DENVER | Transportation Thread

[ddvmke]

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?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Scottk

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

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.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Scottk

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.

[jubguy3]

Does anyone have a description of the new layout vs old?

[mhays]

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.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

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.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

[Brainpathology]

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

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?

Originally Posted by Scottk

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

$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.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

I've only this year become aware of how much the urban/StreetsBlog crowd is making sidewalks a cause celebre. I've rarely lived where there are (real) sidewalks along the street but then I've rarely lived in urban areas. I've had a few special friends that have and I have nothing against them.

In Denver property owners are responsible for sidewalks and while the city is looking for a way forward to add sidewalks it's not wanting to take on the liability which is smart. LA is one good example for not going there.

BTW, I had occasion to revisit ST3 and it's even more of a ball buster for taxpayers than I thought. Does the name toofatforyou ring a bell; apparently he's a notorious anti-ST3 guy. But talk about having carte blanche, the Amazon crowd et al must have been under the either when they voted for that. Not saying it's not a good idea but what a coup it was.

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Does anyone have a description of the new layout vs old?

Speaking of Going Big, I hear that SLC is considering doing just that.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

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

The urban core is understandable (even excluding land costs) but what about the city of Denver in general and do you have figures in mind?

I'd also be curious for more feedback from EngiNerd.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

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.

The thought laziness that would have you fail to realize that this population is already very well accommodated for with the existing fold up seat set up, while failing to realize that the seats that were given up are now much more likely to be needed since there will be an entire 64 less, is why I could care less that you don't contribute.

As someone else already noted, it is extremely rare that someone with a disability is forced into the aisle. I ride the train to and from the Auraria campus 4 days a week, and have seen this issue pop up maybe once. 64 seats less means that seats will be filled up much more quickly, and people will be standing much more often, when previously there would have been seats available to them. I do not consider this an improvement. Espescially when you consider that at any given time only one eighth of the lost seats will be in use (ADA access is only available at the front of the first car).


So on a typical 4 car train, 64 seats have been lost while only 8 of the 64 lost seats will be available to someone with a disability at any given time. Keep in mind that this has only slightly increased the available ADA space from the existing fold up seat set up.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Scottk

is why I could care less that you don't contribute.

Don't shoot the messenger... and that's borderline. Shoot the message all you want and you did a fine job with that. While we can't control others who take things personally, we can control not being personal. Just good blog etiquette. Ofc none of us are perfect.

[bunt_q]

Looks like we are adding physical laziness to the thought laziness. Just stand on the train for crying out loud.

[DUPio]

Why do lines still stop at Mile High Station when there are no events? This seems like the biggest no-brainer for efficiency sake and should have been addressed years ago.

[jubguy3]

Im going to say this again, lol.... can anyone explain the change in layout? The linked article doesn't work for me, but can I assume that the seating will be more like an NYC Subway car (against the wall)?