DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

In other news...

I started a separate thread with statistics about interior west per capita transit ridership

[bobg]

2 hours for 37-40 miles sounds about right off-peak and from one periphery of the metro to the other.That's about what you would get from the N suburbs of Chicago to the south suburbs on Metra (IE Evanston Davis to Palos Heights) . That's also about what you would get going that distance from Long Island to Jersey (assuming you aren't able to use the amtrak to secaucus or newark penn). The frequencies on the LIRR/NJ Transit and Metra aren't that much better, and in some cases worse than RTD offpeak so the waiting would be about the same as for the BV.

On google it looks like the RTD scheduled travel time is from 1:29 when both the BX and the C are running to 1:55 when they are not. I am not sure that includes walking for the 2:04 or just RTD running behind schedule. But really it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me relative to other cities.

Transit is slow and infrequent (even in Japan and Europe) going those distances unless you are using inter-city motorcoaches or trains, but it's rare you can make those work.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bobg

2 hours for 37-40 miles sounds about right off-peak and from one periphery of the metro to the other.That's about what you would get from the N suburbs of Chicago to the south suburbs on Metra (IE Evanston Davis to Palos Heights) . That's also about what you would get going that distance from Long Island to Jersey (assuming you aren't able to use the amtrak to secaucus or newark penn). The frequencies on the LIRR/NJ Transit and Metra aren't that much better, and in some cases worse than RTD offpeak so the waiting would be about the same as for the BV.

Yeah, I was having the same thought while reading this exchange. I don't know that anybody, even the folks at RTD, would say that this is what the system is set up for. And as bobg points out, very few systems are... Palo Alto to Berkley via Caltrain with a transfer to BART in the center of SF would be another similar example. There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

But this in and of itself doesn't make the system a failure. America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow. I hope we're not under the illusion that transit should provide origin-to-destination service for every single-family resident in the metro area. Only the city center has the kind of density to consider that kind of a system (streetcar or subway), and even this is debatable since Denver isn't as dense as most cities that have a robust subway system.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation; there simply isn't the density in place to support an interconnected web of origins and destinations, and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it. I am one of the optimists that believes that in time density will, in fact, grow around commuter stations; and that transit may even eventually turn it into a viable option for a large portion of the population. But this doesn't mean that it will ever work for the majority of single-family homes in our region, nor that we should expect it to.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it.

This is simply not true, though a common misconception. Land use is what we control through public policy. Transportation generally follows land use, not vice versa. I know there's a lot of planner-mantra out there that says "highways caused sprawl," but that's not true. Highways enabled zoning that cause sprawl. But it's perfectly possible to build a highway without sprawling - you just don't zone for the development. Boulder County has done it; the whole continent of Europe has done it. We're also managing to get quite dense in Denver with no transit to speak of - all you have to do is zone for it, and have the attraction. Density first, then transit.

Originally Posted by mr1138

There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow.

Then why build it at all? The vast majority of trips are those suburb-to-suburb ones. Is the whole point of transit really so we can reduce the number of parking garages downtown?

More to the point - if we don't want land use that support transit... and we don't, we don't zone for it, we don't like the density, and that's the aspect of growth that we have the most control over... if we won't do that, then why bother with transit? Personally, I think we are spending $7 billion because people think it'll help traffic (it won't), and as a subsidy for downtown. The latter is why I support it. But there is no good transportation-based argument for Fastracks, I don't think, not really.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Regional buses skip some local stops in order to go faster. If a long distance bus made every local stop, your 2 hour trip would've taken even longer. That's the whole reason RTD skips some of the stops.

That said, 2 hours is ridiculous.

I understand that, but I was not taking the BX or BMX, I was on the BV. and as far as I can tell, the BV actually does stop at almost every local stop along broadway and table mesa. This is why I am confused that a few stops appear to have been left out of the route for no apparent reason. Broadway and Arapahoe isn't that small of an intersection, so it seems strange to me that the BV doesn't stop there but stops at almost every other stop along broadway.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Yeah, I was having the same thought while reading this exchange. I don't know that anybody, even the folks at RTD, would say that this is what the system is set up for. And as bobg points out, very few systems are... Palo Alto to Berkley via Caltrain with a transfer to BART in the center of SF would be another similar example. There simply isn't enough traffic going between these two far-flung suburban locations to warrant a rapid transit link between them. If there were, then there would be talk of a direct line between the two that bypasses downtown (kind of like the I-225 LR to the Tech Center).

But this in and of itself doesn't make the system a failure. America's low-density suburban forms don't really make it possible to foster these kind of connections anyway. And it certainly wouldn't make sense to build high-frequency connections from suburb to suburb before they have even been adequately connected to the city center. The best we can do at this point in history is build what is feasible (park-n-ride based commuter lines), and plan for additional density around these stations in the decades that follow. I hope we're not under the illusion that transit should provide origin-to-destination service for every single-family resident in the metro area. Only the city center has the kind of density to consider that kind of a system (streetcar or subway), and even this is debatable since Denver isn't as dense as most cities that have a robust subway system.

It's a chicken-and-egg situation; there simply isn't the density in place to support an interconnected web of origins and destinations, and the density will never come at all if the infrastructure remains 100% auto-based. We have to start somewhere, and if park-n-rides are what can generate the required ridership in the short term, then so be it. I am one of the optimists that believes that in time density will, in fact, grow around commuter stations; and that transit may even eventually turn it into a viable option for a large portion of the population. But this doesn't mean that it will ever work for the majority of single-family homes in our region, nor that we should expect it to.

My point is that it is ridiculous that I had to transfer twice to get to downtown littleton. Isn't Union Station supposed to be the center of RTDs entire transit system? If so, why doesn't the southwest line have a direct link into Union Station? If RTD thinks that serving california and welton is more important than Union Station, what even was the point of building Union Station? The grand centerpiece of RTDs transit system should be able to support a direct link to the southwest line, should it not?

[bobg]

Not everything has to go to DUS nor does it make sense for everything to. Plenty of local, express, and regional buses that go through downtown don't touch DUS. When the G light rail line comes back after the extension is done it will not go within miles of DUS, and whatever line comes from the central rail extension is not likely to go to DUS either.

However, the Southwest corridor DOES have a line that goes to DUS in the C line. The frequency just isn't as great on the C line as the D line because the ridership is nowhere near the D line. The C line had drastic service reductions during the economic crisis when DUS was just an empty field, and RTD is slowly ramping service back up. If things go right that C line frequency and schedule should continue to improve as DUS is more developed, and the commuter rail comes on line helping demand.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You can't tell me what to do.

BOOM

[Cirrus]

ahem.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Bring it on! Let's continue for another generation the grand tradition of looting our Country...

Get the Chinese to buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then they own all the house mortgages. I sure we will get debt relief then. LOL!

Going into 2008 pieces of our largely worthless mortgage backed securities and derivatives were scattered all over the globe like doo doo droppings. The stink was everywhere.

Additionally China and other Central Banks owned billions upon billions of our GNMA's or Ginny Mae bonds which were mortgages from Fanny/Freddy as well as farm paper.

When Hank Paulson and others, especially Bernanke, looked over the edge they could not see a bottom. We were on the verge of causing a World Wide depression.

Forget playing Monday Morning quarterback. We were totally blessed to have the right people in the right power places. GNMA's were not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Unites States. However there had been an "implicit guarantee." Nobody worried cuz it would never be needed. Oops. Had we not backed those securities it would have collapsed the Global economy. There would have been a run out of all Treasury notes. Bernanke not only dusted off measures from the Great Depression but created a few new tricks as well. It worked, gratefully.

And the rest is history.

[TakeFive]

The Name of Microsoft's new CEO is Satya Nadella.
The Name of the new (majority) owner of the Sacramento Kings is Vivek Ranadive.
The name of the Russian co-owner that started Google is Sergey Brin.

A lot of the names and faces now creating things and helping to carry this Great Nation into the future do not have surnames that are Italian, Irish, Greek, French or German but they are very much "us." They are as much American as you and I.


As Bernanke's magic stabilized the ship the value of the dollar went down. This enticed German car manufacturers to build factories in the U.S. to compete with the domestic Japanese factories. Foreign investors were enticed into buying up lots of "cheap" real estate. Etc. Etc.

Bottom line: b/c money is fungible foreign inflows of capital gave the recovery a lot of Oomph. Foreign investors were huge in helping to get our economy growing again.

Not only did we benefit from a global economy but we are still the "prettiest girl at the dance."

"Only in America"

[TakeFive]

Question: Can anybody speak to or clarify the likely length of time needed to pay off the bonds for Fastracks?

Given that there's a scarcity of dollars to meet the challenging needs of CDOT, the next question or dilemma is whether there is a good solution? Or what is the best solution?

bunt_q ... Just for the record referring to user fees as something wholly different from taxes is like Republican speak of "We won't raise taxes" and then proceeding to raise all manner of "fees." Down here in the desert the blue collar (and/or) conservative voters would say "Nonsense" to your splitting of semantic hairs. It's double taxation pure and simple. Clearly Republican/conservatives are a mixed and confused lot (LOL). I would acknowledge that an option to use toll lanes or not makes a difference.

Let's look at the gas taxes. Using Wikipedia since it's updated to 2014 they look like this - including Federal taxes of 18.4 cents for gas and 24.4 cents for diesel.

• State....... Gasoline tax...... Diesel tax
• Arizona...........37.4...................51.4
• Utah...............42.9...................48.9
• Wyoming.........42.4...................48.4
• Colorado........40.4..................44.9
• Nebraska.........45.7...................51.1
• Kansas............43.4...................51.4
• New Mexico.....37.3...................47.3
• California.......71.3..................74.0

Notes: California included for grins. s.p.hansen on Cirrus's new thread stated "We are also getting close to raising the gas tax" in reference to Utah. I don't know the history or which other states may also be planning to raise their own gas taxes but it's safe to say that all states are wrestling with funding needs.

Not only is the challenge to satisfy voters but also to consider competitive balance with neighboring states. It would appear that raising the gas and diesel taxes by a nickel is doable.

Anticipating the future and future needs I would consider splitting the rural Eastern Plains off into a separate tax district that would get a 5 cent immediate increase and another 5 cent increase in 3/4 years. In urban corridor areas and the mountains an immediate increase of one thin dime and another nickel in 3/4 years. For one thing, it's the border areas that are most sensitive to surrounding state comparisons. Generally anything along interstate highways would be urban except for designated exceptions.

Couple the above with a state wide quarter percent sales tax increase for 15 years. Let the voters decide in an up or down vote of the whole package. With a *mostly* bipartisan effort of properly explaining the picture and needs I'll trust the voters every time.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Question: Can anybody speak to or clarify the likely length of time needed to pay off the bonds for Fastracks?

This is all public information. Go to the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) (emma.msrb.org) and see for yourself. There have been multiple issuances, so there's so single answer. As a random example, the Series 2010A bonds have a maturity date of 11/01/2038. Principal price of $79,140,000, 5% interest. Will shock the old-timers to know that Goldman Sachs, in all of their conspiratorial ways, posts the offering document online for all to see. Perhaps tinfoil interferes with the wifi.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[B]Down here in the desert the blue collar (and/or) conservative voters would say "Nonsense" to your splitting of semantic hairs. It's double taxation pure and simple. Clearly Republican/conservatives are a mixed and confused lot (LOL). I would acknowledge that an option to use toll lanes or not makes a difference.

The difference between taxes and fees is a constitutional difference up here. I am reluctant to call anything that has a constitutional basis "semantics." That's how we end up with random conflations of things like religion and speech. (see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby)

As a practical matter, taxes require an election; fees do not. Tax revenues can generally be spent on anything; fee revenues can not. These are not insignificant distinctions. Of course, both are subject to overall TABOR revenue limitations, which is why we might well end up refunding the revenues generated by the marijuana "excise tax" - which is the same flavor of tax as the gasoline "excise tax." Not to say I will mind getting a TABOR refund check from the state next spring, it's been a good long while since that has happened. Half the people in new Denver have probably never seen a TABOR refund check before.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Anticipating the future and future needs I would consider splitting the rural Eastern Plains off into a separate tax district that would get a 5 cent immediate increase and another 5 cent increase in 3/4 years. In urban corridor areas and the mountains an immediate increase of one thin dime and another nickel in 3/4 years. For one thing, it's the border areas that are most sensitive to surrounding state comparisons. Generally anything along interstate highways would be urban except for designated exceptions.

Interesting notion. Of course, there's no legal mechanism I am aware of for creating these separate taxing districts. There's another election(s) to pay for and win.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Couple the above with a state wide quarter percent sales tax increase for 15 years. Let the voters decide in an up or down vote of the whole package. With a *mostly* bipartisan effort of properly explaining the picture and needs I'll trust the voters every time.

Except that you're looking at multiple elections, multiple ballot questions, which wouldn't likely be simultaneous, and all of which need a yes vote. Getting a statewide tax blessed by the voters is always daunting, but what you're describing is far more so.

The voters you trust, of course, gave us this constitutional framework. TABOR, yes. But others too - take single issue ballot restrictions, for example. Sounds good to simple minded voters ("they" - the big bad they - are trying to hide stuff from us voters with long multi-topic ballot questions). Of course, the result makes it impossible to handle complicated situations at the ballot box, without the risk of conflicting yes/no votes that scuttle the whole deal. (Think about Referendum C/D - one passed, one did not. Except those could be bifurcated easily enough. Lots of things never make it to the ballot, though, because there's no legal way to vote the issues without the risk of a split result, which would make a worse mess.)

Which gets us vaguely worded constitutional language, since that's all the ballot will accommodate. Which leads to a messy tangle of case law interpretations coming out of courts that no layperson can keep track of (those pesky activist judges, out there doing their jobs, how dare they). Which is why I can bill so much for my time. So by all means, keep right on trusting voters to effectively legislate at the ballot box. It keeps me employed.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Going into 2008 pieces of our largely worthless mortgage backed securities and derivatives were scattered all over the globe like doo doo droppings. The stink was everywhere.

Additionally China and other Central Banks owned billions upon billions of our GNMA's or Ginny Mae bonds which were mortgages from Fanny/Freddy as well as farm paper.

When Hank Paulson and others, especially Bernanke, looked over the edge they could not see a bottom. We were on the verge of causing a World Wide depression.

Forget playing Monday Morning quarterback. We were totally blessed to have the right people in the right power places. GNMA's were not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Unites States. However there had been an "implicit guarantee." Nobody worried cuz it would never be needed. Oops. Had we not backed those securities it would have collapsed the Global economy. There would have been a run out of all Treasury notes. Bernanke not only dusted off measures from the Great Depression but created a few new tricks as well. It worked, gratefully.

And the rest is history.

Nice write up. I disagree with your conclusions, however. I think we should have taken the "hit" then, because postponing national economic reorganization just makes the adjustment worse when it inevitably occurs.

It's like dealing with metastasizing cancer and treating the symptoms. The longer the problem is not dealt with, the greater the patient suffers.

I personally think that most in the control room should not have been there, and will be considered as villains rather than heroes.

Now? We are beginning to pay the price for not taking the pain. This will affect everything in the US, from construction to medicine to retail sales.

What would I do if I had big money now? It certainly would not reside in the States, but I might invest a portion of that money in agricultural land through a series of shell entities.

I do like your optimism. You are either a salesman, or natural optimist. Reality, sir, is the coin, not heads or tails.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

More to the point - if we don't want land use that support transit... and we don't, we don't zone for it, we don't like the density, and that's the aspect of growth that we have the most control over... if we won't do that, then why bother with transit? Personally, I think we are spending $7 billion because people think it'll help traffic (it won't), and as a subsidy for downtown. The latter is why I support it. But there is no good transportation-based argument for Fastracks, I don't think, not really.

You are absolutely correct.

The problem, as always, is political will. In Europe, the political will for not using freeways primarily as a real estate development tool is far stronger than in the US.

This is a result of those with the power and money who play and pay with politics, and, those idealists who get off their duffer and become involved gratus.

Besides, Western Europe has the greatest example of what not to do in terms of zoning and freeways across the pond, and, their best have been studying our mistakes for decades.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Interesting notion. Of course, there's no legal mechanism I am aware of for creating these separate taxing districts. There's another election(s) to pay for and win.

Except that you're looking at multiple elections, multiple ballot questions, which wouldn't likely be simultaneous, and all of which need a yes vote. Getting a statewide tax blessed by the voters is always daunting, but what you're describing is far more so.

I can get my governmental procedures' wires crossed but:
Gas taxes are already a state designated task, no? Sales taxes currently are partly state wide (2.9%), no?

I was assuming a state legislative approved referendum to be submitted for voter approval. It's likely much easier to get bipartisan agreement since the voters would have the final approval.

The tax exception areas would be more of a messy heavy lift in the legislature but not unachievable.

One state wide vote, up or down. What am I missing?

Help: Either I never knew or have forgotten but how do I make separate quote blocks to respond to like you did?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Nice write up. I disagree with your conclusions, however. I think we should have taken the "hit" then, because postponing national economic reorganization just makes the adjustment worse when it inevitably occurs.

We'll never know how that might have worked out. I'm grateful for that.

Hard for me to envision a President who would contend that creating chaos and massive unemployment was something the country should do, not to mention a financial meltdown where nobody can get to their money. Back to the barter system, anyone?

Always fun to speculate though. It's free and easy.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The difference between taxes and fees is a constitutional difference up here. I am reluctant to call anything that has a constitutional basis "semantics." That's how we end up with random conflations of things like religion and speech. (see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby)

Tax revenues can generally be spent on anything; fee revenues can not.

Down here BillyBob says poppycock. Down here we pledge allegiance to the Gadsden Flag.



You take that Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. It just proves that what this country needs is a few more white Christian male Catholics appointed to the SCOTUS.

We just need to elect a few more true Patriots to Congress and we'll restore the Constitution to its rightful interpretation.


More than a difference in temperature and snow amounts:
The Arizona "state" sales tax is 5.6% compared to Colorado's 2.9%. It gives the state legislature lots of power I'll tell ya. bunt_q, you bemoan the Colorado voter approval requirement but be careful what you ask for.

It's interesting how many taxes in Colorado are in fact designated for specific things. I see mostly advantages. Consider the metro wide Fastracks tax, the cultural tax etc. Consider the Lottery proceeds designated (primarily) for the great Colorado outdoors, although whether that should continue could be debated. Also the money designated for historic preservation from the gambling taxes.

There's a functionality to KISS and voter approval.

[bunt_q]

Are you gentlemen going to come to a forum meet if we can get one together early August when Brainpathology is in town? It would be entertaining to continue this over a drink sometime.

[TakeFive]

Final assembly of our 54 commuter rail cars is in full swing at the Hyundai Rotem plant in Philadelphia.

Outfitting of the vehicles is at 44-percent completion. Eleven cars have been fully outfitted and are now ready for testing. Four pilot cars have been fully tested and await final inspection in preparation for delivery to Denver later this year and test running in 2015.

Per Fastracks