DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There's only one bus lane, that's supposed to be a bus pulled over to pick up passengers. I'd ask if this is a case where a bus bulb would be appropriate so that the buses don't have to pull over out of the lane and the stop could be made a bit more inviting given the additional area.

The way they've laid it out makes sense. You don't want a bus that's already loaded passengers just sitting there waiting curbside on the bus in front for example. You want buses in the thru lane to be able buzz through when the light turns green.

Let say before the light turns green you have 2/3 buses pulled into the thru lane ready to go and maybe another couple of buses that have loaded that are ready to quickly pull over once the 1st buses have cleared to also make it thru one green cycle. This also allow for fairly efficient flow of the next set of buses coming along behind to pull over to load.

Something like that?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Within the limits of the operational change, there are 12 parking/loading spots currently. They are all staying.

Is this per block or per the entire length which is my guess?

Also, since memory has faded did 15th street (in this case) allow for parking on both sides of the street?

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Without a place for car sharing and taxi drivers to pull over, they will either just stop in a through traffic Lane and turn on their hazard lights, or they will pull over into the bus only lanes. I am fine with the fact that there is not on-street parking.

This is where Uber/Lyft needs to be proactive and organize a Van Pool parade during peak periods. I can envision a lot of people with poor access to bus service being fine with point-to-point service that includes six passengers. Perhaps they could do this by zip code or neighborhood. I suppose it might be possible to load on the cross streets if there were designated spots for this.

[PLANSIT]

Curb lane operates exactly as it does today; mostly bus stops (X, Y, Z), right turns, and a little bit of parking. Offset lane is the repurposed transit lane. This allows the buses to run as they do today skipping stops and other buses as others have mentioned. This formalizes what’s already happening out there today.

[TakeFive]

^^ Thanks

Hold on I'm not yet done with you - Nathaniel Minor

https://www.cpr.org/2019/10/02/rider...magine-itself/

“One of the solutions to congestion is capacity,” Genova said at a press conference at the agency’s lower downtown offices. “And that's what we have in the public transit industry that many other mobility options don't have — the capacity to move lots and lots of people on our bus system and our rail network."

Is this not exiting?

But perhaps more important, and more politically difficult for RTD’s elected board, will be tough decisions about where buses should run and how often.

Sheesh; there's always got to be a fly in the ointment doesn't there?

But wait...

Reducing RTD’s 2,342 square-mile service area could make cutting services more politically tenable, but would also result in fewer dollars in sales tax revenue. RTD is open to making adjustments to its boundaries, Genova said.

So I'm plotting this grand scheme but I haven't refined the idea entirely. But I also know that wong and SnyderBock get impatient so I'd thought I better throw out a few nuggets.

We're going to hold a vote

Currently the existing RTD district contributes six-tenths percent general sales tax to RTD. Then there's the four-tenths percent for FasTracks. For now, we'll set aside the FasTracks specific tax.

For simplicity, everything in 'region 3' or outside of E-470 and C-470 would pay only .25% sales tax instead of .6%; Everybody in 'region 1' which would be from Wadsworth on the west to Chambers Rd on the east and from Quincy Ave on the south to 104 Ave on the north would pay .65% while everybody in 'region 2' would pay .425%. I suspect you can guess where more and less bus service should go?

With respect to FasTracks this vote would also allow for building the SW extension, B Line extension to Westminster's new downtown and U.S. 36 and BRT between Boulder and Longmont. Everything else would be CANCELED. Once these projects are completed and the bonds are paid off then the FasTracks tax would drop to .15% for region 3 and .25% for regions 1 & 2. Since FasTracks is more regional in nature all three regions can participate in a perpetual tax that would help to operate and fund replacements over time for light and commuter rail.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to FasTracks this vote would also allow for building the SW extension, B Line extension to Westminster's new downtown and U.S. 36 and BRT between Boulder and Longmont. Everything else would be CANCELED. Once these projects are completed and the bonds are paid off then the FasTracks tax would drop to .15% for region 3 and .25% for regions 1 & 2. Since FasTracks is more regional in nature all three regions can participate in a perpetual tax that would help to operate and fund replacements over time for light and commuter rail.

How in the titty f**kig christ does this fund ~$1B in additional rail and BRT? Doe this kill bus service for the rest of the metro area outside of your Region 1 and redirect the funding to the rail ? Does it still account for the Access-A-Ride service that RTD is mandated to provide in it's entire service area?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

How in the titty f**kig christ does this fund ~$1B in additional rail and BRT? Doe this kill bus service for the rest of the metro area outside of your Region 1 and redirect the funding to the rail ? Does it still account for the Access-A-Ride service that RTD is mandated to provide in it's entire service area?

Jesus... take a slow deep breath; no need to hyperventilate.

RTD will require participation from Highlands Ranch and Westminster. It's only like 15% but so far Highlands Ranch hasn't cared enough so that would take care of that project.

I'll accept your ~$1 billion estimate - actually sounds solid. If either or both Highlands Ranch and Westminster are willing to come up with 15% then RTD should be able to get 40-45 percent of costs as FTA grants.

Afaik, RTD has built the R Line and the N Line from FasTracks cash flow or tax revenue. The N Line will complete next year, god willing.

With respect to BRT along the diagonal I'm assuming CDOT will pick up some of the expense and chances should be real good they could get FTA grants for this as well.

Bottom line it might cost RTD ~$450 million or less if Highlands Ranch isn't interested.

My understanding is that under the original FasTracks vote that operation of light and commuter rail (along with buses) would be handled by the .6% tax once FasTracks was built out. Under my plan a reduced FasTracks tax would continue to fund operation and maintenance of light and commuter rail into perpetuity.

So can I get your approval? Pretty please?

Point of clarification:
Just to reiterate, regardless of when the vote took place the FasTracks tax would remain at .4% until the completion of projects AND payoff of all FasTracks bonds which could take awhile. But I figure once the projects are finished they could accelerate the payoff of bonds? What the vote would also do is release RTD of the fantasy of building commuter rail into Boulder.

[bunt_q]

I vote no. F*** the B line. I won’t vote another penny to RTD (and in fact support its dissolution) until they grow some balls and publicly cancel it.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Jesus... take a slow deep breath; no need to hyperventilate.

Ain't no hyperventalating, just questioning your math.

RTD will require participation from Highlands Ranch and Westminster. It's only like 15% but so far Highlands Ranch hasn't cared enough so that would take care of that project.

I'll accept your ~$1 billion estimate - actually sounds solid. If either or both Highlands Ranch and Westminster are willing to come up with 15% then RTD should be able to get 40-45 percent of costs as FTA grants.

Afaik, RTD has built the R Line and the N Line from FasTracks cash flow or tax revenue. The N Line will complete next year, god willing.

With respect to BRT along the diagonal I'm assuming CDOT will pick up some of the expense and chances should be real good they could get FTA grants for this as well.

Bottom line it might cost RTD ~$450 million or less if Highlands Ranch isn't interested.

My understanding is that under the original FasTracks vote that operation of light and commuter rail (along with buses) would be handled by the .6% tax once FasTracks was built out. Under my plan a reduced FasTracks tax would continue to fund operation and maintenance of light and commuter rail into perpetuity.

So can I get your approval? Pretty please?

Point of clarification:
Just to reiterate, regardless of when the vote took place the FasTracks tax would remain at .4% until the completion of projects AND payoff of all FasTracks bonds which could take awhile. But I figure once the projects are finished they could accelerate the payoff of bonds? What the vote would also do is release RTD of the fantasy of building commuter rail into Boulder.

FasTrack's ballot language allows RTD to keep a portion of the .4% in place as for continued operation of the additional services that were added that were added. Baseline rail operations are funded by the .6% rate. Your math doesn't pan out. Oh, and federal funding isn't available for the N Line extension or the SW because the ridership projections don't support it. Same reason the L Line hasn't progressed.

The description of your proposal suggests that bus service would be eliminated in it's entirety for most of the suburbs and RTD would become a commuter rail service for the most part with an inter-city bus system. But why in the hell would I support such a truncation of RTD and still expect those mental midgets to provide decent inter-city transit? Better to cut the sales tax district wide down to a rate that would fund the rail system and form Denver-centric transit district to provide 'da bus. Hopefully this would get rid of the district-wide Access-A-Ride money pit and disability advocates can start suing the ever-loving shit out of Uber and Lyft for their discriminatory ADA violations.

[TakeFive]

We're getting close

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ain't no hyperventalating, just questioning your math.

Good to know; I didn't want to be responsible for you passing out.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

FasTrack's ballot language allows RTD to keep a portion of the .4% in place as for continued operation of the additional services that were added that were added. Baseline rail operations are funded by the .6% rate.

I see; I wasn't clear on how this was to work; in fact your language is still a bit confusing in that I have no clue what added services means.

Regardless I want to upgrade that. Essentially light and commuter rail would be separated from the rest of RTD into its own funding and operation. So once the bonds are paid off I want whatever is necessary to both operate and maintain the light and commuter rail from a FasTracks continuing tax.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh, and federal funding isn't available for the N Line extension or the SW because the ridership projections don't support it. Same reason the L Line hasn't progressed.

Everything else would be CANCELED

The benefit of this vote would be to Cancel the balance of the N Line; it would Cancel the B Line beyond the proposed Westminster extension.

I'm not sure you're correct about the SW extension but I'd be happy to make qualifying for an FTA grant a contingency. Again, if Highlands Ranch doesn't want the extension then that's the end of that.

I thought they had yet to decide what they wanted to do with respect to the L Line; I can't imagine it wouldn't qualify for a grant but what do I know.

[TakeFive]

This is very and quite interesting

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The description of your proposal suggests that bus service would be eliminated in it's entirety for most of the suburbs and RTD would become a commuter rail service for the most part with an inter-city bus system. But why in the hell would I support such a truncation of RTD and still expect those mental midgets to provide decent inter-city transit? Better to cut the sales tax district wide down to a rate that would fund the rail system and form Denver-centric transit district to provide 'da bus.

Close to what I proposed except I do have both regions 2 and 3 paying into bus service.

Your suggestion has crossed my mind. For example, and the funding is a little different but in metro Phoenix, MAG (Maricopa (Co) Assoc of Governments) funds some regional routes while Phoenix funds its own additional routes.

So let's just do what you suggest. I might add Denver might want to include Englewood but otherwise organize and run its own bus service.

RTD could get rid of all bus service and just operate and maintain light and commuter rail. Various cities could decide for themselves what other service they wanted to offer to their residents. I'd think that operating their own shuttle bus service that would feed into light rail stations or whatever routes they wanted could be just the ticket. They could also offer to pay RTD to run this service for them or not.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

. Hopefully this would get rid of the district-wide Access-A-Ride money pit and disability advocates can start suing the ever-loving shit out of Uber and Lyft for their discriminatory ADA violations.

Normally Uber & Lyft don't fall under ADA. There may be a couple of places that have required them and they merely create that as a separate service for a fee ofc.

Since RTD would no longer be providing any bus service they likely wouldn't fall under the ADA either - except as relates to light and commuter rail. If they're merely contracting with cities then it would be up to the cities to provide ADA compliant services whether they contract for this with RTD or not.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Normally Uber & Lyft don't fall under ADA. There may be a couple of places that have required them and they merely create that as a separate service for a fee ofc.

Since RTD would no longer be providing any bus service they likely wouldn't fall under the ADA either - except as relates to light and commuter rail. If they're merely contracting with cities then it would be up to the cities to provide ADA compliant services whether they contract for this with RTD or not.

I've seen multiple lawsuits filed contesting that assertion. Uber and Lyft are trying to argue that they aren't a transportation company, but are rather pure software companies. So far that claim has been dismissed by the courts entirely. It will probably have to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court who will rule that the disabled are not really people and will proceed to gut the ADA.

Get ready to put a ramp on your SUV, big boy.

[TakeFive]

DIA celebrates milestone in gate expansion project
October 9, 2019 By Janet Oravetz - 9News Denver

Four new gates on the B-West concourse will be the first to open by the end of 2020.

DENVER — Denver International Airport (DIA) this week marked a major milestone for its Gate Expansion Project. The final beam of the building on Concourse B-West was put into place. The “topping out” signifies the completion of the frame of the building for the addition to the west side of Concourse B.

The Gate Expansion Project is adding 39 new gates, an increase in gate capacity of 30%. New gates will be added on all three concourses to allow all airlines an opportunity to grow. The airport will also be able to accommodate new airlines, including international carriers.

Fun video of this event. Project is reportedly on time and within the $1.5 billion budget.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Been thinking about Uber and LYFT and how they are both aggressively developing driverless cars technology. They are both doing this because they have determined this is how they will become profitable long term.

Credit ABC15

Waymo preparing to go 'completely driverless' in Chandler area, per email to riders
Oct 10, 2019 By: abc15.com staff

An email sent to Waymo riders posted online, and confirmed by a Waymo spokesperson, states that "completely driverless Waymo cars are on the way."

In the tests, according to the email sent to people in the Phoenix metro early rider program, riders will be notified that the vehicle coming to pick them up will be fully driverless and that a "what to expect" button will appear in their Waymo app.

[TakeFive]

Why try to fix that which is totally Broken?

RTD Wants to “Reimagine” Its Services, but First It Has to Staff Them
OCTOBER 9, 2019 By CHASE WOODRUFF - Westword

Amid these staffing troubles, there’s at least one bright spot, RTD staff told directors on Tuesday. The agency is having much better luck hiring train operators for its commuter rail lines, including for the N Line to Thornton

A) Obviously, RTD has too many chiefs, not enough Indians; too many Chefs, not enough cooks.
There's too much red tape, too much waste, too much politics. Blow it up and create a private sector company who knows how to run a business which could contract out to operate bus service to anyone who wants it. It could be RTD or suburban cities could contract with whoever they want.
(Note: I have a caricature of bunt on my left shoulder and a conservative on my right shoulder)

B) I've read so many Streetsblog pieces I think I could repeat their talking points in my sleep when it comes to bus service. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing; the best response is "It depends" on context and details.

C) Give 'em what they want
We want frequent service on a grid system. We want to stiff the suburbs.
Fine! What suburban city needs Big Bertha buses running on their streets anyway that couldn't be better served by shuttle-style buses. Shuttle-sized buses would likely be much easier to find drivers for.

D) There will be exceptions
The Flatiron Flyer is a part of FasTracks so that would continue.
Lakewood and Aurora may want to buy into extended service along Colfax for example.
Etc.

[TakeFive]

DIA selects two construction partners for Great Hall project
Oct 10, 2019 By Monica Vendituoli – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

While Great Hall Partners has been vacating the construction site, DIA has been working to identify and secure a program management team, a lead design firm and a construction manager and general contractor for Phase 1.

DIA has selected Jacobs Engineering Group (NYSE: JCM), the second-largest engineering firm in the Denver area, as its preferred program management firm. Additionally, DIA is issuing Jacobs a “task order” under its previously approved on call contract so the firm can become more familiar with the project.

Any holdovers?

DIA also approved extending Gilmore Construction’s contract to complete the TSA Central Monitoring Facility in the Great Hall.

“Gilmore Construction is a subcontractor to Great Hall Builders and is a few months away from completing its work on the CMF, so DEN elected to take over the contract in order to seamlessly finish out the project for our partners at TSA,” the news release said. “...Gilmore will also support DEN for the interim transition from when DEN takes control of the project on November 12, 2019 to when a phase one builder is officially under contract for Great Hall in Q1 2020.”

For the record, many may recall the very successful local private company CH2M Hill? They were bought out by Jacobs Engineering in Dec 2017.

[TakeFive]

Compare what? Compare this!

We now have two quarters of APTA ridership reports to compare and wander and wonder about.

Light Rail Ridership
2019 1st quarter: 5.575 million down -11.27% from 2018 1st quarter or 6.283 million
2019 2nd quarter: 6.270 million down -0.8% from 2018 2nd quarter or 6.312 million

Logically, some of the 1st quarter's drop compared to last year would be from the ticket price increase. Clearly the 2nd quarter snapped back fairly close to last year's numbers.

Commuter Rail Ridership
2019 1st quarter: 1.794 million up 4% from 2018 1st quarter or 1.724 million
2019 2nd quarter: 2.462 million up 29.2% from 2018 2nd quarter or 1.906 million

Commuter Rail is up 17.2% year-to-date Note: G Line opening was April 26, 2019

Bus Ridership
2019 1st quarter: 17.414 million up 10.9% from 2018 1st quarter or 15.702 million
2019 2nd quarter: 17.587 million up 11.2% from 2018 2nd quarter or 15.821 million

Obviously comparisons between 2019 and 2018 are a wee bit crazy but I'm not going to worry about it and just roll with the new numbers into the future.
Note: 2nd quarter rail ridership is 49% of bus ridership.

[TakeFive]

I'm just going to tuck this here for safe-keeping

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I just recalled what I wanted to ask you. While you've mentioned it before, at the time I didn't care but now I'm curious. What's the difference between King County bus service and Sound Transit bus service?

Originally Posted by mhays

Sound Transit runs longer routes around the metro area, typically expresses often on HOV lanes on freeways. King County focuses on local routes in King County. The outer counties also have their own bus systems and have lines that come into Seattle.

[TakeFive]

I'm just going to tuck this here for safe-keeping
(No, this is not a double-post.)

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...for-the-future

The city started working with RTD to plan for future traffic with its projected growth by constructing new light rail stations in empty fields. “Lincoln station is a great example. When it opened in 2006, virtually nothing was around it and you’re fast forward 13 years to 2019 and that station is nearly entirely built out,” Holwell said.

Now, with the newest light rail stations coming online this year, Holwell is predicting a similar transition to the surrounding area. “The light rail investment on the southeast extension is clearly a plan for the future not for the traffic today,” he said.

Since I'm still a Big Time Believer in the transit bones that RTD has built it's important to get the most our of them. Yes, I have some ideas which are largely redundant from past discussions but we'll go there anyway and update them.

[TakeFive]

I decided to take a closer look at recent rail station numbers

2019 Rail Station activity from May 19th to Aug 19th
This is after 'new counting' and also reflects slower Auraria months.

Outside of the central city things have changed some. The Peoria Station is rocking good numbers; Central Park Station is climbing higher; Lincoln Station crashed and burned but RidgeGate Parkway station came from nowhere to eclipse Lincoln Station; Nine Mile Station has recouped previous losses to once again be a star.

Best suburban stations' weekday ridership and placement (Not including DIA)
6. Peoria Station - 7,233
7. Littleton/Mineral Station - 5,194
8. Nine Mile Station - 5,111
9. Central Park Station - 5,080
12. 40th & Airport - 4,792
14. Colorado Station - 4,094
15. Englewood Station - 4,091
16. Southmoor Station - 4,043

That's everything above 4,000. Note how these stations are either south, SE or east. Something about that (I-225) H Line that still impresses. The new end-of-line stop at Florida (with no parking) comes in 25th out of 66 stations with a count of 2,732 (compare to below) and if you add those numbers to Nine Mile Station it's even more impressive.

Still a bit perplexing - the W Line numbers
27. Wadsworth Station - 2,375
28. Taj Mahal Station - 2,342
30. Federal Center - 2,243
41. Sheridan Station - 1,441

G Line early returns
31. Olde Town Arvada - 2,204
48. Wheat Ridge-Ward - 1,299
52. Arvada Ridge - 949

[TakeFive]

I'm just going to put this here for reference


From "Trains, Buses, People." All map images: Island Press via Streetsblog Denver

Wanting a map that fits the page better, I found this on Streetsblog Denver. It's a good perspective and what I wanted actually as it also shows density.