Denver International Airport Expansion & Transit Hub - Page 3

SnyderBock · #41 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 3:19 AM**

That's what I was thinking. They said one of the advantages the winning bidder had, was that their Hyundai-Rotem EMU train-sets were already FRA-compliant. Again, as far as I know, this means the new Silverliner V. It also has to have a DMU counterpart, as the future NW Corridor will be EMU for it's first segment, with DMU running the remainder of the line. Hyundai-Rotem has a DMU Silverliner V which is currently seeking FRA-compliance, from what I have read.

I'm 99% sure they are planning on using the Silverliner V, with a custom interior arrangement more favorable for an airport line (extra racks and storage compartments, 3-2 seating, etc..). They will probably be painted white on the exterior (with RTD's stripes running down them), instead of the plain stainless steal. The white paint job alone, will make them look far better, imho.

Here, this is a depiction by Denver Transit Partners (the private consortium building this PPP). They do say "rail cars that could be used...":

A depiction by Denver Transit Partners shows rail cars that could be used on the yet-to-be-built commuter train between Denver International Airport and Union Station. The private consortium was chosen Tuesday night by the Regional Transportation District board of directors over another competitor, Mountain-Air Transit Partners. (Denver Transit Partners). http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15305916

It's also important to note that they are depicting a 2-car train and it has been determined that they would be running 3-car trains to start with and expanding them to 4-car trains in the future, as ridership grows. I assume the 2-car train depicted is for simplicity, to more easily show what the trains will look like.

Matt · #42 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 3:24 AM**

Re: paint scheme

This is RTD we're talking about. You just KNOW they're going to paint the airport train in the SAME livery as the buses and Light Rail.

Busy Bee · #43 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 5:00 AM**

RTD does need a cosmetic makeover. The entire branding is very stale, very early 90's generic. Would be great to see a top to bottom bold and adventurous, but sophisticated, redesign that matched their ambitions for expansion.

Regarding the EMU rolling stock, we don't have to discuss it anymore. Let's face it, we really don't have much solid info, and I feel like we're beating a dead horse with all this speculation. I'd love to see something sexier than those freezerbox on wheels Silverliners, but its really just too early for all of this. We're getting the cart in front of the horse, or more specifically the railcar before the railroad

The Dirt · #44 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 7:06 AM**

Those hybrid buses certainly have a different paint scheme. They seem to be all baby blue like the blue stripe in the rendering above.

SnyderBock · #45 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 10:01 AM**

you are right Busy Bee. I keep beating my head over why they even need FRA-compliant EMU's in the first place. The entire line will operate on separate tracks from freight rail and nearly all of it will operate in separate ROW from freight ROW. The small portion that will share freight ROW, will not share freight tracks.

As far as I can tell, there is no federal requirement they actually use FRA-compliant EMU's. The only thing I can find is Union Pacific not allowing RTD to build tracks in any of their freight ROW alongside their freight tracks, that will be operating non-FRA-compliant trains. So for the tiny few miles into downtown where the EMU tracks will be alongside freight tracks and in freight ROW owned by Union Pacific, the entire line has to be made FRA-compliant. Odd, comsidering Colorado legislator took all liability away from freight rail companies in the event of an accident between freight and passenger rail.

Maybe there is another reason, idk. But this is the only reason I can find for this airport line to be FRA-compliant. None of the proposed EMU lines will actually share freight rail, only freight ROW. FRA-compliance is not required for that.

The one DMU line will share freight rail, but operate at different times and they want the DMU trains to be same model as EMU trains for easier maintenance. A possible need for FRA-compliance, but again with full time separation, no FRA-compliance should be required. So I really am at a loss just why FRA-compliance is required for any/all of these lines. From what I can tell, the whole system could be non-FRA-compliant, if they wanted it to be.

Strange Meat · #46 Posted **Aug 6, 2010, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Those hybrid buses certainly have a different paint scheme. They seem to be all baby blue like the blue stripe in the rendering above.

I haven't seen one in a while, but the ones that said something about "helping you breathe easier" with the entire side of the bus with a mountain scene painted on it, those were pretty rad.

I wonder if, when the several new rail lines coming on board at about the same time, RTD wouldn't use it as a chance for a little re-branding.

electricron · #47 Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

So I really am at a loss just why FRA-compliance is required for any/all of these lines. From what I can tell, the whole system could be non-FRA-compliant, if they wanted it to be.

I'll agree with you that non FRA compliant trains could be used. Never-the-less, its far easier (most likely cheaper too) getting your trains started if you use FRA compliant trains. You eliminate a lot of risk, both on the regulatory and operational issues. Using PPP system operators and builders for commuter trains, eliminating risk is always smart.

I'd like to add that "alternate" FRA compliancy may be just around the corner. DCTA, FWTA, DART, and the FRA are developing these new regulations, where non FRA compliant trains using crash energy management technology can get "alternate" compliancy if they meet all the other existing FRA regulations except crash resistance, where new crash resistance regulations are substituted, plus new regulations on automatic train controls.

Busy Bee · #48 Posted **Aug 7, 2010, 1:09 AM**

Never mind that heavy FRA complaint electric unit suck about 1.5 times as much juice out of the overhead for propulsion as lightweight non-FRA vehicles? I'd like to see them shift to non-FRA compliant just from the energy standpoint.

SnyderBock · #49 Posted **Nov 8, 2010, 9:38 PM**

Bump^
Actually, this is more than a bump (=-D)

Here is a current shot of the project site courtesy of Ryan @ denverinfill.com

BrennanW · #50 Posted **Nov 9, 2010, 10:48 PM**

The angels have smiled upon DIA and have given us a hole lot of progress.

TheInformant · #51 Posted **Feb 16, 2011, 12:24 AM**

Hey guys I'm from philly and I can confirm that you guys are getting the Silverliner V's
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewt...1807&start=495

SnyderBock · #52 Posted **Feb 18, 2011, 2:55 AM**

Yes, Hyundai-Rotem is a partner in Denver Transit Partner's contract to Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain the RTD Denver's Eagle P3 project which includes all of the 22.8 mile East Corridor EMU line to Denver International Airport, all of the 11.2 mile Gold Corridor EMU line to Arvada and the short North West Electrified Segment (NWES) EMU portion to South Westminster, of the longer North West Corridor DMU line which will continue on to Boulder.

Hyundai-Rotem has said from the start, that it would use a customized variant of it's most modern FRA-Compliant EMU. While this is rather vague as to the exact model, one does not have to look to far to find that their Silverliner V would be both modern and, their only FRA-complicant EMU.

The link you shared, when investigated, provides the most concrete evidence to date, that Denver Transit Partner's will in fact, be ordering Silverliner V's for Denver's EMU lines. Up until now, because of the lack of official information in regards to the exact train-set rolling stock to be used, there has been speculation that Hyundai-Rotem might be planning to, instead use, FP class Hyundai-Rotem EMU's or Canada Line Hyundai-Rotem EMU's and then modify them so as they could be granted FRA-compliance.

These speculations were never considered to be serious possibilities, because the Silverliner V is both a fully modernized train-set and already FRA-compliant. Plus it will have a couple solid years of operational testing and adjustments under it's belt in Philadelphia, before the Denver order begins being filled, meaning it will be a proven FRA-compliant train-set, by the time it starts rolling into service in Denver. This should greatly reduce the potential for developmental and engineering related delays and certainly should prove more economically feasible to the tight Denver RTD budget. So it is indeed good to have visual confirmation of Silverliner V's being driven on a test run for a Denver Transit Partners demonstration.

In related news, a separate rail corridor soon to be constructed in Denver under the RTD's FasTracks program, the North Corridor line, has just completed work with the FTA and released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). They are now receiving public input and RTD and the FTA will release their Record of Decision this spring.

The FEIS for RTD's North Corridor has concluded the preferred technology will be FRA-compliant EMU's and not DMU's. This means that most likely (for maintenance compatibility), in addition to the initial rolling stock order of 50 Silverliner V's for the Eagle P3 East, Gold and NWES, now the North Corridor will also be using and ordering Silverliner V's, sometime in the next few years (apparently). This brings the total track mileage for Denver's EMU system, to a total of over 54 miles (22.8-mile East, 11.2-mile Gold, 2.2-mile NWES, 18-mile North).

They have also updated the projected ridership and the time frames for these projections. In the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), the report had projected just over 14,000 daily weekday riders in by the year 2030. Now with more accurate information and taking into account population growth changes in the region, the FEIS has projected this North Corridor EMU will have over 24,000 daily weekday riders by 2035. This is a significant improvement and opens up the possibility that it may now qualify to apply for Federal New Starts funding, whereas before it did not meet the minimum standards and thus has never counted on federal funding to be used on this line (100% local funding). If granted any federal funding at all, it could accelerate the construction buildout of this corridor significantly and also ease the financial strain on other less than fully funded FasTracks transit corridors.

**Please Review North Corridor FEIS Here**

.

electricron · #53 Posted **Feb 18, 2011, 5:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

They have also updated the projected ridership and the time frames for these projections. In the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), the report had projected just over 14,000 daily weekday riders in by the year 2030. Now with more accurate information and taking into account population growth changes in the region, the FEIS has projected this North Corridor EMU will have over 24,000 daily weekday riders by 2035. This is a significant improvement and opens up the possibility that it may now qualify to apply for Federal New Starts funding, whereas before it did not meet the minimum standards and thus has never counted on federal funding to be used on this line (100% local funding). If granted any federal funding at all, it could accelerate the construction buildout of this corridor significantly and also ease the financial strain on other less than fully funded FasTracks transit corridors.

It is a good that they refigured the numbers to meet "New Starts" funding eligibility. But I am always wary that the new numbers are "cooked" for that very reason. Often, that's accomplished by increasing the frequency of the trains to attract more riders, a frequency that only exists on paper, because there's no requirement to actually do it. Instead of 15 minute headways on paper, they'll be 20 to 25 minute headways in actuality to save on operating costs. Note, I'm not suggesting that's what RTD has done, I'm only suggesting that might have been done. I'm not going to take the time to read the EIS deeply to see if my suspicions are true. Numbers can be "cooked" in a variety of ways, and RTD may or may not be "cooking" them...
Never-the-less, I'm always suspicious when projections change during the EIS.

SnyderBock · #54 Posted **Feb 18, 2011, 7:07 PM**

They did not increase headways to "cook" projected ridership numbers. The headways have always been and remain to be: 15min peak / 30min off peak / 60min weekend & Holiday.

What they did do, it refine station location, to optimum locations. The FEIS did just this, concluded where best to locate each station for maximum ridership draw. They also boosted parking at the suburban stations, as the FEIS determined additional parking would be needed to meet the demand and thus boosting parking at suburban stations would boost ridership. They also added an entirely new station in inner Denver at the Denver Coliseum/National Western Stock Show & Rodeo Grounds, which was a result of a new alignment determined to be more cost effective. At this new station, while the National Western only runs for 14 days out of the year, it draws ~700,000 people during that 14 day stretch. The remainder of the year, the Denver Coliseum facility books other events such as Circuses and and the like.

Also, in the original ridership projections, they used data from 2001 and did not take into account future land use changes or future population shifts. The new projections take into account, the land-use pattern changes being observed in the Denver metro area. There has been a significant slow on suburban sprawl and a definite shift towards denser developments and TOD's near existing and planned stations.

And in all honesty, the old method used to project riderships has proven to be inaccurate in every instance in Denver, coming in considerably lower than actual ridership numbers after rail lines begin operation. I do believe the updated ridership projections to be more accurate and they are fully within accepted federal projected ridership calculation methods.

SnyderBock · #55 Posted **Dec 15, 2011, 8:44 PM**

Full-scale construction activity, will start this next year. Calatrava backed out, refusing to take actions to comply with Parsons (the lead contractor) and Denver International Airport (DIA), to make the project feasible, as far as construction costs go. Parsons and Calatrava were butting heads, which escelated to a level of nasty emails being exchanged between the two companies, over the project.

Denver International Airport had paid Calatrava over $13 million, for his designs. Calatrava agreed to allow Denver International, to move forward, as planned with his designs, as long as a few "key signiture" aspects are removed. Aspects which officals claim no one will even be able to tell, they were removed, unless you are an archetect enthusiast.

Parsons will also make the changes that were needed, to keep the design inside of the $500 million budget. Calatrava's design would have cost north of the $650 million figure. An amount that airlines operating out of Denver International Airport were very concerned about. If the project costs too much and it impacts airport landing fees, airlines said they may be forced to make cuts in service at DIA.

DIA assures the airlines, that this terminal expansion and rail station, is being funded from airports resources, which will not impact landing fees. However, in order to fully fund this project without increasing landing fees, it must be kept at or below the $500 million budget. A price Calatrava was not willing to scale his design down, to fit within the budget means. Thus his exit from the project.

More updates to come...

SnyderBock · #56 Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 10:49 PM**

It was reported last week, by a forumer in Denver, that major construction activity at the Denver International South Terminal Expansion site, has commenced. Here is the breaking news on the projects design:

Quote:

Architect Santiago Calatrava can still be seen in modified plans for DIAPosted: 01/18/2012 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/18/2012 03:18:27 PM MST By Ray Mark Rinaldi

The modified plan, left, of Santiago Calatrava's design, right, utilizes clear glass instead of white steel, which is Calatrava's trademark. Gone are Calatrava's boney structural support elements that made the transit station and hotel lobby look much like the inside of a giant dinosaur skeleton.Webs of steel replace that aspect of the design. (Special to The Denver Post)

Regrouping after the abrupt departure of renowned architect Santiago Calatrava last year, Denver International Airport officials will unveil a modified plan for a new hotel and transit hub today that keeps the Spanish designer's horizontal fins but omits his signature flourishes...

...The changes were worked out under a detailed agreement with Calatrava, who left the project in September after the budget was cut to $500 million from $650 million, a figure he said could not fund his vision.

DIA was allowed to keep the architect's basic plan but not those touches that define his work. Calatrava has built his worldwide reputation on a pointed, swanlike elegance and his trademark color of white...

...Calatrava was paid $12.9 million for his conceptual design work.

The reconfigured 700,000-square-foot complex maintains the same two main functions. The 500-room hotel will allow DIA to offer on-site overnight accommodations to travelers, while the train station has the ability to handle the thousands of commuters expected to arrive by rail as RTD completes it FasTracks system.

DIA airport manager Kim Day said Tuesday that the rethinking allowed the airport to fine-tune a few issues with the original scheme and to expand the vision for what the building can be. Passengers at the busy airport will be happy to learn the new plan allows the immediate addition of nine more TSA security gates, bringing the total to 41...

...The project is scheduled for completion in late 2015.

Read more: Architect Santiago Calatrava can still be seen in modified plans for DIA - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19...#ixzz1jqvJzJNo
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Quote:

DIA asking city to OK new design for South Terminal
Denver Business Journal by Cathy Proctor, Reporter
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 2:20pm MST - Last Modified: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 2:21pm MST..

...DIA said in an announcement that the new architectural design team — led by Gensler .. Architects, along with AndersonMasonDale Architects — maintained all of the critical elements and refined the original Calatrava rendering, removing signature elements that were unique to his vision.

DIA said the design changes include:

• A reduction in the overall square footage;

• A reduction in the size of the train station and the amount of structural steel planned for that project;

• The train station platform canopy has been extended, and its shape and look-and-feel have been revised;

• The hotel will be one floor shorter than the original and has a more efficient design;

• The current design will be built to meet a $500 million budget, rather than the original estimated cost of $650 million.

“This design affords us a number of efficiencies and cost savings and is still visually stunning,” said Aviation Manager Kim Day in a statement. “We are still on track to turn the train station over to RTD for testing at the start of 2014, and open our new hotel in 2015.”

DIA said the South Terminal project is expected to create nearly 1,000 jobs, including 600 to 700 construction and design jobs and 250 permanent hotel jobs. When complete, it’s expected to generate about $2 million in annual tax revenues for the city’s general fund.

Justin10000 · #57 Posted **Jan 20, 2012, 1:25 PM**

The Fastracks site has a picture gallery of the first car being built.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rtd-den...57111385/show/

SnyderBock · #58 Posted **Jan 21, 2012, 10:16 PM**

Here's an article about Denver International's future:
http://www.globalairportcities.com/n...s/thinking-big

ardecila · #59 Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 1:02 AM**

Doesn't have the magic of the Calatrava design, but it still does the basics right by providing a dramatic entry to the airport and preserving views of the Jeppesen tents.

I'm curious about what happens to the left and right of the train platforms, though. Seems like a ton of open space with not much purpose. Plus, the new train shed has the same coverage as the Calatrava design, but the cantilever means it's more open on the sides and it will be difficult to keep it warm in the winter, or to keep icy winds and drifting snow out. The arrivals area at Ohare's T5 is like this, open but sunk in a sloped depression. It's still cold as hell.

The Denver design is just confusing on several levels. Not only is the cantilever design less accommodating for passengers, it's more expensive. A traditional barrel vault, covered in glass or ETFE, would be simpler to construct.

This picture just looks uncomfortable. Beautiful, obviously, but crappy if you're lugging a heavy suitcase and trying to keep your kids in line.

source

mhays · #60 Posted **Jan 22, 2012, 5:38 AM**

Good points. Personally I'd want shade in the summer, rain protection, and wind protection. In fact, since it's not that frequent a service, those things seem very important. Hopefully there's a protected waiting area somewhere. The building and canopy look good though. (Or, maybe there will always be a train waiting so you can board and sit?)