Quote:
Originally Posted by BrennanW
I know the terminal allows space for future "HSR" expansion, but I really don't like how the canopy looks with just the two East Corridor tracks under it. There are no current feasible, funded plans to extend another rail line to DIA, though a front range line to Colorado Springs would be neat.
Otherwise, bravo to the planners who did a Calatrava-esque design for less and under a stressed timeline. It will be fun to watch the place get built over the next few years.
|
Most cities in the US, IMO, are slowly exiting a period where the "business as usuall" standards that evolved in the 1980s are becoming obsolete for the 2010s.
The 1980s and 1990s were an age where large "public" consortiums could hook up with private developers, and, build transportation related projects that did not need to truly serve public need.
A) Projects to develop downtowns via transportation "frills." While projects were advertised as serving metro areas, most projects designed targeted making new mini-downtowns on former railroad right of way. Think of them as downtown city "Chamber of Commerce" ploys to develop "close in" condos, office space, and, "boutique" retail (such as the DIA rail line).*
The primary driver is increased real estate taxes for the city where transportation project centers long term, and, medium term for those property developers whose property will increase in value through the subsidized construction of server, water, power, street, and, curb construction (this important from the "where do we save money argument" standpoint)**
While the metro-wide sales pitch is that all metro citizens will share in the project, most of the return on investment will be made with a couple of kilometers of new rail terminals and downtown rail stop stations***
B) These projects are immensely expensive. In many respects, these projects are "welfare" projects for construction companies and for inhouse engineering/design staffs. With multiple decade buildouts, associated public and private staffs can have the time for an entire working career. This tendency rewards over engineering and punishes "best cost" efforts.****
This is best visible in what is built. Catenaries, and station amenities are overbuilt, while interfaces between rail lines are simplified (to the future detriment of passenger usage). A classic example, in the RTD buildout, is the area around the Auraria West Station, with it's glorious catenary, lighting, and, wide platforms while a 3rd track leading south onto the West line was not built. Even worse, the junction approach clearences under Colfax as the West line joins north are only set up for 2 tracks. Had the approach elevation been built for 3 tracks, and, the current 2 tracks had been laid, future expansion would have been simple, and, fairly cheap (about $2,000,000 in todays money, I would estimate). Instead, rebuilding the approach (with the necessary slow orders, etc) might cost 4 or 5 times that much. This type of "cost compromise" was done, in part, IMO to keep station design staffs rationalized at the expense of rail line design efficientcy. While such a small scale criticism might seem insignficant in terms of total project costs, this type of "compromise" costs passenger movement efficientcies- average speed in particular, and, is common.
I bring this up because this is an example any C or E train rider can go look at and see. All we see of the DIA project are beautiful renderings that look very handsome with their deep blues...
This type of build out will change when future demands skyrocket. I have no doubts that metro wide multiple rider transportation-public and private- will increase radically and the era of public transportation systems as downtown developmental entities will end.*****
Only then we can build systems that carry masses of people efficiently- when people are screaming for systems that work.
*The DIA station needs to be a working, efficient station more than a 2 tracked access to a "gee, that's neat looking" visual arcade. The DIA authority has the surrounding property, and, the RTD consortium does not make money here through property development, but down track is a different story.
**Save money in areas with the least political impact. Powers at be and their money are the key.
***The railway to DIA is built to get people to downtown. This is the crown jewel of Lodo's "rejuvenation" with the idealized dream of thousands of business travelers staying downtown...(HSR should interface at DIA, obviously, as great right of way exists north and south. The station should have not been a stub tracked station, Amtrak should have been able to stop there- ((there was a proposal for a north-south connector between the BNSF and UP lines)) etc.)
****OF COURSE BOULDER IS ANGRY WITH RTD!!! They are not stupid!
*****And of course, the "we did not know this would happen.." innocence argument will be the "norm." The powers at be when decisions are proven to not serve the public good (i.e., the public comes after them with torches and pitch forks.) will always include the public by saying "we." Most of time, the powers at be are well aware of repercussions- that's why they hire lawyers and pay off politicians.
Prev
Linear Mode
