DENVER | Transportation Thread

[EngiNerd]

(RyanD, I'm stealing your awesome pic for my rant)

Has it ever been discussed exactly the reasoning behind why RTD did not install coverings over the train platform canopies? I just for the life of me can't understand why they wouldn't have been put in, especially since you already have these fancy frames for it anyway. There has to be a good reason other than cost savings, right?


http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/11...al-update.html

[bunt_q]

It would disturb the "clean lines" and give any number of architects heart palpitations.

[The Dirt]

This is especially perplexing given that Amtrak installed their own glass platform cover which totally threw off the symmetry of the station. We may as well have installed those glass covers over every platform. There's also the additional platforms further up to the NE that are completely uncovered since the parking structure was scrapped.

I'm going to set up a raincoat and umbrella kiosk so I can cash in on the oversight.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

(RyanD, I'm stealing your awesome pic for my rant)

Has it ever been discussed exactly the reasoning behind why RTD did not install coverings over the train platform canopies? I just for the life of me can't understand why they wouldn't have been put in, especially since you already have these fancy frames for it anyway. There has to be a good reason other than cost savings, right?

I've been working with RTD on the Eagle P3 project for several years and I can tell you that the primary consideration for RTD is budget. If there was anything in the design that was considered aesthetic, it was nixed. If Union Station left the canopies up to RTD, they simply decided to leave them out because it was cheaper without them. No big architectural conspiracy there.

[EngiNerd]

I get that, but if it was just budget, then why even have the canopy frames at the platforms at all? Those are completely useless in their current state and are what I would consider purely aesthetic (if you are into white). They had to have cost a pretty penny too.

If they are totally uncovered, fine, a lot of stations have uncovered platforms, but this just seems like they went halfway and stopped.

[LAM]

I'm just guessing. But, I think that someone else paid for the basic Union Station with the structure and the anticipation that RTD and Amtrak would put in whatever they needed when they need it. I bet RTD just figured they don't need no stinking' canopies.

Also, RTD will probably only use 50% or less of their platform area. The platforms are designed for the 2030 projected train car sizes of eight cars and in 2016, they will only use four or less. So rather than spend a lot of money for canopies that might not get used, maybe they figured, let RTD and Amtrak do what they want. For instance, what are the odds that Amtrak will have two trains in the station at once. My guess, is not much. So, they only put in one canopy for them.

Also, since the RTD trains are end of line, they won't be just stopping for 30 seconds. So, if it is raining or snowing, RTD might just as soon that everyone wait at the end of the tracks and then come out when they arrive.

Again, I'm just speculating based on my experience working with RTD.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by LAM

I'm just guessing. But, I think that someone else paid for the basic Union Station with the structure and the anticipation that RTD and Amtrak would put in whatever they needed when they need it. I bet RTD just figured they don't need no stinking' canopies.

Money Money Money

The escalating costs for Fastracks put RTD in a vice-grip. Voter approval included a max amount for bonding and for total payments of principle and interest.

RTD set a figure of $2 billion in max bonding for the Eagle project with a max payout of $4.5 billion. Macquarie, the winning bidder did not use all of that while the other bidder would have. Pretty sure that while "technical" or semantics, the $398 million in PAB's was part of the "private contribution" which helped save some of RTD's bonding authority which could then be used for other projects.

But there were other complications. Bidders legal teams questioned RTD's ability due to TABOR constraints. It was determined (or feared) that "availability payments" would be subject to TABOR. By shortening the "concession term" by 12 years (from 46 years to 34 years) they cut the total payout from $6
billion down to about $4 billion.

The Eagle project was the lynch pin for everything that would follow. Macquarie's bid did come in about $300 million in less "present value" than they had estimated.

RTD's allocation for DUS stands at $315 million. I'm sure that LAM's points are relevant as well.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Pretty sure that while "technical" or semantics, the $398 million in PAB's was part of the "private contribution" which helped save some of RTD's bonding authority which could then be used for other projects.

But there were other complications. Bidders legal teams questioned RTD's ability due to TABOR constraints. It was determined (or feared) that "availability payments" would be subject to TABOR.

Your first statement is just factually incorrect.

What do you mean they feared the availability payments would be subject to TABOR? I assume you are referring to them being subject to annual appropriation, as opposed to a hard obligation? They are certainly "subject to TABOR," the complicated part is how you deal with that fact.

Happy Thanksgiving all!

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

(RyanD, I'm stealing your awesome pic for my rant)

Has it ever been discussed exactly the reasoning behind why RTD did not install coverings over the train platform canopies? I just for the life of me can't understand why they wouldn't have been put in, especially since you already have these fancy frames for it anyway. There has to be a good reason other than cost savings, right?


http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/11...al-update.html

An RTD Spokesperson I asked said that the reason for this is because the coverings would impact the view of Union Station.


Sounds like an absolutely ridiculous reason, but this is what I was told.

[Scottk]

Getting closer to opening the I-70 express lane (or more often, not open). It's only going to be open during peak times (some weekends) but not during heavy snow (ha!, fantastic, just when it should be open). The federal highway report indicates that the 3rd lane is only certified for part time use because it doesn't meet minimum spec for a 3 lane roadway?? It's so "colorado" to drop a ton of money into a half assed solution that they'll only use when it's virtually guaranteed to cause a problem.

The lane seems really really tight near the Empire exit to Dumont… like really tight. I foresee some close calls with the jersey barrier or other cars. It will be interesting to see this clusterfuck play out. I'm going to laugh at CDOT when the toll lanes don't make even a dent in the traffic or make it worse because people drive extra slow due to the tiny ass lanes.


I was also wondering how many toll points there will be. It doesn't look like they are installed yet. With the toll lane so close to the normal lane, will it be possible for the receiver to pick up a transponder in the normal lane and then get dinged for the toll? How are they are going to keep cars out of the lane when it's "closed" since it won't have a significant space divider like other express lanes? Maybe it will become a true passing only lane to skip around those left lane campers?

When there's any weather, license plates will be slushed and snowed up. So no camera can see the plate...therefore it's free, right? Or some hairspray and dirt/dust and have a semi-permanent free pass?

[bunt_q]

Oh where to start. You should google the fact sheets - all of your questions are answered there.

Originally Posted by Scottk

The federal highway report indicates that the 3rd lane is only certified for part time use because it doesn't meet minimum spec for a 3 lane roadway?? It's so "colorado" to drop a ton of money into a half assed solution that they'll only use when it's virtually guaranteed to cause a problem.

It's not a lane at all - this is not widening - it is a shoulder. It is sacrificing safety for a wee bit more capacity when it's most needed. Federal highways makes the rules on this. Keep in mind, this is a corridor that is not congested at all 90+% of the time. If you want wholesale improvements, push for a tax increase.

Originally Posted by Scottk

It's so "colorado" to drop a ton of money into a half assed solution that they'll only use when it's virtually guaranteed to cause a problem.

Are you opposed to incremental improvements for some reason? Maybe you've been asleep for the last two decades, but we don't have $4 billion tucked away in the couch cushions. Which is what it would cost to do the complete fix. This is costing less than $50 million, excluding the debt backed by the tolling itself.

Originally Posted by Scottk

but not during heavy snow (ha!, fantastic, just when it should be open).

Peak traffic volumes are actually in the summer. This will be most useful then. That's certainly when I plan to use it.

Originally Posted by Scottk

I'm going to laugh at CDOT when the toll lanes don't make even a dent in the traffic or make it worse because people drive extra slow due to the tiny ass lanes.

It'll make a dent for the folks using the managed lane. Which is all it is supposed to do. Have you heard anybody promising this as a panacea?

The general purpose lanes are normal width, with a nice wide shoulder when the express lane is not in use.

Originally Posted by Scottk

I was also wondering how many toll points there will be. It doesn't look like they are installed yet. With the toll lane so close to the normal lane, will it be possible for the receiver to pick up a transponder in the normal lane and then get dinged for the toll?

There are three toll points. But you'll pay the full fare if you hit any one of them. They are installed, and it will not pick up cars in the regular lanes. (E-470 will do the toll processing.)

Originally Posted by Scottk

How are they are going to keep cars out of the lane when it's "closed" since it won't have a significant space divider like other express lanes? Maybe it will become a true passing only lane to skip around those left lane campers?

The same way you keep cars from passing on the shoulder any other time on any other roadway. The police will pull you over. (Or a good citizen like me will pull halfway into the shoulder and block you. )

Originally Posted by Scottk

When there's any weather, license plates will be slushed and snowed up.

You said yourself, it won't be open during major snow events. Also, the police can always pull you over if you're obscuring your plates. That's not new - it snows in Denver too, and E-470 has been managing for years.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by Scottk

An RTD Spokesperson I asked said that the reason for this is because the coverings would impact the view of Union Station.


Sounds like an absolutely ridiculous reason, but this is what I was told.

I'm pretty sure the Spokesperson was making that up. Just look at the photo. The Amtrak awning is the one that would likely block the view. Most of the other platforms would not really block the view. Especially the platforms behind the pedestrian bridge where you can't even see Union Station.

[Scottk]

Is there any reason that Colorado can't sell a bond like the rest of the developed world to get highway projects funded?


Does TABOR prevent this somehow?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Is there any reason that Colorado can't sell a bond like the rest of the developed world to get highway projects funded?


Does TABOR prevent this somehow?

Yes, TABOR requires voter approval for all bonding.

CDOT's two enterprises can do it because they do not get any tax revenues (tolls and fees only) and thus are not subject to TABOR. It's why you're seeing so many toll projects and public-private partnerships; it's all TABOR allows without a vote. And polling shows less than zero appetite statewide for new transportation funding initiatives.

[Cirrus]

Here's what a peak-period shoulder looks like in Virginia. This is open to anyone, not just HOT, but you get the idea. Colored pavement and an electronic sign that gives you either a red X (closed) or a green arrow (open).


from google

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Here's what a peak-period shoulder looks like in Virginia. This is open to anyone, not just HOT, but you get the idea. Colored pavement and an electronic sign that gives you either a red X (closed) or a green arrow (open).

Much fancier than the part-time inside shoulder here, but it looks good.

To clarify, the lane here will not be HOT; it'll be toll-only.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...er-bus-transit

[CastleScott]

^ Lol!! This sounds like the typical metro Denver transit rider who sometimes don't seem to know the difference between light rail and light beer...

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Is there any reason that Colorado can't sell a bond like the rest of the developed world to get highway projects funded?

Does TABOR prevent this somehow?

Don't listen to bunt; he only thinks he knows.

Colorado voters have proved over and over that they will approve new taxes. They're especially receptive to a designated tax where they know where the money will be spent. An increase in gas taxes should not be that difficult although the need to vote always adds cost and uncertainty.

The bugaboo goes to politics where Republicans have used "no new taxes" as a political wedge that is now starting to strangle them. It's especially Republican districts that are being left behind.

It will be interesting to see if Republicans decide to go along with moving the hospital provider fees into an enterprise bucket. If not then I dunno. Presidential election years are often ideal for any state-wide tax referendums since there's already elections on tap. I doubt that the need is acute enough that going to the voters for a gas tax increase will hit the radar in 2016 though.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Don't listen to bunt; he only thinks he knows.

Colorado voters have proved over and over that they will approve new taxes.

Didn't we have a substantially similar discussion a few months ago?