Denver International Airport Expansion & Transit Hub

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I like systems that work, sir. And I have personally ridden the best in the world. Many times.

Examples of great transportation design:

Korea- go to Seoul sometime and ride their subway,

Go to Tokyo, Nagoya, or Osaka and see the 'city' without having to rent a car

Fly into Frankfurt and see what an INTEGRATED facility actually is.

No, I am for WELL DESIGNED public transportation systems, not 'politik' driven 1950 level built systems.

No, sir, use the best in the world as the standard...

Let's see, every single system you mention is 'politik' driven. Each of these "well designed public transportation systems" is a direct result of a country being able to divert significant portions of GDP towards rebuilding and expanding infrastructure because they did not have to worry about national defense. Sixty years of defraying the cost of national defense for monetary dominance has allowed these systems to be built. The provider of that defense? They don't benefit from that defrayed cost in terms of transportation infrastructure.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Let's see, every single system you mention is 'politik' driven. Each of these "well designed public transportation systems" is a direct result of a country being able to divert significant portions of GDP towards rebuilding and expanding infrastructure because they did not have to worry about national defense. Sixty years of defraying the cost of national defense for monetary dominance has allowed these systems to be built. The provider of that defense? They don't benefit from that defrayed cost in terms of transportation infrastructure.

Indeed.

But, sir, I do not believe that is an excuse for picking poor right-of-ways, for not building stations with passing tracks, for not going THROUGH downtowns on right-of-ways where at design day 1 were huge expenses of wild grass and rusting iron. (In the old Rio Grande, Sante Fe rail yards in downtown Denver, in 1985 or so I could take out a driver and hit a golf ball in any direction without hitting anything! The worst bottlenecks were 3 and 4 track right-of-ways! and this has been the rule, rather than the exception nationwide.) To build a system on undeveloped right-of-way that averages 20 to 30 mph does not require much more money than a system that averages 10 to 15 mph. Such an increase in average speed produces huge time efficientcies but does not produce double or tripple increases in base line costs (I will grant you that a 40 to 60 mph average speed system*, would, however.)

I am afraid that this issue largely reflects corruption. IMO most additional monies would be swallowed by an abyss of property speculation and fraud. Would signficantly more money pay off property speculators in lieu of their destroying right-of-way opportunities or would more money attract more flies to the compost pit? Based on what I have seen, a huge increase in funding for public transportation in the US of 2012 would not produce a significant increase in average velocity, efficientcy, and, better right-of-ways today.

This,of course will change, when millions wake up in the near future and no longer can afford a car. Until then, more mediocre systems will tend to be the rule (only when politicians at all levels risk not being re-elected over public transportion issues will anything change. Only when politicians are more afraid of voters than their monied backers will the political elite deal with fraud and corruption, and, then resume their corrupt ways public interest goes back to sleep)

*The DIA line, with little additional cost, could take 20 minutes to go from Lodo to DIA (one stop at Peoria) Express trains, passing sidings (much of the right of way is grass right now), banked turns, etc., would not bring signficant cost increases and the max speed would still remain 79 mph. Required improvements would be decidedly low tech...

[SnyderBock]

Hopefully the freight rail companies build a high speed rail corridor, bypassing the metro Denver and Front range communities to the east. It seems the only reason they haven't already done this, is because they want to find a way to get taxpayers to fund it. They're a for-profit company, in the business of building and maintaining freight rail lines. they can fund it themselves. The productivity increase they will gain, will pay it off. The freight rail companies can build a new freight rail line for $250 million, but if taxpayers are funding it, they will claim it costs $1 billion. they are trying to get new freight rail lines and yards built for them with taxpayer money and get a nice fat paycheck to boot.

I seriously believe we need to retract eminent domain immunity from freight rail, in special civic transportation projects where it can be justified and done so in a way which won't affect freight company profitability. This way, we take some of the bargaining chips away from them, so it's an even playing field.

As far as express passing lanes for the rail lines being built. As mentioned before, that capacity can always be added in the future. The budget constraints, currently make it impractical. Whether you like that or not, that's all there is to it.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Hopefully the freight rail companies build a high speed rail corridor, bypassing the metro Denver and Front range communities to the east. It seems the only reason they haven't already done this, is because they want to find a way to get taxpayers to fund it. They're a for-profit company, in the business of building and maintaining freight rail lines. they can fund it themselves. The productivity increase they will gain, will pay it off. The freight rail companies can build a new freight rail line for $250 million, but if taxpayers are funding it, they will claim it costs $1 billion. they are trying to get new freight rail lines and yards built for them with taxpayer money and get a nice fat paycheck to boot.

I seriously believe we need to retract eminent domain immunity from freight rail, in special civic transportation projects where it can be justified and done so in a way which won't affect freight company profitability. This way, we take some of the bargaining chips away from them, so it's an even playing field.

As far as express passing lanes for the rail lines being built. As mentioned before, that capacity can always be added in the future. The budget constraints, currently make it impractical. Whether you like that or not, that's all there is to it.

Have to get the property first- express stations (4 track type, with tunnel underneath or overhead connections for passengers) are not much larger than two track stations as the additional width does not have to be any more than 50' and the length of the station property with the increased width might be 200.'

In addition, if the station is built simply (remember express trains do not have to travel fast through a station to significantly decrease system travel times* and that function is more important than aethetics) the additional cost function is less than one might expect.

If the foot print for the station is available, then the station, of course, can be built at a later date.

Regretably, this does not happen. The rule is that 2 track stations are built, and, densification of one kind or another, precludes any future expansion to the four track station model later.

Of course, 2 track stations with express train run throughs are routinely done throughout the world. However, doing so does not enable trains to pass one another, and if sidings or another 4 track stations are not provided, then the express train merely pushes scheduled trains ahead to move faster or the express train must slow down.

Example of bullet train passing through 4 track station with no center platform. The Shinkensen has 2 track main lines.

(This is the ideal- I had to use a Shinkensen train Nozomi 500 which is argueably one of the best looking trains ever built because I like them- with 2 run through tracks.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkoz8aEUssQ

Note: the station shelter is a simple steel shed. Also note, that in Japan, train directions are 'opposite' as they are in the US.

For systems with speeds under 130 km/hr it is not so critical for 4 track stations, although 4 track stations produce a far faster average velocities.
Obviously, this could be a 'bit' dangerous for the unwary. In addition, sidings have to be provided for these fast trains to pass slower average speed trains.

Baby Bullet California

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HfG1...5A8&playnext=2

(about 2 minutes in play list).

Finding good video for 2 track mains on non-Shinkensen lines and 4 track stations on two track mains in Tokyo is difficult as most passenger main lines now have 4 or more more tracks, many of which have been added over the last 25 years. This has enabled them to put express trains on dedicated tracks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhHs0kZq27I

which is another example of how well future expansion right-of ways are built into early system planning in Japan (as well as in China, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. We do this very poorly in the US, as a rule).

Get the ROW first, and, get room for 4 track stations on 2 track main lines. Secure ride of way for through downtown ROW. Do this, and, trip times shrink dramatically.

Example: Had the RTD Southwest line and the DUS been provided ROW options for such expansion, an express train averaging just 40 mph from Mineral to DUS Light Rail station could make the trip in about 12 minutes. If express stations were provided on the DIA with a 1 stop at Peoria, the trip from Lodo to DIA at 60 mph average could be made in 25 minutes. Provide platform to platform boarding between the twomcoordinate schedules, provide 5 minutes to deboard, walk 50 meters via a tunnel to the other trainand, the trip from Mineral to DIA would take about 42 minutes.

This is what good planning- NOT JUST MONEY- can do, and, has not been done, bottom line, in Denver. Had we done that type of better planning, far more people would take the light rail now, when the West line opens, when the DIA line opens, and, when the I-225 light rail line is complete. Like 2 or 3 times as many riders!!

*It now takes almost 7 minutes to travel from Colfax to the DUS Light Rail Station due to both poor track alignment overall, and, no train ride throughs of stations. If the horrid Sports Authority Mile High stop were bypassed at 10 mph, one minute could be shaved from the schedule (stop there at game times only!!!). If the Pepsi Center stop were bypassed at 30 mph, another 75 seconds or so could be shaved. Thats 5 minutes from Osage to DUS with the changes. Train run throughs through Alameda, and, Oxford stations at 15 mph would shave another 2 minutes off the schedule. Had better alighnment design been used, and, the average speed increased from Osage to DUS light, at least another 2 minutes could have been reduced (remember a 2 minute travel time from Evans to DUS light would only be averaging 35 mph) Fix the Broadway switching system- make the switches for 50 mph instead of 25, and, 30 seconds could be saved. As the net time from Mineral to DUS light now is 27 minutes, those simple improvements and changes would reduce the time to 20 minutes.

Good planning reflects both providing the room for future expansion, as well asmaking multitudes of small changes- the Lexus ad type "relentless pursuit of perfection" type of change.

[SnyderBock]

I doubt passing express lanes for the light rail lines would be feasible. It would only benefit a small percentage of transit users (those being ones whom use stations where the express light rail trains actually stop). I can understand express EMU's running from the airport to downtown at some future point in time. There will be many miles of preserved ROW along the airport line, for decades to come. Much of this line will run along undeveloped land, along highway or along side Union pacific ROW (with a nice buffer between the commuter ROW and the UP ROW). There will be options for adding track. But any express service added, would come at a premium ticket price. The percentage of possible riders who would opt to use it, would be low. These express trains would likely be running with far fewer passengers on them.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I doubt passing express lanes for the light rail lines would be feasible. It would only benefit a small percentage of transit users (those being ones whom use stations where the express light rail trains actually stop). I can understand express EMU's running from the airport to downtown at some future point in time. There will be many miles of preserved ROW along the airport line, for decades to come. Much of this line will run along undeveloped land, along highway or along side Union pacific ROW (with a nice buffer between the commuter ROW and the UP ROW). There will be options for adding track. But any express service added, would come at a premium ticket price. The percentage of possible riders who would opt to use it, would be low. These express trains would likely be running with far fewer passengers on them.

1) The key to making the DIA line work in terms of any serious ridership is to bring in other commuters besides those that would ride the line between Lodo and DIA, which, IMO, would be a small number of riders riding end-to-end via a 40+ minute time table.

2) Unlike the RTD light rail lines, the DIA line has the 'paper' attributes of a serious electrified transit line, with platform level boarding, and high speeds (to 79 mph).

3) The DIA line will have 3 primary traffic generating nodes: Lodo, Peoria Station, and DIA. Lodo, itself, IMO, will source little outbound traffic besides visitors who will stay in downtown without a car. Lodo will have receive commuter traffic from the east and this traffic load IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO FREQUENCY OF TRAIN SERVICE AND DURATION OF TRIP TIME. Peoria Station will be a transfer destination point to ride the light rail into the Fitz medical complex, and, for commuters who commute downtown from the I-225 feeder line. DIA will receive visitor traffic, and some worker traffic.

Remember that the majority of commuters will balance time spent going to stations, waiting for trains, riding the train to destination X, disembarking, and then traveling from the disembarking point to the final destination, with the time cost analysis of using their cars.

If someone lives 30 minutes by car from DIA in an existing suburban home in East Denver or Aurora* and works at DIA, what are the time-cost advantages of riding the DIA line?In particular, if one works at a business not in the DIA terminal, what are the additional time requirements for commuting via train from the house he or she currently has to his or her work?

If someone works at Lodo and lives in a 20-30 minute car commute time belt to downtown, or to DIA, how much longer would he or she have to take to use the DIA line into Lodo or DIA? Breaking the time required, excluding the DIA line ride itself- into increments:

1) Time spent driving to, parking in, and, walking from the car to the DIA station platform, plus time waiting for the DIA line train.

1a) Alternate: time spent walking to bus feeder line, waiting for the feeder bus, taking the bus, walking from the bus to the DIA station platform, and, waiting for the DIA train.

1b) Alternate 2: time spent walking to bus feeder line (or taking their car and parking it at an I-225 light rail parking facility) to I-225 light rail station, walking from the bus drop off point to the light rail platform, waiting for the light rail train, riding the light rail train to Peoria station, walking from the light rail to the DIA line, and waiting for the DIA train.

If the intent of the line is to be more than a "see, we in Denver have a train to downtown, too," then time efficientcies must be improved. For example, if commuter X has already spent 30 minutes getting to Peoria station, a 15 minute trip to Lodo or DIA from Peoria Station is far more attractive than a 30 minute ride, as a 45 minute commute by public transit, compared to 30 minute drive, is far more attractive alternative than a 1 hour commute transit experience EACH WAY. For a week's commute, an extra 15 minutes twice a day adds up to a 2.5 hour per week waste of time.

The bottom line is that travel times must be reduced on the public transportation portion of the travel equation in order for the DIA line to achieve anywhere near it's potential.

Hence the need for Express Services on all light rail and heavy rail commuter lines.

*Going through the DUS/Light Rail complex adds more time to the equation, as time spent walking between Light Rail and bus feeder lines, to the heavy rail station must be added to the extra time required to get to bus stops and/or light rail stations. Very few commuters who would have to spend 45 minutes (a very rational amount of time) to walk/bike/drive to/then ride the light rail to Lodo, or walk to a bus station/wait/ride to downtown, will take the additional time to go through the downtown station complex, wait for a train, etc. Instead, they will use their cars.

[mhays]

Visitors heading from DIA to Downtown will like having a train, which is certainly the case in my city, which opened a link a few years ago. But having to transfer or walk a long way to get to most hotels is a downside. The Westin should be ok for most people but the Hyatt Regency probably not. In our case the line has multiple stations through Downtown rather than being on the edge.

The 16th shuttle is helpful obviously. But it's still a transfer. And tourists might not know how easy it is. Psychological barriers/questions like that can significantly impact adoption rates especially with first-timers.

[SnyderBock]

By the way, I meant that hopefully the freight rail companies will build a freight rail bypass of Denver and the Front Range cities, to the east. I said high speed rail line. What I meant was a faster, more efficient freight rail bypass line, so those freight trains bypass populated areas as much as possible. Once those companies invest in that, they will benefit by more efficient and timely freight service and it will open up Front Range communities to more commuter rail options, at much lower costs to tax payers.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

By the way, I meant that hopefully the freight rail companies will build a freight rail bypass of Denver and the Front Range cities, to the east. I said high speed rail line. What I meant was a faster, more efficient freight rail bypass line, so those freight trains bypass populated areas as much as possible. Once those companies invest in that, they will benefit by more efficient and timely freight service and it will open up Front Range communities to more commuter rail options, at much lower costs to tax payers.

Give the rail companies billions for use of existing lines and also more billions of dollars to subsidize building the bypass lines and they will go for it. Otherwise, the status quo is just fine to them.

Like I have said before, BNSF- and, to a lesser extent UP- have a lot of public dollar bird feathers in their mouths already.* Both railroads are making money clunking coal trains through Lodo at 1 mph or less average, as it is.

We, as transit riders, had better accept how woefully slow and inefficient the entire public rail transit system is, and will be for decades to come. Either we accept taking too much time traveling any distance traveling through Lodo, or to Lodo or DIA via the I-225 line (when complete), or we will just take our cars or ride the bus. The damage, I am afraid, has been done. Too late to make the system more than 3rd rate on a world standard.

Of course, not using transportation principles that every major passenger rail employing nation uses, will just make it that much worse. We have a chance to salvage the entire system a bit, but, I am sure, we, the present and future commuter will not be see any possible improvements. The plans are cast in the hardest, densest cement.

Just a crying shame. But, on a lighter note, fly to Tokyo and show train buffs there just how well designed Fastracks is, and, I am sure you will get few laughs and a lot of talk behind your back.

*Look at what BNSF wants for the Longmont to Boulder diagonal rail usage. Multiply that by 10 or 20 times and you have the figure(s) the railroads would expect for the Eastern Bypass and the right-to-use their through town right-of-way.

[SnyderBock]

If they can't build 100 miles of new freight rail, when they have already paid for and built thousands of miles on their own. Then they may have a failing business model. Perhaps a change at the upper levels, to bring new ideas, innovation to their profit books, is in store. It's ridiculous they need billions of tax payers funds to build 100-200 miles of freight rail, which will greatly benefit their company. They can sell the rights to inner city lines to transit agencies (at a reasonable price, not billions), to help finance their new line.

I realize they just want to add billions of public dollars to their profit sheets. I find this hypocritical, as many of the top executives in the freight rail industry have expressed strong conservative/republican party loyalties. So it really just comes down to greed. They will oppose taxes, government regulations and public subsidies, unless of course, they can benefit.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

If they can't build 100 miles of new freight rail, when they have already paid for and built thousands of miles on their own. Then they may have a failing business model. Perhaps a change at the upper levels, to bring new ideas, innovation to their profit books, is in store. It's ridiculous they need billions of tax payers funds to build 100-200 miles of freight rail, which will greatly benefit their company. They can sell the rights to inner city lines to transit agencies (at a reasonable price, not billions), to help finance their new line.

I realize they just want to add billions of public dollars to their profit sheets. I find this hypocritical, as many of the top executives in the freight rail industry have expressed strong conservative/republican party loyalties. So it really just comes down to greed. They will oppose taxes, government regulations and public subsidies, unless of course, they can benefit.

That has been the problem all along. Greed.

Now, greed always exists, yet, occasionally great transportation works are built. Astute political leadership, combined with powerful backroom arm twisting has always been how "things" get done.

We in Denver have not have good leadership in this sense. Perhaps metro-wide cross jurisdictional commitee led political structures just don't work very well. Maybe the only way great design can be implemented is for a very powerful person (with the 'goods' on other power players) to threaten, cooerce, and, intimidate those real estate developers who jump in early to adhere to his or her vision.

While people such Mr. Marsalla had this power, most seem not to have understand the advantages of ubiquitous compared to radial (hub and spoke) steel rail networks. These leaders tend to be implementers without vision.

While such leadership is critical to getting anything done in our world, forthright forcefulness must be combined with a deep understanding of the basics: average speed across metro-areas, frequency of service, ease of boarding into trains, platform level transfer between rail lines, rail lines that pass through urban cores, lines that connect "spokes" good linear right-of-way (to decrease average speed)- to actually build great, working systems.

Design and implementation by committee is even worse. Relationships between property developers, potential contractors, and, aspiring local politicians inevitably produce the lowest common denominator compromises in the sense of producing something that serves the public need.

With regards to BNSF and UP and "getting" cooperation:

IMO the only way these railroads will deal with public transportation growth needs in a less "greedy" manner, will be when Congress threatens to re-regulate them if they don't. Until then, the huge railroads will be like the Lodo real estate interests have been, just on a far bigger buck scale.

[N830MH]

Hasn't DEN already under construction yet? Where is it? What about the entire concourse has already begin construction or did they recently approval from FAA.

[eleven=11]

I will make a special trip to denver , but not untill the
downtown union station is done.
never been to denver , cant wait to see the airport station.
if the miami dolfins could beat the broncos that would be great.

is their new plans or pics of the airport station?

[eleven=11]

actually I saw the old pics
but im confused
are they really going to block the view of
the airport terminal tent like station?

that hotel thing is it going to block the view?
that cant be right......

[SnyderBock]

This is the updated design. Construction is underway.









Source:
http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/02...#comment-35070[/QUOTE]

[eleven=11]

is this really what the hotel building looks like?
It looks kinda funny
I like the train part...

is there constuction pics?

[wong21fr]

Whoa, a notice for a future RFP for August 2012 to expand Concourse C was posted on DIA's website focused on Construction Management/General Contractor. Maybe DIA is dusting off the plans from 2008 to add 10 more gates?

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Whoa, a notice for a future RFP for August 2012 to expand Concourse C was posted on DIA's website focused on Construction Management/General Contractor. Maybe DIA is dusting off the plans from 2008 to add 10 more gates?

Where did you hear this? How? How I can find the link? When they will start construction and when it will completely sometime in between 2013 or 2014.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by N830MH

Where did you hear this? How? How I can find the link? When they will start construction and when it will completely sometime in between 2013 or 2014.

It just a link on DIA's RFP/FRQ portal. Right now it lists the RFP as a future one to be released in August with an unknown value estimation.

So, it's pretty tenuous right now.

[RockMont]

2015, is the projected date.