DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

So with Boulder officially removing the bike lane on Folsom - on a unanimous City Council vote - do think the cycling lobby will be a little less arrogant going forward? It's Boulder after all, if they can't win there... But the thing is, all they had to do was go through an actual planning process, go through the effort of measuring traffic so that when motorists scream traffic apocolypse, you have something other than dogmatic pro-bike ideaology to lean on - real data. Maybe cyclists will be humbled realize that they are, in fact, a minority, and not everyone worships at the almighty two-wheeled alter. Hopefully they learn their lesson before they push for ad hoc conversions on major streets going forward. Because I wouldn't expect Denver's Council to react any differently from Boulder's.

Okay, that's probably asking for too much. But this is still a win for rational planning.

[TakeFive]

You tell em, Ed

Perlmutter Outlines Transportation Priorities, Recommendations To Invest In Infrastructure And Grow Economy
September 25, 2015 by RealEstateRama

“Colorado’s two major interstates, I-25 and I-70, require billions to maintain and expand. Without the certainty of a long-term extension with increased funding for our transportation systems, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) will not be able to maintain an efficient transportation network across the Denver metro region…

The letter mentions several important federal financing programs like New Starts/Small Starts funding and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which has provided invaluable federal credit assistance to help RTD and local communities...

“Yet we need a sustainable and dedicated user fee model to continue funding infrastructure projects into the future..."

[trubador]

I wonder what the chances of the 225 line building the line along 225 between exposition and ellsworth in the future to bypass the stops in aurora. If you are commuting to anschutz or trying to get to the airport, you don't want to take a detour through "downtown" aurora.

I believe it would be about a mile to continue along 225 with only one major crossing at Alameda.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by trubador

I wonder what the chances of the 225 line building the line along 225 between exposition and ellsworth in the future to bypass the stops in aurora. If you are commuting to anschutz or trying to get to the airport, you don't want to take a detour through "downtown" aurora.

I believe it would be about a mile to continue along 225 with only one major crossing at Alameda.

Zero chances. Ridership is going to be pitifully low in any case. You don't invest more in a corridor that never should have been built in the first place, and only exists as a political buy off.

[Cirrus]

Agreed. Zero chance. The entire point of that line is to reach "downtown" Aurora. Bypassing would undermine its raison d'etre.

Hey, what are Aurora's plans for that area? Like, how dense are they?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by trubador

I wonder what the chances of the 225 line building the line along 225 between exposition and ellsworth in the future to bypass the stops in aurora. If you are commuting to anschutz or trying to get to the airport, you don't want to take a detour through "downtown" aurora.

I believe it would be about a mile to continue along 225 with only one major crossing at Alameda.

I would think the chances are pretty good... at some point in time for reasons that are obvious.

The I-225 line was a strategically smart idea because it connects to so many employment centers by also connecting the East line to the SE corridor lines. The loop through the Aurora City Center is fine but should be it's own separate segment.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I would think the chances are pretty good... at some point in time for reasons that are obvious.

The I-225 line was a strategically smart idea because it connects to so many employment centers by also connecting the East line to the SE corridor lines. The loop through the Aurora City Center is fine but should be it's own separate segment.

What obvious reasons and how do you think that the chances are good?

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever. Aurora doesn't want people dodging their "downtown" and RTD doesn't want to spend the money to build a short detour - nor does it make sense.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

What obvious reasons and how do you think that the chances are good?

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The I-225 line was a strategically smart idea because it connects to so many employment centers by also connecting the East line to the SE corridor lines. The loop through the Aurora City Center is fine but should be it's own separate segment.

Are you wanting me to list the employment centers and the numbers involved?

If the primary purpose of rail transit is to enable worker bees to get to places of employment then the R Line will surely do that with access to downtown Denver, DIA the Tech Center etc. Only Fitzsimons is actually within Aurora.

For commuters, there goal is to get to work not go on a sightseeing trip. If going through the Aurora City Center discourages ridership from commuters then this is counter-productive I'd think. Same applies to people heading to DIA.

The "problem" is easily enough corrected as trubador suggests. If adding an additional mile or so of rail along I-225 would make a big improvement in operational efficiency and ridership, then why would RTD NOT want to do that?

[bcp]

The problem is not aurora per se, it's the ungodly slow speed it will do and the four, 90 degree turns. I'd guess That will really discourage ridership.

[Denver Dweller]

http://denver.streetsblog.org/2015/1...n-2016-budget/

[trubador]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Zero chances. Ridership is going to be pitifully low in any case. You don't invest more in a corridor that never should have been built in the first place, and only exists as a political buy off.

anyone have the projected ridership numbers handy? For some reason I always thought the 225 line has some of the highest projected numbers.

I found this very outdated document: http://www.rtd-denver.com/documents/...rvice-plan.pdf

and on page 9 they show that the highest boarding station will be Peoria (of course they don't show the entire line, so we can judge ridership), but this tells me that this line is being used for commuting and not people try to get to the middle of Aurora.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Are you wanting me to list the employment centers and the numbers involved?

If the primary purpose of rail transit is to enable worker bees to get to places of employment then the R Line will surely do that with access to downtown Denver, DIA the Tech Center etc. Only Fitzsimons is actually within Aurora.

For commuters, there goal is to get to work not go on a sightseeing trip. If going through the Aurora City Center discourages ridership from commuters then this is counter-productive I'd think. Same applies to people heading to DIA.

The "problem" is easily enough corrected as trubador suggests. If adding an additional mile or so of rail along I-225 would make a big improvement in operational efficiency and ridership, then why would RTD NOT want to do that?

Go for the list. It's one station. You are making it sound like the jog over to service the Aurora Municipal Center is one hell of a trek. We're talking going around the mall - it adds a whopping 3/4 mile to the corridor (hope you're rested up for that detour).

If your whole argument is based on serving important employment centers along the corridor, you might as well include the center of government for the city it's serving on your list. I'm pretty sure the city wouldn't mind having a rail station within walking distance and would probably put up a fight if some trains didn't take that route.

If people are choosing to not ride the corridor because of a 5 minute detour, they weren't going to ride it in the first place.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by trubador

anyone have the projected ridership numbers handy?

The ridership projections are like 30,000/day in the out years, but that probably assumes a lot of infill in Aurora Town Center. There's no way a Not-Actually-DTC-to-Not-Actually-Fitz shuttle carries that many people.

The 225 line is not a good line. The only way it might become a good line is if Aurora Town Center becomes enough of a destination to anchor it.

If all you wanted was an express shuttle from DTC to I-70 via the highway then it should've looked like this.

[TakeFive]

Mulligan... Eh, we're talking past each other. "The list" was given: downtown Denver, DIA, Fitzsimons and the SE corridor/tech center. Aurora isn't a destination, it's a bedroom suburb needing to get to employment destinations.

As for the actual City of Aurora, I don't think Aurora even employs that many people but certainly some. Last I was aware the City still had office buildings on South Havana street.

Originally Posted by trubador

anyone have the projected ridership numbers handy? For some reason I always thought the 225 line has some of the highest projected numbers.

I found this very outdated document: http://www.rtd-denver.com/documents/...rvice-plan.pdf

and on page 9 they show that the highest boarding station will be Peoria (of course they don't show the entire line, so we can judge ridership), but this tells me that this line is being used for commuting and not people try to get to the middle of Aurora.

Exactly, I envision the R Line moving commuters mostly out of Aurora to places of employment.

Other than the A Line to DIA which was a political, strategic necessity, I've always thought that the R (I-225) Line could be the busiest Fastracks line. While primarily low-rise, still Aurora developed out with significant density. There's a ton of townhome, attached, and condo projects.

I would guess that from Iliff Ave. to the east and SE that most would be riding the train into the SE Corridor. Access to Colorado Blvd. is even easy by light rail. Similarly, one might guess that north of Mississippi Ave. that commuters would be heading to the I-70 corridor if not to Fitzsimons. The R LIne should give great access to DIA for its over 35,000 employees now including a new 500-room Westin Hotel.

The R Line isn't about a destination, it's about connecting to other lines with destinations. I believe that the 9 Mile Station is the busiest Bronco Ride station; they run both light rail and buses from there.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The ridership projections are like 30,000/day in the out years, but that probably assumes a lot of infill in Aurora Town Center. There's no way a Not-Actually-DTC-to-Not-Actually-Fitz shuttle carries that many people.

The 225 line is not a good line. The only way it might become a good line is if Aurora Town Center becomes enough of a destination to anchor it.

If all you wanted was an express shuttle from DTC to I-70 via the highway then it should've looked like this.

Oh good grief.
Everything I know about transit etc. I learned from blogs/reading so feel free...

I thought the primary purpose of rail transit was to enable workers a car-free option to jobs. To say the R Line is not a good idea is to say that the W Line and all of the Fastracks lines with the exception of the A Line are not a good idea - and maybe that's so but it's water waaaaay under the bridge. So are you jumping on the conservative bandwagon that buses are the best alternative for transit?

Try graphing the density nodes of employment for Denver. I assume they run from downtown Denver along I-70 to DIA and along the I-25 SE corridor. All Aurora residents are relatively close to one of those but either need to drive or find an alternative mode of transportation.

Admittedly the SE Corridor/tech center needs much better last mile solutions and I assume that that will happen over time. It's the only alternative to gridlock.

[TakeFive]

Can Denver and other cities re-write the Transit Rules

I recall reading an interesting debate among comments made to a Yonah Freemark thread on CityLab. One side of the argument would claim that what Denver is doing is totally nuts. It doesn't have the density to make rail transit work, especially where the Fastracks lines will go. It's folly, a disaster in the making.

The other side of the argument claims that misses the whole point. The point is to predetermine where a city wants transit and let the developers bring density over time. The ole "Build it and they will come" proposition.

I've mentioned how I believe Denver RTD was getting a whole lot of bang for the buck. Last time I tried to put the numbers together it seems RTD is building out Fastracks for about $60-$65 million per mile. That of course includes acquiring all new commuter rail train stock and a new high-tech maintenance and control center. I didn't include the Denver Union Station redevelopment.

As I read various articles about what other cities would like to do, Denver is often mentioned as an example. The costs for rail transit seems to vary from about $75 million per mile on the low end up to about $250 million per mile. I'm not talking subways or people movers, just light and commuter rail transit. For example, Portland's new Orange Line will cost over $200 million per mile; Austin estimated a cost of $147 million per mile for their proposed first, 9.5 mile light rail line. Phoenix hopes to add light rail closer to the $75 million per mile figure but they're still a few years out on breaking ground.

To be continued....

[trubador]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The ridership projections are like 30,000/day in the out years, but that probably assumes a lot of infill in Aurora Town Center. There's no way a Not-Actually-DTC-to-Not-Actually-Fitz shuttle carries that many people.

The 225 line is not a good line. The only way it might become a good line is if Aurora Town Center becomes enough of a destination to anchor it.

If all you wanted was an express shuttle from DTC to I-70 via the highway then it should've looked like this.

really can't argue that. I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a bus route from DTC/highlands ranch to Fitz. The DM has pretty decent ridership despite the poor hours of service. I think at time they forget that these are medical professionals who often work 12 hours shifts.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by trubador

really can't argue that. I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a bus route from DTC/highlands ranch to Fitz. The DM has pretty decent ridership despite the poor hours of service. I think at time they forget that these are medical professionals who often work 12 hours shifts.

Maybe it's because they are transit professionals, so they understand how transit works, unlike most on this forum. Here are a few factors that might play into their thinking:

- they are medical professionals, which means most probably own cars.
- they are traveling to/from the DTC/Highlands Ranch - a car-dependent/park-n-ride dependent area, where transit is already a challenge.
- they work in a place that has massive amounts of parking available.
- they work 12 hour shifts... which means many are not even traveling at peak hours, when traffic congestion can make transit more a more competitive choice.
- I'd also add, if you're working 12 hour shifts, your time is probably valuable to you. So a two hour r/t transit commute might seem less appealing than a 45 minute drive.

[TakeFive]

trubador... What is DM?

bunt... I don't have a good feel for who would be coming from Highlands Ranch etc. but I suppose there could be many that do for one reason or another. Whatever their circumstances I'd agree that driving would likely make more sense, be easier.

Given that Fitzsimons is near 30,0000 employees what percentage are we talking about with respect to longer distance commuters? Any idea?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

trubador... What is DM?

Boulder-Fitz bus route.

http://www3.rtd-denver.com/schedules...ion?routeId=DM