DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Let me explain myself more concerning there being no difference between the parties to those with power and means.

Most of those whom I have known that had the power good financial resources provides, had specific issues that interested them. On a national level, their interests concerned protecting their wealth and reducing regulations affecting their businesses. On a state level, most were interested in developing and protecting the value of hard assets through the use of tax payer money (whether as credits or grants) for ‘development’ and the passage of regulations that reduce potential competition to their existing businesses.

On top of this cake was the ‘frosting’ of other issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, the military, global warming, public education, legal pot, etc. For ‘frosting’ issues, such individuals pick parties, for the protection and enhancement of their wealth they will support those candidates, regardless of party, who will act affirmatively to protect their interests.

It would not matter to almost anyone like this whether federal money paid for infrastructure that would increase the value of their portfolio, or whether the state tax payer provided the money that would. Their interests are centered around increasing hard asset value at the lowest possible cost to them, regardless of who else pays the bill.

In this sense, there is no difference between parties.

[TakeFive]

per forum.phish.net

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Also, since I hereby decree that this forum abides by Connect4 rules, my 4 consecutive posts mean I win.

.....
per blog.udn.com

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

See The Dirt, that is the difference between me and you. You pop cultural references to the Nash Equilibrium endpoint in a prisoner's dilemma game mean you have to discuss things with Wizened. I, on the other hand, claim I am obtuse and a bro. Those qualifiers are sufficiently similar to dumb and groupie. As such, Wizened must now dismiss and probably ignore me.

You make some cromulent observications.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Let me explain myself more concerning there being no difference between the parties to those with power and means.

Most of those whom I have known that had the power good financial resources provides, had specific issues that interested them. On a national level, their interests concerned protecting their wealth and reducing regulations affecting their businesses. On a state level, most were interested in developing and protecting the value of hard assets through the use of tax payer money (whether as credits or grants) for ‘development’ and the passage of regulations that reduce potential competition to their existing businesses.

On top of this cake was the ‘frosting’ of other issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, the military, global warming, public education, legal pot, etc. For ‘frosting’ issues, such individuals pick parties, for the protection and enhancement of their wealth they will support those candidates, regardless of party, who will act affirmatively to protect their interests.

It would not matter to almost anyone like this whether federal money paid for infrastructure that would increase the value of their portfolio, or whether the state tax payer provided the money that would. Their interests are centered around increasing hard asset value at the lowest possible cost to them, regardless of who else pays the bill.

In this sense, there is no difference between parties.

I don't think anyone here would suggest replacing our capitalistic system, even with its flaws and warts, with Socialism or a state managed economy such as China has.

At the end of the day the power pickers are the voters. Whether they choose wisely is a whole other kettle of fish but we seem to be managing well enough.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That was mostly Congress' doing, and at the time it was considered a basically non-controversial bipartisan keeping-the-government-functioning bill.

Congress was hardly marvelous back then, but it wasn't the complete clusterfuck of ineptitude and gridlock that it is now. SAFETEA-LU would not pass today's Congress.

Speaking of dysfunctional or maybe alter-functional, I found this AP piece in WaPo to be fascinating.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Let's make a few more assumptions, in addition to the assumption that the 2009 schedule and fares were identical to 2008. Let's assume thrice weekly service for 14 weeks (approx late December to late March), and let's assume those 13,000 tickets from 2009 were sold at either $50 or $75. That means the 2009 Ski Train would have made a minimum of $27,300,000 (14 weeks x 3 weekly trips x $50 x 13,000 passengers) and a maximum of $40,950,000 (14 weeks x 3 weekly trips x $75 x 13,000 passengers). And yet Anschutz, when he owned it, lost money on it.

The issues Anschutz ran into that hindered profitability of the ski train don't necessarily apply to Amtrak (or at least not in the same way). From liability to rolling stock there's the potential for significantly lower variable costs if Amtrak decides to operate it. From what I have read January to March Amtrak downsizes a lot of it's trains and has spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, and the DP said they wouldn't need additional insurance to operate this line.

Of course like anything the devil is in the details so we will see. But I am at least optimistic on this coming back and staying for a bit.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bobg

The issues Anschutz ran into that effected profitability of the ski train don't necessarily apply to Amtrak (or at least not in the same way). From liability to rolling stock there's the potential for significantly lower variables costs if Amtrak decides to operate it. From what I have read January to March Amtrak downsizes a lot of it's trains and has spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, and the DP said they wouldn't need additional insurance to operate this line.

Of course like anything the devil is in the details so we will see. But I am at least optimistic on this coming back and staying for a bit.

While I don't know much about the operational costs of running a train line, and I'm sure that you're right about Amtrak's ability to operate it at a lower cost, I think it may have also been that the product Anschutz was offering simply wasn't the right one.

If I remember correctly, it was over $200 a ticket and included things like a full breakfast, coffee and hot chocolate, and other kinds of luxuries. This kinda of arrangement may be fun for an out-of-towner who is willing to do it as an add-on to a vacation, or perhaps a once-during-your-kids'-childhood kind of special occasion, but is not the kinda thing that locals would ever actually use as transportation to go skiing. I'm even a bit skeptical that this makes sense at $75, but it's a lot better than before. A no-frills option that is more about transportation and less about having a quaint "train experience" seems to make more sense as a realistic alternative to I-70. The two hour travel time, even for a slow freight train, is often comparable to I-70 drive times. If people could buy a sort of "season pass" ticket, perhaps bundled with a ski pass, it could really make sense for a lot of people. Whether this can be done profitably I suppose is a different question.

[Cirrus]

Agree. A tourist train that's essentially a cruise ship is a fun idea, and there's nothing wrong with having it, but it's not a real transportation alternative and it'll only ever be a niche.

Maybe a real-transit train can work in that corridor and maybe it can't, but either way the lessons from a cruise line only tell part of the story.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bobg

The issues Anschutz ran into that hindered profitability of the ski train don't necessarily apply to Amtrak (or at least not in the same way). From liability to rolling stock there's the potential for significantly lower variable costs if Amtrak decides to operate it. From what I have read January to March Amtrak downsizes a lot of it's trains and has spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, and the DP said they wouldn't need additional insurance to operate this line.

Of course like anything the devil is in the details so we will see. But I am at least optimistic on this coming back and staying for a bit.

Good to know. Really I'm just trying to flush out as variables as possible, estimating where I don't know things but can make an educated guess. Anyone know how Amtrak goes about selecting state sponsored trains? I noticed Illinois has a few.

Originally Posted by mr1138

If I remember correctly, it was over $200 a ticket and included things like a full breakfast, coffee and hot chocolate, and other kinds of luxuries. This kinda of arrangement may be fun for an out-of-towner who is willing to do it as an add-on to a vacation, or perhaps a once-during-your-kids'-childhood kind of special occasion, but is not the kinda thing that locals would ever actually use as transportation to go skiing. I'm even a bit skeptical that this makes sense at $75, but it's a lot better than before. A no-frills option that is more about transportation and less about having a quaint "train experience" seems to make more sense as a realistic alternative to I-70. The two hour travel time, even for a slow freight train, is often comparable to I-70 drive times. If people could buy a sort of "season pass" ticket, perhaps bundled with a ski pass, it could really make sense for a lot of people. Whether this can be done profitably I suppose is a different question.

It wasn't $200. I dug up the 2008 numbers on the last page:

Originally Posted by Seven twenty

[mr1138]

^Oh, good to know. Guess that was my fuzzy memory getting the best of me. I only actually took the train one time when I was a small child. I remember looking into it back in the early 2000s since my family skis in Winter Park a lot, and thinking that the price was simply outrageous. I suppose even at $40 a pop, it is still a bit too much for the average person to use more than maybe once a year at best. Not sure what price point would actually make sense. It takes a half a tank of gas, maybe a little more to get up there and back, so the cost of driving really is significantly cheaper (especially if carpooling).

Like I said before, the travel time is competitive with driving, but unless that cost can come down it will really only remain a novelty item. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing though - actually makes a lot of sense for tourists.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Plansit, if you could get a hold of the 1986 Downtown Area Plan (probably from the Denver Library) there is some mention of a Subway down 15th between DUS and Civic Center.

Found it. Thanks for the heads up.







There is also a little section calling for a perpendicular Transit Mall to complement 16th St. They show California. (I've always thought Larimer might make a good candidate)

[CharlesCO]

That is pretty cool. It really isn't a bad plan, maybe just a little too much ahead of its time for 1985. The term "transit mall" seems pretty dated.

I do think a below-grade transitway on 15th or 16th will get built someday. It's already enough of a mess using any of the downtown loop stations during peak times.

[TakeFive]

The March Fastracks Monthly Construction Newsletter mentions powering up the East Line:

Currently, RTD is powering up the lines in sections as part of the electrification testing process. Soon the entire line will be live with electricity.

This spring, trains will begin to run under their own power...

[TakeFive]

So Is This What Metro Denver Needs?

per gpb.org
Welcome to Atlanta where your peach tree awaits. (Count those lanes)

Just for grins I did a search with the keywords "state transportation funding dilemma." Didn't take long to find pleas from the states of Washington, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Georgia and Texas. Changing "dilemma" to "problems," we get Pennsylvania, Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia and Utah.

It appears that most states are seeking more short term or incremental fixes. Most agree that without more Federal funding the overall backlog will grow.

[TakeFive]

Oh Boy, I found a good article written a few days ago in the Rocky Mountain News.

"Funding Highway Infrastructure: Higher Gas Taxes or New Alternatives?"
By: Dan Boyce | March 5, 2015

So Wyoming raised their gas tax by a dime in 2013; Iowa which was the same as Colorado just raised theirs by a dime. Utah is going to raise theirs but it's complicated.

Wasn't even aware of this; meet Jim Gunning:

Lone Tree Mayor Jim Gunning is part of MPACT 64, a group of government leaders representing Colorado counties. They have been polling the public to gauge approval of potentially raising the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon, as well as other infrastructure funding options that may be more sustainable.

So far the idea of a usage/mileage tax gets no love from the public.

Lone Tree’s Gunning agreed.

"When we polled that it’s extremely unpopular," he said, noting a paltry 24-percent approval rating in Colorado for the so-called road usage charge. "People were concerned that we’re going be collecting information that’s too specific to them on a personal level."

I still would contend that Colorado should raise the state sales tax three-tenths from 2.9% to 3.2%; raise the gas tax by 8 cents from 22 to 30 cents and put the "package" to a state-wide vote. My logic is simple, straight forward.

Voters don't like somebody raising their taxes; fair enough and understandable. Instead, empower voters to accomplish getting the better roads, bridges and transit that they wish for and let them decide what THEY want or don't. It completely changes the decision making dynamic. It also would need to be made clear how this additional revenue would be divided up (city, county, region) and some ideas on specific improvement projects.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Oh Boy, I found a good article written a few days ago from Rocky Mountain PBS.

Fixed for you.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Fixed for you.

Hah... Funny thing is I actually misread it (at first) and couldn't resist seeing who would be the 1st?

I also found this purty colorful map by the Tax Foundation. Oops, it's a png so you'll have to click HERE to see it. The map, of course, doesn't show which sates are contemplating raising their gas taxes.

[CPVLIVE]

APTA's 4th quarter numbers are out. Denver's look similar to the 3rd Q -


http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...hipreport.aspx

[TakeFive]

This is so exciting.

gifsec.com


"CDOT kicks off search for private partner on $1.17 billion I-70 project"
Mar 10, 2015 by Cathy Proctor, Denver Business Journal

A $1.17 billion effort to sink about two miles of Interstate 70 in north Denver, and put a lid on part of it, has drawn the attention of about 150 representatives of construction and engineering firms interested in getting a piece of the project.

And it's drawn the attention of some very big players in the international arena, Shailen Bhatt, CDOT's new executive director, told the Denver Business Journal.

"There aren't a lot of significant projects, big, mega-projects, sitting out there waiting to be picked up in the United States, so yes, this is drawing a lot of interest." Bhatt said CDOT already has set up seven one-on-one meetings with firms that "want to make sure they are dialed in on what we want."

[EngiNerd]

Proposed US 36 Bus Rapid Transit Service Plan

With the implementation of the US 36 Bus Rapid Transit service, it is proposed routes 86X, BF, BMX, BV, BX, DD, DM, HX, S, and T would be consolidated into five routes as part of the new bus service.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/servicechanges-us36.shtml