HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11401  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 5:11 AM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Durkan said... we are not sure if they will fit on the gauge of rail that’s there.”
This smells fishy. Nobody even remotely competent enough to have a job planning a streetcar line would make a mistake like that. This project was way too far along, and had passed way too many reviews. That would be the most monumental engineering mistake since... I dunno, Galloping Girtie maybe. This seems more like a case of a mayor who's decided to bad talk the project, and is playing loose with the truth to do so.

Too bad too, because that's a legit project. Dedicated lanes, great route, really the necessary piece to making Seattle's entire streetcar network work at all.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11402  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 8:22 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556

Source

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
This smells fishy.

Too bad too, because that's a legit project. Dedicated lanes, great route, really the necessary piece to making Seattle's entire streetcar network work at all.
The track compatibility did seem a bit far-fetched unless it goes to engineering stuff I don't understand like load bearing or turning radius... dunno. Not using the same stock seemed odd though.

The other issue is that everything done so far is running well over budget, sometimes waaay over budget. There's generally valid reasons but this never looks very good to taxpayer/voters.

I updated myself on what Sound Transit is doing and I was reminded why I contend that Seattle is NOT a good (transit) peer comparison for Denver. Their light rail projects are running/projected from $275-$350 million per mile (not firm figures). At those rates RTD/Fastracks could have built the A Line - train to the plane and the Flatiron Flyer.

And I'm not doubting the value of Sound Transit projects; I'm sure they will be worth every penny spent. It's just that Denver doesn't have a $54 billion pot to play with and they were able to build 6 LRT lines (~95 miles) instead of just one 23-mile line and the admittedly wildly successful Flatiron Flyer.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11403  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 8:50 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever View Post
I feel like a broken record asking this again, but... any news on the G-Line? I assume it's tied to the same recent hearings regarding the quiet zones along the A-Line, but I'm hearing very little about the G.

Anyone have any insight? What's the over/under on this thing opening before 2020?

Source

RTD gets approval for the next phase of testing on the G Line
Jul 20 2018 by Ashley Dean/Denverite
Quote:
The Federal Railroad Administration has approved the next phase of testing on the G Line, which means RTD starts to ramp things up today and we inch a little closer to an opening. It’ll soon be running empty G Line trains at a full daily schedule — about 21 hours a day.
While they're already planning for the opening party they don't dare promise anything... until the ink is dry; good chance it's by the end of the year.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11404  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 9:35 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
One milestone down

Here are some of the major Colorado road projects a sales-tax hike could fund
Jul 20, 2018 By Ed Sealover – Reporter, Denver Business Journal
Quote:
CTC members on Thursday finalized a project list for the proposed 20-year request for a 0.62-cent sales-tax hike for which the Denver Chamber of Commerce and other coalition partners are collecting signatures to get onto the ballot.

It includes major highway projects in all parts of the state but is particularly heavy on two of the pinch points that have galled Denver business leaders the most — the stretch of I-25 between Denver and Fort Collins and the portion of I-70 that slows to a crawl heading to ski resorts and other mountain areas vital to Colorado’s tourist economy.
The CTC = Colorado Transportation Commission.

It was important to reach agreement despite varying opinions in order to be able to publish a specific project/priorities list for voters to clearly see what will be targeted with their tax $'s.
Quote:
Sean Duffy — a spokesman for Let’s Go Colorado, the coalition that will lead the campaign if the Denver Chamber gets its proposed tax hike on the ballot — said he believes the breadth and depth of the list of projects, which will not be on the ballot but will be sent out in the blue book that is given to all voters, should appeal to Coloradans who have listed transportation as one of their top concerns for several years.
Specific metro Denver projects would include:
Quote:
The widening of Interstate 270 from I-70 to Interstate 76
The addition of 1.5 miles of additional lanes on C-470 in both directions from U.S. 285, reconstruction of the 285 interchange and other upgrades
The widening of I-25 in the two-mile stretch between Alameda Avenue and Sixth Avenue near downtown Denver
If they can collect the necessary signatures to get this proposal on the ballot, it should pass.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11405  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2018, 2:58 AM
DenverDave DenverDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
One milestone down

Here are some of the major Colorado road projects a sales-tax hike could fund
Jul 20, 2018 By Ed Sealover – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

The CTC = Colorado Transportation Commission.

It was important to reach agreement despite varying opinions in order to be able to publish a specific project/priorities list for voters to clearly see what will be targeted with their tax $'s.

Specific metro Denver projects would include:


If they can collect the necessary signatures to get this proposal on the ballot, it should pass.
I'm not a subscriber. Any bones thrown to transit or multimodal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11406  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2018, 9:07 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDave View Post
I'm not a subscriber. Any bones thrown to transit or multimodal?
Not specifically but...

CDOT will receive 60% of the new revenue of which 15% must be spent on transit/mobility. CDOT generally adds bike paths along all of their freeway projects. They also are now running the Bustang service which they intend to expand and which I recently took from DUS up to Frisco. It was a very nice ride. CameraShy believes that Summit County likely has the best transit stops/service in the state and I'd agree the FREE Summit Stage Shuttle was very impressive. Just a guess that CDOT provided (matching) grant money and/or engineering and construction services for their setup. So that's the type of thing they might do. With respect to their planning process CDOT describes how they make their decisions HERE.

Additionally, 40% of the new revenue will be redirected to local (city/county) jurisdictions for transportation purposes at their discretion. So for example the City/County of Denver can use their share however they wish.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11407  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 4:06 PM
seventwenty's Avatar
seventwenty seventwenty is offline
I took a bus pic, CIRRUS
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Soon to be banned
Posts: 1,697
Busting Exceeding Ridership Expectations

Averaging 17,000 passengers a month. I didn’t know Bustang expanded operations into Pueblo.
__________________
The happy & obtuse bro.

"Of course you're right." Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11408  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 6:32 PM
idiot206 idiot206 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: NYC/Seattle
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Operationally it's also complicated. For starters, Sound Transit runs in downtown tunnels operated by King County Metro and Burlington Northern. The latter is why we have miniscule commuter rail service to the north. A similar issue on ground-level tracks means the south is hampered as well.
The Great Northern Tunnel is definitely not the reason Seattle has minuscule commuter rail service on the north line. Capacity through the tunnel isn't the issue, the waterfront just isn't a convenient location for a rail line and mudslides have severely affected reliability.

I'm also not sure what you mean by ground-level tracks on the south line. There's no capacity issues there except the high prices BNSF charge for time slots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
And I'm not doubting the value of Sound Transit projects; I'm sure they will be worth every penny spent. It's just that Denver doesn't have a $54 billion pot to play with and they were able to build 6 LRT lines (~95 miles) instead of just one 23-mile line and the admittedly wildly successful Flatiron Flyer.
That one 23-mile line in Seattle gets nearly the same ridership as Denver's 95-mile, 6 line system. They could've built the line down the freeway median for a lot cheaper but I'm personally glad they didn't, I'd probably never ride it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11409  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 6:58 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by idiot206 View Post
That one 23-mile line in Seattle gets nearly the same ridership as Denver's 95-mile, 6 line system. They could've built the line down the freeway median for a lot cheaper but I'm personally glad they didn't, I'd probably never ride it.
I'm aware of the yuge bump in ridership when they opened University Station etc. Whether the current expansion does as well is too early to know.

Denver RTD's Fastracks investment is about the future much more than today's ridership #'s. The fact that Seattle has a $54 billion pot compared to Denver's $6 billion pot is great for Seattle. Toot your horn all you wish. It is what it is.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11410  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 7:12 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty View Post
I didn’t know Bustang expanded operations into Pueblo.
Looked it up just now. There are 2 routes serving Pueblo, one going east and one going west. It doesn't connect Pueblo to Denver or Colorado Springs.

I guess Greyhound probably covers that.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11411  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 7:26 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
The fact that Seattle has a $54 billion pot compared to Denver's $6 billion pot is great for Seattle. Toot your horn all you wish. It is what it is.
Well, yes and no. It is what it is partly because of policy & political choices that, in a democracy, voters can control. Seattle is bigger and denser than Denver, but not that much bigger and denser than Denver. Denver also has TABOR and other factors that limit the scope of government investments, which the voters could change if they wanted to.

People can debate whether that would be good or bad, but let's not be too fatalistic about the choices.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11412  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 8:03 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
The $54b goes out decades, as do the projects it will fund, most of which is a ways out. I suspect the difference is much less on a year-by-year basis.

Regarding price, we have to create our corridors from scratch, often through hills or over water. The new additions will be almost universally grade-separated. So it'll cost a lot. In a dense area, costs start rising geometrically as new methods and longer schedules are needed to solve the various logistical challenges and ensure safety while keeping things open.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11413  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 8:13 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Well, yes and no. It is what it is partly because of policy & political choices that, in a democracy, voters can control. Seattle is bigger and denser than Denver, but not that much bigger and denser than Denver. Denver also has TABOR and other factors that limit the scope of government investments, which the voters could change if they wanted to.

People can debate whether that would be good or bad, but let's not be too fatalistic about the choices.
Well it's apples to pine cones which is why Seattle doesn't make for a good peer city comparison.

Seattle not only has better density (and growing density) but b/c of geography it's more 'clustered' density. It's really an ideal city for transit. Denver is very different. Perhaps the greater metro areas are more comparable which is what their ST3 LRT lines are for.

TABOR isn't an impediment as both cities have voted for what they want. Btw, after my four-day visit to Colorado, one day spent riding the W, H, R, B and A lines, I'm more convinced than ever that the investment will be a masterstroke in hindsight. While the majority of development energy is still focused on downtown there are many signs of greenshoots along the suburb to city lines. The 'today' ridership view doesn't speak to future TOD that will result from building the lines where they did; that development will only intensify going forward resulting in more and more ridership.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11414  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 9:17 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty View Post
Busting Exceeding Ridership Expectations

Averaging 17,000 passengers a month. I didn’t know Bustang expanded operations into Pueblo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Looked it up just now. There are 2 routes serving Pueblo, one going east and one going west. It doesn't connect Pueblo to Denver or Colorado Springs.

I guess Greyhound probably covers that.
The article that seventwenty linked to indicated additional service for Pueblo was planned, presumably up to C-Springs.

When I rode Bustang from DUS to Frisco the bus was about 65% full. I wasn't the only AARP-eligible person; actually it was quite a diverse group. I took the earlier 2:45 pm departure (there's also a 5:40 pm bus) so that I could literally walk from Bustang to the (last) free Summit Stage shuttle to Dillon for the 4-block walk to my hotel. The buses are very nice. It was a much nicer way to 'see the Rockies' than driving.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11415  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 9:18 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Sure, the TOD will help Denver over the long haul, but it's not like you wouldn't get gobs of TOD on Colfax, Broadway, and Cherry Creek lines too. And it's not like Seattle's system doesn't have enormous TOD potential on its own.

Anyway I'm not really sure what your argument is. You seem to simultaneously be saying that Seattle is better because Seattle has to serve its natural transit corridors, and also that Denver is better because Denver skipped serving its natural transit corridors.

Maybe your point is just that Seattle and Denver are different? OK, they're different.

Maybe your point is that Seattle has no choice but to build the good/expensive stuff, while Denver can get away with cutting corners? I suppose that's true, but it aligns with where I said "Denver can choose," so where's the disagreement?

Maybe your point is just annoyance at anyone who thinks FasTracks is imperfect? Sorry not sorry.

Maybe your point is that we should stop talking about Seattle as a model for Denver to emulate? Well, that would be an interesting topic! I'd say that Seattle includes a lot of things Denver should emulate, but also a lot that it shouldn't. I'd also say there are things in Denver that Seattle should emulate. And we can talk more about all of that if you want to.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11416  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 9:20 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
When I rode Bustang from DUS to Frisco the bus was about 65% full. I wasn't the only AARP-eligible person;
I thought it was interesting (and probably smart) that the La Junta stop is at the senior center rather than the Amtrak station or the town square. Granted all those destinations are within a block of each other, but still.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11417  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 9:59 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Oh Lord, here we go again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Sure, the TOD will help Denver over the long haul, but it's not like you wouldn't get gobs of TOD on Colfax, Broadway, and Cherry Creek lines too.
Colfax, Broadway and Cherry Creek are specific to the City/County of Denver. I can't/won't speak to why Denver hasn't chosen to build light rail where you suggest. Neither am I familiar with ST1 and ST2 to speak to why Seattle proceeded as they did. I would stick to my contention that Seattle is an ideal city for transit; Denver less so; it's an important difference. We could have rambling debates as to why that is so... I'd rather not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Maybe your point is just annoyance at anyone who thinks FasTracks is imperfect? Sorry not sorry.
I'm only annoyed that my view like Fastracks is visionary while textbook jockeys have very myopic eyes.
Quote:
my·op·ic
lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.
Yes, politics led to Fastracks building what they did. It's fair for anyone to debate the wisdom if they wish to. I've accepted what the voters wanted and see the fabulous potential b/c I'm not myopic or illiberal; I be progressive.

And finally, yes budgets are a Big Deal. See Nashville for example; Denver is light years ahead of that peer city.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11418  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 10:19 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Still not sure what we're arguing about, except now you've added an ad hominem.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11419  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2018, 10:53 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Still not sure what we're arguing about, except now you've added an ad hominem.
No, not at all. That was intended to be (mostly) humorous and not personal.

But it does clearly define two separate ways of looking at the same thing and both can be right. I find the theoretical to be pointless in light of what the reality is. The difference would seem to be as to the potential. I'm bullish and if some want to be bearish, that's their choice.

Not an expert on Seattle but to a degree they've done the reverse of Denver in that they are just now building LRT lines to outlying areas. How that ridership works out I'd have no clue. Denver is now looking at BRT which is what Seattle did a great job with, first. That's merely a general description and ofc Seattle has a yuge pot going forward to build from. Props to them for that (as I've said).
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11420  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2018, 2:27 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Sure, the TOD will help Denver over the long haul, but it's not like you wouldn't get gobs of TOD on Colfax, Broadway, and Cherry Creek lines too.
BTW, it's not like I'm against doing that.

Additionally, Colorado will hopefully vote on (and pass) a .62 percent statewide sales tax increase for transportation, 40% of which will be distributed locally. I haven't yet heard the $'s involved for Denver but I'll assume they'll have money to add to the Colfax BRT project along with money for more bike lanes and sidewalks which seems to be the priority of the Denver Streetsblog crowd.

Assuming that passes, take a couple of years to let that sort out and then 2020 could become a good time for a metrowide funding initiative focused on more RTD transit and multimodal solutions. More funding for RTD is needed to do the heavy lifting for additional LRT lines (for Broadway, Cherry Creek and possibly Colorado Blvd). Nobody's throwing in the towel.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.