HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10741  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 4:19 AM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddvmke
I want to throw a new idea! into the ring for Colfax BRT... Streetcar capacity with BRT cost and zero vehicle emissions?... Obviously the technology is totally unproven


Getty VCG / Contributor via Popular Mechanics
It's not really unproven. This is called a "guided bus," "tram bus," or some variation thereof. There are a few of them around the world. I trekked out to a Paris suburb just to see an especially good one the last time I was there.

Anyway there are three things to unpack here:

1. The bus that looks a lot like a streetcar.

Certainly it's possible to make buses look more like trams. But there are some limiting factors:

a. You can't do it if the bus comes into close near-contact with cars at any point along its route. Consider what's missing from that Chinese bus/tram: bumpers and rear-view mirrors. The Colfax BRT, even the new-and-better one, will need those things for safety reasons, and therefore will not be able to mask its bus-ness as much. This is a major problem because fully separating the busway enough to make this practical is both politically challenging and wipes out a lot of the cost savings from doing BRT to begin with.

b. In the United States it is illegal to operate a bus longer than around 60'. This is probably something that could be overcome if anyone cared to try, but it is nonetheless a difficulty.

c. Even under the best circumstances, there would still be differences in ride quality, which is a bigger deal than it generally gets credit for.


2. The automated guideway.

See the dashed lines on the road in the Chinese link? The bus drives itself (or in some cases partially drives itself) by having a laser track that line. There are some benefits to this, most importantly at stations where you're trying to achieve a consistent level entry.

There is one city in the US that uses a laser-guided bus: Las Vegas, along its MAX BRT line. You can see the dashed lines in this photo, and the guiding laser protruding from the front of the bus frame in this photo.

Know the problem? The laser has to be able to clearly see the dashed lines in order for it to work. No big deal in sunny Las Vegas, but impractical in snowy Denver.

As autonomous vehicle technology gets better we can probably assume driverless buses on major big city routes will eventually become a thing. But so far we still have to use tricks like this, and they're not always practical.


3. The zero-emissions.

As TakeFive said, there are indeed buses that can do this coming online now. In fact we have them in DC running on city streets right now. There is also perfectly good trolleybus technology that does the same thing but requires wires. And I do absolutely expect to see more and more US cities using these in the near future. Denver certainly could.

But they too have some problems:

a. They're noticably more expensive up front. You do save money on gas, but it's hard to take the capital hit on your bus-buying budget. You don't want to end up with fewer buses.

b. They're not actually zero emissions. There are still emissions from the electricity being generated, wherever that happens. God help you if it's a coal plant. They're merely zero emissions at the point of the vehicle.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10742  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 6:35 AM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
b. They're not actually zero emissions. There are still emissions from the electricity being generated, wherever that happens. God help you if it's a coal plant. They're merely zero emissions at the point of the vehicle.
Moving the point of emission away from individual vehicles allows for better pollution control. While a bus may have an operating life of 20-30 years, as the energy profile of the US changes, reductions in emissions will find an instant impact, rather than say, an increase in ICE efficiency that may find itself implemented 20 years from now.

Simply put, despite loses in storage and transfer, energy plants are better able to produce more efficient energy than ICEs in many cases. It's also much easier to regulate a network of powerplants, than say, 5 million vehicles. Governments can impose sweeping regulations and changes to infrastructure at the source. A bus right now may have a similar CO2 impact regardless of it's powertrain, but with increases in renewable energy this is bound to change. It's easier to keep the air cleaner with one source rather than many.

The issue with electric buses is not the "hidden" environmental impact in generating the power used. It's the environmental impact of producing lithium batteries and the capability of the vehicles themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10743  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 2:36 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is online now
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3 View Post
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)?
That would be sensible, but it didn't happen. RTD literally ripped out 16 seats per car with no replacement. Who knows if this was the just an immediate solution and there's a longer term reconfiguration in store.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10744  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 4:35 PM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
The settlement from the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition may clear up some confusion here: http://www.ccdconline.org/sites/defa...g_citation.pdf

IANAL, but RTD should have pushed back more. Legally, RTD is ADA compliant; RTD should not have caved as easily to people trying to bludgeon policy changes through the court system instead of through the typical political process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10745  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 10:21 PM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is offline
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Looks like we are adding physical laziness to the thought laziness. Just stand on the train for crying out loud.
This is about so much more than "physical laziness."

This makes riding the light rail that much less appealing for a large number of riders. It is just another inconvenience to add to the list of many inconveniences associated with riding the light rail. After a 14 hour day on campus, the last thing I want to be doing is standing up for half an hour as the train negotiates curves, hills, and stops. Now, imagine how someone who is older than me feels... someone with arthritis, knee issues, etc.

A few years ago I was riding the 16th street mall shuttle with my 84 year old grandmother, and not a single person offered to give up their seat to her! So, with 64 less seats per train, I think this type of situation will become much more common.

The way I see it, RTD should be doing everything they can to make riding the lightrail as convenient as possible for people (especially considering the disappointing ridership on some lines). This is a step in the wrong direction.


Nevermind the fact that RTD had already provided perfectly reasonable accommodations that were ADA compliant. Nevermind the fact that this new "improvement" only slightly expands the accessible space. Nevermind the fact that only 8 of the 64 seats lost will be accessible to the handicapped at any given time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10746  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 4:39 AM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 984
Oh wow, that's bad. If I remember correctly the current design allows for the seat backs to be flipped up, right? Which is why there's the seat by itself near the wheelchair accessible parts of the train. So this doesn't actually expand the amount of accessible spots. What was the motive behind doing this, was this just a petty move against RTD because as far as I can tell the amount of accessibility is the same.

What I want to know is why RTD keeps purchasing the high floor trains... the SD100 trains can be retrofitted to be electronically compatible with new S70 trains (something that UTA is going to be doing soon so that it can eliminate the high floor platforms all together). Then the entire issue of wheelchair accessibility is avoided and in our 4 consist trains the amount of wheelchair spots increases because they can be accessed from more than just the 1st car. Why does RTD keep purchasing the SD100/160 trains? Are they cheaper? Is there a compatibility issue with the S70 trains and the RTD platforms?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10747  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 2:06 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
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.
The numbers I've heard anecdotally for Denver's urban core tend to be more like $25k/space for above-ground and $35k/space for underground. Issues like the need for dewatering would certainly cause those numbers to vary even within the downtown area.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10748  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 2:10 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3 View Post
Oh wow, that's bad. If I remember correctly the current design allows for the seat backs to be flipped up, right? Which is why there's the seat by itself near the wheelchair accessible parts of the train. So this doesn't actually expand the amount of accessible spots. What was the motive behind doing this, was this just a petty move against RTD because as far as I can tell the amount of accessibility is the same.

What I want to know is why RTD keeps purchasing the high floor trains... the SD100 trains can be retrofitted to be electronically compatible with new S70 trains (something that UTA is going to be doing soon so that it can eliminate the high floor platforms all together). Then the entire issue of wheelchair accessibility is avoided and in our 4 consist trains the amount of wheelchair spots increases because they can be accessed from more than just the 1st car. Why does RTD keep purchasing the SD100/160 trains? Are they cheaper? Is there a compatibility issue with the S70 trains and the RTD platforms?
All of RTD's 52 light rail stations have platforms designed for the high-floor trains, so I guess RTD believes it is easier to keep buying high-floor trains than to modify the platforms at 52 stations.
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10749  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 2:29 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
The numbers I've heard anecdotally for Denver's urban core tend to be more like $25k/space for above-ground and $35k/space for underground. Issues like the need for dewatering would certainly cause those numbers to vary even within the downtown area.
Yeah those numbers sound about right for the urban core, though 25k might still be a little on the high side. Still though, it tells you how absurd 100k+ is for any city unless they are combining land acquisition into that number.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10750  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 7:05 PM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
All of RTD's 52 light rail stations have platforms designed for the high-floor trains, so I guess RTD believes it is easier to keep buying high-floor trains than to modify the platforms at 52 stations.
I thought that they were low-floor platforms? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-BszHBqZCA/maxresdefault.jpg

I haven't ridden on RTD in a while, though. But base on what I see in streetview your platforms are low-floor with the high floor blocks enabled. The S70 trainsets are compatible with high blocks, we use them in SLC which also operates the same kind of platforms and SD160 trains.

On the older trains, the back doors are at the corners of the cabin, where the high block would meet with the door. On newer trains, the furthest doors from the center are closer to the center, so the high block doesn't obstruct wheelchair access.

This isn't a perfect picture because the train hasn't come to a complete stop (it would otherwise be about 10 feet foward with the front of the train at the end of the high block and the first door at the end of the normal part of the platform) but this should give you an idea of what the trains look like stopped at high block stations; there is still room for all doors to open. Based on what i've seen in google streetview of RTD's high block platforms, they shouldn't interfere with the operation of S70 trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10751  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 8:19 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Cirrus... Great feedback; thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
Yeah those numbers sound about right for the urban core, though 25k might still be a little on the high side. Still though, it tells you how absurd 100k+ is for any city unless they are combining land acquisition into that number.
Yes, the Seattle example included land costs. You're industry averages represent what I was looking for as most of RTD's Park 'n Rides are out of the urban core. Given the professor's chart, published in 2016 using data from maybe 2013-2015(?) I have to believe they also included land cost estimates. Costs ofc will continue to rise but I was looking (more) for historical figures and it's easy enough to guesstimate from your original figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3 View Post
I thought that they were low-floor platforms? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-BszHBqZCA/maxresdefault.jpg
The West or W Line started construction in 2009. IIRC, at that time they ordered all the cars they would need for that line and the future (a that time) I-225/Aurora or R Line. From that point all their focus switched to building the three - now four commuter rail lines, which is ongoing. Light rail decisions were behind them.

Consider the economy of 2009; if they were to order new cars today chances are they would be double the cost they contracted for in 2009.

Lastly, Broncos suck (today).
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10752  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2017, 8:47 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
This is about so much more...

This makes riding the light rail that much less appealing for a large number of riders. It is just another inconvenience to add to the list of many inconveniences associated with riding the light rail.
Very well stated.

The biggest issue with transit in general for RTD (and all transit agencies) is making transit more convenient and creating a more appealing, competitive product. It's even more of a challenge for bus/routes.

The last thing that's needed is to make transit less convenient and less appealing.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10753  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 5:15 PM
mojiferous mojiferous is offline
Landbarge Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Very well stated.
The last thing that's needed is to make transit less convenient and less appealing.
I think we may be starting to confuse the meaning of inconvenient transit.

Infrequent trains, bad connections, useless stops, at-grade street connections where car traffic takes precedence - these are all marks of inconvenient transit.

Having to stand instead of sit on the train? That may be uncomfortable, but it is not the mark of a poor transit decision. The handicapped need space on the train, and someone should have gotten up for Scottk's grandmother (personally I would have loudly berated people around me and shamed someone into standing, but that approach is definitely not for everyone).
Everyone else? If you can't stand during the train ride maybe public transit is not your best choice for transportation. And if you're choosing your form of transportation based on whether or not you can sit down for the trip, the lightrail will probably always be annoying because it's also not going to drop you off at the door.
__________________
Mojferous Industries
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10754  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 7:20 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojiferous View Post
I think we may be starting to confuse the meaning of inconvenient transit.

Infrequent trains, bad connections, useless stops, at-grade street connections where car traffic takes precedence - these are all marks of inconvenient transit.
You make a good case for a variety of things that all have their impact. But I prefer to not conflate issues.

If the handicapped need the space then it's a necessity and that's fine? The question is How Much space do they need and how is that determined? Was the added space truly needed and necessary? How was this determined. If it's by some arbitrary standard and far from reality of what's necessary then that's a different conversation.

Your other valid points are worthy of a separate discussion. One point that gnaws is the obsession with frequency. With me context is everything and I've now found a recent study by USC researchers that has a different view. Post pending...


Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Looks like we are adding physical laziness to the thought laziness. Just stand on the train for crying out loud.
I happen to have my own personal preferences. I intend to bring my favorite pillow and stretch out in front of those folding seats. Oh, and on Game Days I'll bring my little portable radio so I don't miss any of the action.

That's my Ticket to Ride.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10755  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 10:53 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,556
Guess who's clamoring for more transit?
Snowmass seeks more year-round transit service

Meanwhile Fort Collins gets love from StreetsBlog USA.
Fort Collins Just Built Five Miles of Bikeway for Less Than $1 Million – Here’s the Trick


Speaking of Fort Collins biking is so popular that they built these:


Photo courtesy MEG DUNN - Urban Fort Collins
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10756  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2017, 5:21 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
oh nevermind.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10757  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2017, 8:11 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojiferous View Post
Having to stand instead of sit on the train? That may be uncomfortable, but it is not the mark of a poor transit decision....

...If you can't stand during the train ride maybe public transit is not your best choice for transportation. And if you're choosing your form of transportation based on whether or not you can sit down for the trip, the lightrail will probably always be annoying because it's also not going to drop you off at the door.
The goal is to encourage use of transit, not to limit use to the truly committed. Every increment of convenience and comfort has an effect on ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10758  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 2:07 AM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
Seeing as the A line is the most productive rail line in RTD's system, with over 200 customers per hour per train, may it be worth considering implementing zone express service in the future? For example, one train would leave DUS, run express to 40th (or Peoria or 61st, whichever works best), and run local out to the airport, the other train would leave two minutes behind and run local out to the first express station, where customers could connect to the express train behind it for service to the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10759  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 4:27 AM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmapper View Post
Seeing as the A line is the most productive rail line in RTD's system, with over 200 customers per hour per train, may it be worth considering implementing zone express service in the future? For example, one train would leave DUS, run express to 40th (or Peoria or 61st, whichever works best), and run local out to the airport, the other train would leave two minutes behind and run local out to the first express station, where customers could connect to the express train behind it for service to the airport.
Can they do this with the existing tracks? I know the space next to the platform at DIA is for a future express service platform and figured that won't happen for 10+ years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10760  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 6:03 AM
Denver Dweller Denver Dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 828
RTD wants permanent federal OK to run A and B line trains

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:44 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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