Thursday granted the Regional Transportation District a five-year waiver from federal standards on the timing of crossing gates, and offered a path toward removing the flaggers that have been stationed on the A and the B line for more than a year.

How 'bout our friendly flaggers?

But the flaggers stationed at the intersections along the A and the B line for more than a year will remain in place while the Colorado Public Utilities Commission reviews timing issues of the crossing gates, Currey said.

Somebody please draw a simple diagram for our software programmers with learning disabilities.

[trubador]

there is no way that this is just a software error or else it would be fixed already. My theory is they purchased components that have built in PLC's or some non-programmable components that hard-coded the delay and replacing would cause a long downtime due to testing the system.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by trubador

there is no way that this is just a software error or else it would be fixed already. My theory is they purchased components that have built in PLC's or some non-programmable components that hard-coded the delay and replacing would cause a long downtime due to testing the system.

Excellent point, I do seem to recall something about hardware and I suspect you're right. Being first means the design (somewhere) had a serious flaw and the fix is worse than just living with a flawed system? Still pathetic.

[TakeFive]

Compliments of Pinterest

Time to do a deep dive into transit to see what will work and what doesn't.

For example, there are those choice bus riders like wong and bunt who would pay-up big time to sit up front in First Class where the house wine and cheese are complementary or for a modest fee other fine choices can be made.