DENVER | Transportation Thread

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Given all the money being spent on transit, $450 million feels like a bargain in comparison, considering the density and number of people that would be served.

West line- 12.1 miles, $700 million, 15,000 daily trips
Southeast extension- 2.3 miles, $200 million, 7,000 daily trips
I-70 to Airport Rd widening- 12 miles, $1.8 billion, 140,000 daily trips
Colfax streetcar- 10 miles, $400 million, 22,000 daily trips

(based on current trips, not projected)

By my math, cost/trip for colfax is remarkably close to competing with I-70 and blows the rest of fasttracks out of the water. If we had a rational tranportation funding system, investing $400 million on colfax transit would be a no brainer.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That was quite possibly the most weasely post you've ever made here. No offense. You fit right in the Denver planning establishment. Cowards, unless it's on two wheels.

Not that you've ever been prone to hyperbole before.

Your analogies are strange. I would guess it's accurate to say that had I-25 added an extra lane instead of Light Rail that it could move more people as things are presently. Certainly that was the argument made by Jon Caldara. But at the time those who backed transit made compelling arguments for Light Rail and the mood of the voters was agreeable. I voted for it. Glad it passed. Voter approval included the necessary funding to do the project, btw.

Apparently the Colfax Corridor studies zeroed in on the challenge of moving people especially at rush hour periods. Apparently having full day dedicated BRT lanes didn't add any value. But in contrast to your either more freeway lanes or light rail, Colfax will have dedicated BRT lanes during rush hour periods. Not sure what all your fuss is about?

Lastly, the Rockies lost 2-3 tonight.

[TakeFive]

So-dar? No, So-lar. DIA-solar.

Denver International Airport’s fourth solar array is now on-line, bringing the airport’s total solar-generating capacity to 10 MW.

DIA has long been at the forefront of developing on-airport solar opportunities, having installed its first solar array in 2008. Solar II came online in 2009, followed by Solar III in 2011. The airport now has a total of 42,358 individual solar panels spread across 55 acres of solar fields, making it the second-largest solar array at any U.S. airport.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

That makes very little sense at this point. You wouldn't ask the public for a tax increase for ONE transit project (even if it cost $400 million + operations). You'd go to the public with a package of projects that were prioritized based off of a plan - a transit master plan. Start a transit master plan, identify enhanced transit corridors, identify necessary technology, then ask for money. You'd get basically one shot.

I agree. But Colfax is probably THE corridor in Denver that support, nay screams, for streetcar. Is this really the way we want to start the process of Denver improving it's local transit? With BRT/enhanced bus service on Colfax? This might not be the best initial step before the transit master plan is done in the next 5 years and we figure out what it is we want transit improvements we want to pay for. Moving this project to Broadway/Lincoln seems to make more sense as the peak transit lanes are already there and an initial project could be done for a lot less there.

PLANSIT, was there any discussion with the recommended course of action, or looking further ahead, of using this BRT/enhanced bus service as a stepping stone to putting streetcar on Colfax as a replacement for the local service in the future? Using BRT for the limited and streetcar for the local?

And comparing the Mason Corridor to Colfax is silly. Two completely different animals.

If you're going to call it BRT, then it should be compared with the other BRT systems in the state. Yes, one uses ROW in a freight rail corridor and has a dedicated lane for transit, the other operates in general purpose lanes for 18 out of 24 hrs in the day. It's enhanced bus service, albeit very nice enhanced bus service, but it's not BRT.

[bcp]

i always feel a bit skeptical about the algorithms they used to project ridership..would love to see the formulas / assumptions behind it all. anybody know?

i'm curious - especially on this one - do the projections include the uptick in density and development that will (most likely) result based on the transit investment? i think that *we* all agree that train will engender more investment from developers than bus, but do the projection formulas assume this too?

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bcp

i always feel a bit skeptical about the algorithms they used to project ridership..would love to see the formulas / assumptions behind it all. anybody know?

i'm curious - especially on this one - do the projections include the uptick in density and development that will (most likely) result based on the transit investment? i think that *we* all agree that train will engender more investment from developers than bus, but do the projection formulas assume this too?

The regional model (FOCUS)developed during the study (as part of the study) is brand new. It was a joint venture between DRCOG, the FTA, and other organizations to better predict travel behavior.

Read more about the FOCUS Model here.

[bcp]

thanks!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The regional model (FOCUS)developed during the study (as part of the study) is brand new. It was a joint venture between DRCOG, the FTA, and other organizations to better predict travel behavior.

Not that you'd know necessarily but have you ever known of a "friendlier" FTA than has existed over the last several years?

[duderino]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Now HANG ON. I realize you might have a personal horse in this race. But do you really want to open that can of worms? Do you really want to bring total people moved into the equation? Because the argument you just made for Colfax, I can make to defeat pretty much any transit project in any highway corridor anywhere. Because almost without fail, that space used for a traffic lane will move more people on a 24-hour basis. You want to push transit out of the way whenever removing the dedicated facility can move marginally more people? Great. THEN CAN I HAVE MY EFFING LANE BACK ON 15TH ST.? Because I'm pretty sure bike numbers are not maximizing shit.

That was quite possibly the most weasely post you've ever made here. No offense. You fit right in the Denver planning establishment. Cowards, unless it's on two wheels.

Now you HANG ON...you're not saying that a transitway has lower throughput capacity than an automobile travel lane, are you? I defy you to make this case with real numbers.

Also, love the trope of typing "No offense" and then immediately adding an insult.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The regional model (FOCUS)developed during the study (as part of the study) is brand new. It was a joint venture between DRCOG, the FTA, and other organizations to better predict travel behavior. Read more about the FOCUS Model here.

Sounds very interesting. I'm always delighted to see how smart people can put this kind of analysis together.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Using BRT for the limited and streetcar for the local?

It's enhanced bus service, albeit very nice enhanced bus service, but it's not BRT.

Yes, when looking at the pdf provided link is where I realized the two concepts of "Limited" and "Local" stop service as it relates to the Colfax Corridor. Does CDOT have a stake since Colfax is a state designated route? I would assume that their interest would lean to the "limited" alternative to best provide or meet commuter needs? So should Colfax be viewed more as a local service route or as a regional commuter route? Clearly it's both.

BRT fascinates me. Being closer to one of "those" low information peeps, I found this video of three of the better, successful BRT's in the world quite interesting.

I grant you that dedicated BRT lanes would be much preferred. But is it necessary? I'll also assume that what they prefer is considerably less costly than creating dedicated, separated lanes.

[bcp]

if this does end up being BRT, then I say let's go full bore with that solution - run the new DT shuttle south on broadway to i-25, colfax, 38th, and a connection to CC would really make the system a, well, system.

[TakeFive]

I hear the train a comin'
It's rolling round the bend
And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when,
(Folsom Prison Blues - Johnny Cash)

Picture a beautiful new freeway running from Castle Rock east and then north about 5/6 miles out from E-470. Also picture thriving young and growing new developments all along the way.

kpho.com
ADOT:

The Arizona Department of Transportation opened two elevated ramps Sunday morning, providing the first direct connections between the two freeways. (Interstate 10 and Loop 303)

Of course Phoenix Metro is (still) being built on the "sprawl and nodes" model. It is nice to have a built-in flow of funding though. ADOT also just started adding a 5th lane in each direction to an 11 mile stretch of the 101 in the East Valley.

My point, to switch metaphors, is that I can see the storm clouds brewing. Until Colorado and the Denver Metro area figure out how to fund needed road/freeway improvements I see little chance of another (new) dime being agreed to expand transit. I think Denver has some leftover Better Bond money and of course RTD currently prioritizes Colfax with funding so maybe they can cobble together the necessary funding for a BRT.

[DenverRider2]

Thoughts on the colfax corridor meeting tonight?

[DenverRider2]

Here are mine-

The presentation brushed aside permanent BRT vs rush hour only saying it would be an added "aggravation" without additional benefit. This begs the question, aggravation for whom? It seems even with a progressive public works and lip service to multimodalism, we are still prioritizing single occupancy trips.

Screw Aurora. Eventually growth at Anschultz is going to be limited by the cluster of a commute it takes to get there and a viable form of mass transit from denver is a necessary step to take. If their city council and mayor object to BRT, let the service end at the border.

RTD- "We support the colfax corridor but fasttracks is our priority right now" This just goes to show that our light rail boondoggle is obstructing intra-city transit far more than a couple of bike lanes.

Demographics were interesting- over 50 were more concerned with exclusive BRT lanes worsening automobile congestion while under 40 appeared disappointed that the preferred alternative wasn't more ambitious and visionary.

It appears the city is going to have to spend significant political capital just to achieve a half-assed BRT. Maybe this is the best we can expect.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Screw Aurora.

In every way, yes! I was not expecting that to be dropped tonight. I think some jaws dropped when that happened. After chatting in the not-so-public realm, it seems like the majority of the people there want the dedicated ROW, at least for Denver, and just don't know how to push it. This is where the voice of the people come in. The one's who oppose something will speak 30 times louder than the one's agreeing or semi-agreeing with a transit plan. That's why nothing gets done here, it's like we all have stage fright or something.

Speaking of stage fright, it takes a lot for me to speak in public, especially with no planning background, but I was the guy that asked about median alternatives and possible future upgrades. I also had a 30 minute chat with Tykus and a couple others after the meeting and it was overall a, we need to figure out how to get transit funded for Denver. It's hard to do with a 0 dollar dedicated transit budget and 9 million dollar discretionary fund.

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

RTD- "We support the colfax corridor but fasttracks is our priority right now" This just goes to show that our light rail boondoggle is obstructing intra-city transit far more than a couple of bike lanes.

She pissed me off in every way. This just shows we need to have a Denver focused transit plan, which to my knowledge is coming soon-ish. Look at a Trimet-like situation where the cities fund their transit projects and have a single operator. Denver needs to grow a pair, fund its own projects and worry about itself, not the region. Leave the region and operations for RTD.

[bobg]

They definitely downplayed the decision on true BRT vs peak hour lanes for enhanced bus. Aggravation avoidance is a crappy answer. People care more about rush hour than they do any other time. If you talked to some of the people in the back you got the better answers that Plansit alluded to earlier about ridership, utilization, etc.

IMO Aurora was sticking to their sprawl-centric attitude while simultaneously feeding their napoleanic complex in relation to Denver. Eventually it will come down to the fact that no one in power in the city of Aurora truly cares about anything within 225 (other than Fitzsimons). Whatever Denver wants will likely happen as long as CU Health is okay with it, and after a few political points against Denver are scored by politicians in Aurora. BTW kudos to the Denver planners for visibly biting their lips and giving a very diplomatic answer to what was the public meeting equivalent of a slap in the face.

The RTD planner gave the company line to the T knowing some press might be there. It's what they needed to say and does indeed highlight the need for Denver to take lead on this and a citywide transit plan -that they are doing-. RTD needs to finish fastracks, Denver is rapidly densifying and needs more than RTD can deliver. Denver needs to fill the gaps between RTD and the city. Denver from the council down has shown signs of getting "it" over the past several months.

When it came to traffic concerns they gave a better answer to the guy living on Milwaukee and 13th that cared about traffic diversion than they did the contractor at the beginning of the meeting. Demand is going up on that corridor due to population and employment growth. The do nothing alternative will make traffic just as bad on the alternate routes. That message is sell-able, but ironically I think the traffic concerns more than transit advocates demanding more will be the most likely path to an expensive solution. As more people bitch about taking a lane (even for a few hours) the more justifiable the cost of a streetcar becomes.

[bunt_q]

Do you really fault Aurora? I don't. A half-assed peak direction only transit solution by its very nature says to the world "only Denver matters." Now, the modeling may say that's true, but reality in a model is not the same as reality politically, and politically Aurora's position makes perfect sense. They are getting neither improved transit - since the only direction we care about is always away from them - and worsened auto access.

Neither CDOT nor CU are going to get in the middle if Aurora wants to escalate and stymie this. Grow some balls, as Ryan said, is right. Either do transit right, or maximize auto mobility, but don't do both badly.

EDIT: Mixing threads here, but I am okay with a phased initially-crappy transit solution, as SLC has done, if there's a plan for that. But there needs to be a plan for that.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Do you really fault Aurora? I don't. A half-assed peak direction only transit solution by its very nature says to the world "only Denver matters." Now, the modeling may say that's true, but reality in a model is not the same as reality politically, and politically Aurora's position makes perfect sense. They are getting neither improved transit - since the only direction we care about is always away from them - and worsened auto access.

I believe it's peak hour bidirectional exclusive lanes not peak direction. Even if I am wrong and the proposal is peak direction that is certainly not what Aurora was complaining about.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Neither CDOT nor CU are going to get in the middle if Aurora wants to escalate and stymie this. Grow some balls, as Ryan said, is right. Either do transit right, or maximize auto mobility, but don't do both badly.

EDIT: Mixing threads here, but I am okay with a phased initially-crappy transit solution, as SLC has done, if there's a plan for that. But there needs to be a plan for that.

The phased in full BRT solution based on certain metrics was suggested during the comment period. But no that's not the plan, but it would also make me feel better about it if phased in was the plan.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

And comparing the Mason Corridor to Colfax is silly. Two completely different animals.

There's a reason this is true. If you call a model airplane a space shuttle and someone tries comparing it to a real space shuttle it would seem really silly too.

[PLANSIT]

The LPA is proposed as being bi-directional peak period exclusive lane. Modeling clearly shows fairly even bi-directional traffic distribution throughout the corridor during peak periods (and really, throughout the day). Aurora would be getting the same system as Denver. The $115 million price tag assumes exclusive lanes from Auraria to Anschutz.