DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Taking it as far as Church Ranch is where the line would start to run into real problems because this is where the track begins to zig-zag around, one of the reasons the estimated travel time on this line from Boulder is so much worse than the bus. This stretch of track would also need to be DMU, according to the original plan, unless massive grading and rebuilding of many road crossings was done. I imagine there is basically no chance of EMU beyond Westminster Center barring another ballot initiative to increase public funding (not going to happen ANY time soon).

Could running it along 36 up to Church Ranch (or even Flatiron) be an easier option?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Could running it along 36 up to Church Ranch (or even Flatiron) be an easier option?

The grade along US-36 is more severe.

[mr1138]

I wasn't aware of the grading issue along US36, though it does make sense that smooth grading is the reason the original freight alignment zig-zags so much. I always assumed that the US36 option was mostly due to lack of foresight/blind insistence that the ROW be used for BRT/HOV lanes instead (remember, Boulder demanded TWO transit lines connecting to Denver in order to participate in Fastracks). Considering they are currently completely regrading and installing new drainage systems and underground infrastructure, as well as a new roadbed with a "whitetop" surface, it will be a VERY long time before it makes sense to tear that all up yet again and reconfigure it. For the time being I think we're stuck with what we've been given.

Personally I think it'd be better to just shelve the freight track option until a much later date when that ROW can be better utilized with a more high-tech train that can overcome the extra track length with speed. I'm quite comfortable if that means putting off the project for decades 50-60 years even... the promised date for DMU is still 30 years out, and it will be an even bigger waste of money then than it would be today. Just cancel the damn project and save that valuable ROW; but that's just my opinion. It wouldn't preclude extending it to Westminster Center though.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by mr1138

An extension to Westminster Center makes sense because the RR alignment is basically a straight line between 72nd and Lowell to there, and so far as I can tell, they could continue it as EMU on dedicated tracks (though perhaps the Sheridan overpass would need to be widened). It also makes sense because of the massive redevelopment potential/plans at the old mall. I often wonder if another PPP, or some fundraising by Westminster or the developer of the Westminster Center could get this extension built.

Taking it as far as Church Ranch is where the line would start to run into real problems because this is where the track begins to zig-zag around, one of the reasons the estimated travel time on this line from Boulder is so much worse than the bus. This stretch of track would also need to be DMU, according to the original plan, unless massive grading and rebuilding of many road crossings was done. I imagine there is basically no chance of EMU beyond Westminster Center barring another ballot initiative to increase public funding (not going to happen ANY time soon).

BNSF owns the tracks north of the Westminster Station into Boulder, so any construction would require their participation. Last I heard, they have an all-or-nothing attitude, hence, why the NW Line stops at Westminster. RTD owns the right-of-way from that station south into Denver.

[mr1138]

So where did RTD get the alignment to Westminster Station then? So far as I can tell from the Google Earth aerial, the construction activity between there and the Pecos station is occurring, at least partially, inside the existing freight ROW. Or did RTD actually condemn private land parallel to the BNSF as was also done on the East Corridor? And if so... what's to stop them from condemning a corridor to Westminster Center as well if needed? I don't see a single segment of that ROW that looks any narrower, or has structures anywhere closer to it, than the segment from Pecos to South Westminster.

[Cirrus]

Downtown Denver Commuter Survey
http://www.downtowndenver.com/homepa...ommuter-survey

Interesting findings:

• At 43.4%, transit is the highest single mode share, although when you combine drive alone + carpool + motorcycle then that's slightly higher than transit (43.9%).
• Bike mode share (6.6%) is higher than carpool mode share (4.6%).
• Bike + walk together account for 11.1%, and among males under 30 years old, biking (16%) + walking (10%) combined are exactly as high as driving alone (26%).

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by mr1138

So where did RTD get the alignment to Westminster Station then? So far as I can tell from the Google Earth aerial, the construction activity between there and the Pecos station is occurring, at least partially, inside the existing freight ROW. Or did RTD actually condemn private land parallel to the BNSF as was also done on the East Corridor? And if so... what's to stop them from condemning a corridor to Westminster Center as well if needed? I don't see a single segment of that ROW that looks any narrower, or has structures anywhere closer to it, than the segment from Pecos to South Westminster.

I never said it was condemned and it has nothing to do with the corridor being narrow or wide. It was purchased from BNSF because they were willing to sell it. They're not, however, willing to sell land north of Westminster and RTD (or any other entity) cannot condemn railroad right-of-way. When the corridor is extended north (whenever that is), the tracks will be shared with BNSF.

[mr1138]

Of course you didn't say condemnation, if you re-read my post, I was asking if this is what was done. I do know that condemnation was the route taken for the East rail line (condemnation of private parcels, not of the RR, I know full well they are exempt from eminent domain). This was the project team's response to the railroad's outrageous demands for both ROW purchase and expensive safety modifications, if I remember correctly; they just opted to just use a parallel alignment instead (I suppose some of it might have ended up in freight ROW, but certainly not all of it... just look at the Coors Field parking lot and the stretch between Columbine St. and Colorado Station). Why couldn't this same tactic be used on the NW corridor? I see barely any structures in the way of running a track adjacent to the BNSF ROW. Most of the structures that would be in the way appear to be light-industrial properties, accessory structures, and public properties; similar to what was taken for the East line.

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the story is here... this isn't exactly straight forward or intuitive. When did BNSF sell the first segment of ROW, and why didn't RTD negotiate for more than that back then? Why would they have suddenly changed their minds about selling subsequent segments of ROW? And why would BNSF care whether RTD goes "all-in" to Boulder or not anyway? What do they have to gain or loose from selling the ROW in segments, other than being a pain-in-the-ass and acting like a roadblock to a successful project?

[bcp]

great infographic...biking is way up (way up!) and van / carpooling is a stick in the eye...way down. go denver!

[Scottk]

Uh oh! Biking is up....

Thoughts on this bunt? I know you love biking

[seventwenty]

Some rich people/people who want to pay (possibly a lot or have roommates) for a place to live that's also near work bike. How 'bout that.

[bunt_q]

Exactly, 6.6% of people who work downtown bike. Which means they live within a few miles probably. Which means they're rich or young and don't kind living in a Cap Hill hovel. Hardly a relevant stat. I'm more interested in the mode split between people who don't live within the rich white radius. That's where transit shines. (Although absent free transit passes, who knows.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Exactly, 6.6% of people who work downtown bike. Which means they live within a few miles probably. Which means they're rich or young and don't kind living in a Cap Hill hovel. Hardly a relevant stat. I'm more interested in the mode split between people who don't live within the rich white radius. That's where transit shines. (Although absent free transit passes, who knows.)

Free transit passes as perfectly acceptable, I'm all for mimicking the Calagary model of transit employment by using the transit system as a giant park-n-ride for downtown.

Bunt, you know that those rich bikers are the makers in society- stop trying to justify a decent life with transit options for the takers in society and start recognizing that only the makers are entitled to having options on where to live, where to work, and how to get to both.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Uh oh! Biking is up....

Thoughts on this bunt? I know you love biking

Exactly my 1st thought as well. bunt_q can speak from personal experience of course.


thewaxedwordblogsopt.com

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Exactly my 1st thought as well. bunt_q can speak from personal experience of course.

Personal experience parking in the bike lane? Or splashing slush on the hapless cyclists? Or getting a free transit pass from my employer? Two of those I have experience with.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Of course you didn't say condemnation, if you re-read my post, I was asking if this is what was done. I do know that condemnation was the route taken for the East rail line (condemnation of private parcels, not of the RR, I know full well they are exempt from eminent domain). This was the project team's response to the railroad's outrageous demands for both ROW purchase and expensive safety modifications, if I remember correctly; they just opted to just use a parallel alignment instead (I suppose some of it might have ended up in freight ROW, but certainly not all of it... just look at the Coors Field parking lot and the stretch between Columbine St. and Colorado Station). Why couldn't this same tactic be used on the NW corridor? I see barely any structures in the way of running a track adjacent to the BNSF ROW. Most of the structures that would be in the way appear to be light-industrial properties, accessory structures, and public properties; similar to what was taken for the East line.

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the story is here... this isn't exactly straight forward or intuitive. When did BNSF sell the first segment of ROW, and why didn't RTD negotiate for more than that back then? Why would they have suddenly changed their minds about selling subsequent segments of ROW? And why would BNSF care whether RTD goes "all-in" to Boulder or not anyway? What do they have to gain or loose from selling the ROW in segments, other than being a pain-in-the-ass and acting like a roadblock to a successful project?

They didn't want to sell it - simple as that. They have nothing to gain and they don't have to sell. They're probably not trying to be a pain in the ass, but they're particularly helping either - and they don't have to. It's their land and their right-of-way. RTD doesn't have the money to get to Boulder or Longmont, so why spend the money on the right-of-way when it can be used to buy right-of-way [I]and[I] build other corridors out (i.e. I-225 or North Metro).

Bunt will probably complain that it's "the party line" but I'd much rather see rail service built in other parts of the metro area than spent just to buy right-of-way for a rail corridor that sees a fraction of the ridership of other corridors - and I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

So sure, RTD could have done things better (duh), but it's in their best interests not to f#ck over a big chunk of their own district.

[mr1138]

I actually completely agree on that point; it is much better to build lines that are actually doable today and have ridership estimates that are justifiable. As much as Boulder may gripe about the situation they're in, I don't have any problem with the airport and other lines being expedited on the grounds that they make sense right now - considering the Boulder line simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense all the way to Boulder.

But this loops back to my original point... I think a case could be made that the ridership numbers could be justified as far as 88th and Sheridan (Westminster Center). I think the case could also be made that EMU would make sense as the chosen technology at least to this point. I don't think it makes any sense not to at least explore this possibility, or to write off another station as being as much of a lost cause as the entire line to Boulder. Or to assume for that matter that commuter rail has to share track with freight trains beyond 72nd and Lowell. If EMU can operate on dedicated tracks as far as Lowell, then why couldn't they operate in the same capacity beyond that point? I honestly wonder if this option has even been pitched to the BNSF. Granted, there are sections of the corridor beyond this point where this really does become true... the enormous earth embankment where the RR crosses Big Dry Creek comes to mind as a stretch where it would be quite difficult to build a parallel track. But so far as I can tell, this is not the case between 72nd and 88th. If the single-station "good faith" extension is feasible as far as South Westminster, I find it hard to see why it wouldn't be feasible to 88th as well.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I actually completely agree on that point; it is much better to build lines that are actually doable today and have ridership estimates that are justifiable. As much as Boulder may gripe about the situation they're in, I don't have any problem with the airport and other lines being expedited on the grounds that they make sense right now - considering the Boulder line simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense all the way to Boulder.

But this loops back to my original point... I think a case could be made that the ridership numbers could be justified as far as 88th and Sheridan (Westminster Center). I think the case could also be made that EMU would make sense as the chosen technology at least to this point. I don't think it makes any sense not to at least explore this possibility, or to write off another station as being as much of a lost cause as the entire line to Boulder. Or to assume for that matter that commuter rail has to share track with freight trains beyond 72nd and Lowell. If EMU can operate on dedicated tracks as far as Lowell, then why couldn't they operate in the same capacity beyond that point? I honestly wonder if this option has even been pitched to the BNSF. Granted, there are sections of the corridor beyond this point where this really does become true... the enormous earth embankment where the RR crosses Big Dry Creek comes to mind as a stretch where it would be quite difficult to build a parallel track. But so far as I can tell, this is not the case between 72nd and 88th. If the single-station "good faith" extension is feasible as far as South Westminster, I find it hard to see why it wouldn't be feasible to 88th as well.

Here's the estimated 2035 ridership for each phase just for reference


http://www.dropbox.com/s/1uj1mt3z1h8...B1%5D.pdf?dl=0

[PLANSIT]

^ And people wonder why there hasn't been any unsolicited bids or why RTD hasn't gone after Federal funding.

Spend some cash on proper slip-ramps to BRT stations and call it a day for now.

[EngiNerd]

I also wonder what percentage of that is actually new ridership, because I bet a big chunk of those numbers are people who would otherwise (and will) just take the bus.

EDIT: Updated the above, I found the final study.