DENVER | Transportation Thread

[twister244]

Interesting insight on Boulder.....

I would hope that some of the more regional bus routes (like FF) don't suffer as a result of this. Although it's possible Boulder grow it's own agency to keep things seamless.

More info on the DIA expansion.... with more specifics in the slides contained within the article.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/01...-ceo-comments/

Between this, the Great Hall renovation, I-70 expansion, and NWC work, the next couple of years will see no shortage of infrastructure construction in the metro area....

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by twister244

Interesting insight on Boulder.....

I would hope that some of the more regional bus routes (like FF) don't suffer as a result of this. Although it's possible Boulder grow it's own agency to keep things seamless.

It's apparent to me that the push for local versus a regional transit agency in Boulder and Denver is about the intra-city routes, not the inter-city ones. This transit push in Boulder isn't going to see a BRT route to Longmont established, or anything outside that little kingdom of Boulder. But it will make getting around the city easier.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

A lot of this is coming from RTD's attempts to chip away at Boulder's Community Transit Network (the branded buses like the Skip, Jump, etc.). Last year they attempted to do away with the branded buses altogether, and instead use generic white livery or simply the RTD branded buses. After negotiating for over a year about this issue, and the matter of putting bus ads on the branded buses, Boulder finally succeeded in getting them to agree to put new vehicles into service with newly designed bus wraps - only to then turn around and run the wrong vehicles on the wrong routes as if the branding is just some silly thing that doesn't matter (Skip buses on the Jump route, FF buses on the Longmont route, Stampede buses on the Skip route, etc.), with no recourse for the city, which puts in its own city money to both purchase vehicles and more service. They have also been cutting buses and frequency from many routes in a way to shave off operating costs - in spite of the fact that branded buses and high frequency lead to very high ridership in Boulder, and the fact that Boulder "buys up" more service frequency. The Skip currently runs on 7.5 minute peak hour frequency, and this is now slipping backward because of cost cutting measures, even though the city's "buy-up" remains the same.

Isn't the buy-up a fixed annual amount? So as operational costs increase, and outpace the growth in RTD's revenue, I'd expect that service would get reduced as the purchasing power of the buy-up decreases. Not saying that it's right, I do think that cities like Boulder and Denver should take a very strong look at how to provide further local transit service either through separate assets or by changing how the buy-up work with RTD, but I do understand the choice RTD is making, i.e. focusing on the regional part of transit.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Add to this the fact that they CAN take money from bus service (essentially their regular operating budget) to supplement Fastracks overruns, but they cannot by law take Fastracks money to use for standard bus service, and what we see is that this trend of cutting service is likely to continue.

My guess is that you're conflating issues here. It's not unusual that capital and operating budgets can not be commingled. Not an expert on all the details but my assumption is the four-tenths percent tax passed by voters for FasTracks is strictly a capital account. Once the rail route is completed then it becomes a part of the operating budget to run. I'm not aware that they have any ability to take operating funds to cover FasTracks capital costs. Now, how they manage to allocate operating funds among both rail and buses is a legitimate question.

[BG918]

39 gate expansion at DIA



http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/01...-ceo-comments/

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mr1138

A lot of this is coming from RTD's attempts to chip away at Boulder's Community Transit Network (the branded buses like the Skip, Jump, etc.). Last year they attempted to do away with the branded buses altogether, and instead use generic white livery or simply the RTD branded buses... They have also been cutting buses and frequency from many routes in a way to shave off operating costs

Wow. Boulder's CTN is one of the most successful small city bus networks in America, and a huge national model. That's insane. Boulder's right to see it as a possible deal-breaker.

[Scottk]

Regarding The Hop: The Hop has had nextride for years now, and the drivers are always way more friendly than the RTD drivers. AND they run a drunk bus at 2 in the morning that goes from pearl street up to the hill / campus for when the bars let out.

Now that is service !!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Boulder finally succeeded in getting them to agree to put new vehicles into service with newly designed bus wraps - only to then turn around and run the wrong vehicles on the wrong routes as if the branding is just some silly thing that doesn't matter...

But I'm really starting to agree that a layered approach of transit agencies like we see in many other larger urban areas makes sense, with regional authorities serving niche markets like the Boulder CTN routes, or perhaps Denver's future inner-city ambitions.

As is typical wong cuts to the chase in specifying intracity service. It also goes to what Cirrus brought up yesterday (but not today).

Boulder would seem to be the poster child for intracity specific routes that they should assume responsibility for. Perhaps Boulder could even receive a base subsidy from RTD or in effect a tax rebate?

You mention negotiations with respect to purchasing a whole new fleet of buses. That's a one-time event and yuge capital outlay. Was there FTA grant money available? I have no idea today's cost for a base bus for these intracity routes nor would I know how much in upgrades from the base that Boulder wanted to make.

As to branded buses being on the wrong routes that's hard to speak to w/o knowing the circumstances. Buses do break down; perhaps there were scheduling issues due to a driver shortage. Who knows? As to frequency I assume that's an efficiency question?

In any case as RTD grows ever bigger with more complex challenges and budgets, there's a lot to be said for Boulder taking over its intracity route service. If I were RTD I'd be delighted to let Boulder handle all the intracity bus routes and everything that entails. Appears to be a win-win proposition to me.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Such a good looking project for that area. Would love to see more of this scale for sale and pedestrian focused around our closer in stations (i.e. you could put up dozens of them this size around Lamar, Alameda, 41st, Westminster, and Englewood stations while we wait for these decades long master plans to materialize)

Originally Posted by ddvmke

I think it's also compounded by the fact that regions/cities are going with the most politically easy and cheap option by using freight right-of-ways and not rocking the boat shaking up decades old bus routes that no longer align with the density/employment and entertainment centers of a city, rather than actually looking at what the right option might be.

Not sure I totally understand but I'd say definitely to a degree. What I can say is that the more I learn about transit the more I appreciate how overwhelming all the challenges are. From political/special interests to cost considerations and budgets and what will meet voter approval it's quite the quagmire.

Originally Posted by ddvmke

I'd hope Denver's plan would focus on people that WANT to use public transport, as well as connecting areas where it will be most used to start to build that culture before expanding and using it as an economic development tool which RTD seems content to do.

Certainly FasTracks was significantly touted as a development tool and rightly so but your point is well taken. Except it gets complicated real fast when you speak of those who WANT to ride.

For example East Colfax is a bit of a no-brainer although it's part local route combined with a commuter route. The challenge is to figure out how best to serve both constituencies which means more expedient service for those would-be riders that don't want to make 40 stops to get to where they're going.

King County (Seattle) seems to have substantially met the challenge when they redesigned routes and created their Rapid Ride service. On these routes those who want to ride includes many new 'choice' riders based on the quality and efficiency of the routes. Personally, I think a lot their success goes to perception. King County paid ALL the money for high-quality enhanced service which people are much more likely to enjoy regardless of specific time to their destination. The routes do NOT make 40 stops so that is important too.

Lastly, every route has its uniqueness and unique ridership.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by BG918

39 gate expansion at DIA



http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/01...-ceo-comments/

Everything but the Concourse A RJ hub makes sense. I don't get why A needs an RJ hub, as Frontier hasn't used smaller planes since Lynx. The non-hubbing carriers that use A have a mix of bigger planes and RJs. I guess the EAS airlines like Boutique Air don't use big planes, but even then the ramp area is all you need for a turboprop.

[mr1138]

^ In response to all of the above... TakeFive rightly points out that I was simplifying the economics - there isn't a one to one switchover of bus funding to rail, simply that RTD's overall budget is requiring cuts anywhere they can find them. I don't claim to know where all of their budget shortfalls are coming from, but RTD has been very clear that they are extremely strapped for cash. My personal perception is that they will likely continue to focus in on their rail lines, because those are permanent physical assets with better real estate assets attached to them than commuter bus Park-n-Rides. In theory, this is one of the advantages of rail over buses (the more permanent investment), but in fairness they have also cut service on the W and R lines.

Wong is definitely correct that this all means that Boulder's buy-in doesn't go as far. Boulder can afford to increase this, but I think there are politics at play for sure - it's hard to ask Boulder citizens to increase the buy-in when all they see from RTD is service cuts and no B-line. And with a board of directors that includes diverse competing interests from all around the metro area, and a staff that seems focused on maximizing the efficiency of a hub-based system at Downtown Denver, one does start to wonder if something like Boulder's CTN could be better handled by a locally based agency.

In terms of the full scope of what that agency could do - I suppose it's anyone's guess how ambitious City Council or neighboring communities would like to be. I'm not sure it's out of the question that BRT lines to Louisville, Lafayette, and Longmont could be part of the conversation if those towns were interested in bringing their own funding to the table - their workforce is more linked to Boulder's employment hub in a lot of ways than it is to Denver.

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Everything but the Concourse A RJ hub makes sense. I don't get why A needs an RJ hub, as Frontier hasn't used smaller planes since Lynx. The non-hubbing carriers that use A have a mix of bigger planes and RJs. I guess the EAS airlines like Boutique Air don't use big planes, but even then the ramp area is all you need for a turboprop.

Is that an RJ hub? Looking very closely at the image, I don't see jetbridges. The pictured airplanes are about the same size as the other 737/320 sized plane shown on the A concourse. While this is just a conceptual drawing, my guess would be that the extension will contain cheap, ground-level, stair-only gates for Spirit or Frontier.

[seventwenty]

You're may be right. I guess we'll see once the designs become more finalized. Conc. A east is only temporary anyway.

[TakeFive]

Credit: CBS4 Denver

Front Range Passenger Rail Service Proposed
November 2, 2017 - DENVER (CBS4)

A group is talking about passenger rail service all along the Interstate 25 corridor. It would stretch from Fort Collins all the way down to Trinidad.

On Thursday, the Front Range Rail Commission talked to lawmakers about the service. They made 16 recommendations for what should happen next. The commission has until December 1 to submit a draft of legislation for the project.

[DenverDave]

Long time lurker, yadda, yadda...

I got notice of this new shuttle service from my councilman Wayne New-

http://www.ecoridesusa.com/about

I am not sure how much demand there is for transit just in cherry creek (you can walk to most places within this zone), but if they connected service to downtown or cap hill I could see it filling a big RTD hole.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverDave

Long time lurker, yadda, yadda...

I got notice of this new shuttle service from my councilman Wayne New-

http://www.ecoridesusa.com/about

I am not sure how much demand there is for transit just in cherry creek (you can walk to most places within this zone), but if they connected service to downtown or cap hill I could see it filling a big RTD hole.

This is not your standard transit; this is very strange. I'm a bit surprised wong hasn't jumped all over this since there's no there, there... that I can see. Nice web site but it provides little. Nobody is identified as running the company; it appears they have no assets. It's a registered LLC to the address of 1761 Race Street, Suite C.

Eco-Rides USA seems to be a would-be startup. It could be that they have backers to acquire van inventory if they can find buyers for their service. Essentially you fund the service and we'll come. They're hoping that Cherry Creek will buy into the idea?

[TakeFive]

Could it be that the future of transit is a complicated quagmire?

$500M hole: How hot economy, city requests punctured Sound Transit’s Lynnwood light-rail budget
November 6, 2017 By Mike Lindblom - Seattle Times

An astonishing $510 million.

How did the cost to build light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood increase so much since last year, with little warning?

What happened to take the cost from $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion?

Our region’s hot economy is largely to blame. Property values alone shot up 44 percent since 2014, and construction costs soared. The price of masonry doubled, and escalators quadrupled, the agency says.

Cirrus may know about BRT Creep but this is a whole different kettle of Seattle Pike Place Fish.

During the nine years since voters said yes, cities and transit planners asked for a multitude of features that each might seem reasonable, but taken as a whole help put the original cost projections out of reach.

There's reasons why this can be instructive to Denver. Partly, while Seattle/Sound Transit has "all the money" they still manage to break er smash the budget. Denver/RTD by contrast is currently cash strapped. Additionally, how much has Denver's own 'hot' market increased costs... for everything.

How rich will City of Denver voters feel in a few years?

[Cirrus]

Rapidly rising US construction costs, especially for transit, are a big problem. There's not a simple or easy solution. As far as I can tell it's a perfect storm of like a dozen different issues.

[TakeFive]

At the most recent Denver Moves Transit Task Force Meeting they released the results of a survery for what people thought should be Denver's top 5 transit corridors. There were 1,000 responses that looked like this:



Courtesy David Sachs screen shot

Fairly predictable results. What's interesting is that the top 5 combined come up a bit shy of 50 percent. According to Sachs there were 14 other corridors that didn't make the cut; understandably there was a widespread idea of priorities.

What about that Colfax BRT?
Today's affirmative vote from transportation GO Bonds will really help move the ball forward.

But talk about cost creep, the Colfax BRT which started out as a $125 million project is now up to around $165 million. But that's OK. Presumably a lot of the increase is from changing project scope to now utilizing Centerline running designated lanes instead of side-running. Being Denver's first BRT project it will be the showpiece for others that follow and it needs to be done right, not cheap. Just as the yuge success of the SW LRT Line led to the passage of FasTracks, Colfax BRT needs to be a well-received bellwether.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Rapidly rising US construction costs, especially for transit, are a big problem. There's not a simple or easy solution. As far as I can tell it's a perfect storm of like a dozen different issues.

In bold is the touchy thing.

Maybe we should think of the economy as a whole here. For example workers may be more expensive over there, at least they're fairly rewarded for their daily duty.

Not exactly the same where I am, where infrastructures are cheaper, but where incomes are quite lower as well, then your average worker here can't afford the latest trendy iphone. That's a pain too.

On the other hand, they get some advanced universal healthcare for the taxes they all pay here. And society is much easier when people know even the poor will be healed if they ever got sick...
Idk. There's obviously no easy answer. You got to find some precise balance given the global constraints and competition.
That's about it.