DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Octavian

bunt, I don't think the last mile problem is as big as you make it. Trains are very successful in Switzerland, which also has a lot of mountains. The nice thing about the towns along I-70 is that they are compact and the mountains are a natural barrier against sprawl.

Oh dear Lord. There's another terrible comparison that I am sick of hearing. Have you ever been to Switzerland? Here's why it works so well there - look at how comprehensive their system is:


source: http://www.hfsjg.ch/jungfraujoch/access.html

The equivalent of the proposed I-70 system would be if the train took you to Interlaken (read: Dillon) and dropped you there. Or forced a shuttle transfer there.

I challenge you guys to make a list of all the ridership-generating destinations that are within a 15-minute walk of a proposed I-70 (probably median) station. And then from there, we work backwards with a shuttle bus system and model ridership accordingly. The longer (and less convenient) the shuttle, the more of a drag on ridership (and presumably the less you can change for the rail tickets).

This is why I am excited to see the RFP for private DBOM proposals. Nobody is going to put a few billion dollars on the line based on, "well it works in Switzerland." They're going to do the digging and the homework that needs to be done. And I would love to be proven wrong... but I am not anticipating that anybody comes forward with a private proposal that matches what people are envisioning. Feasibility-wise, I think we have a Boulder/NW rail on our hands, not an Eagle P3.

[Cirrus]

Question:

Does I-70 have shoulders? I assume it does. One of the projects I'm working on in real life is improving the shoulders of an interstate highway enough for buses to be able to use them to bypass traffic congestion. It's not as good as a real dedicated bus lane, and you generally have to keep your speeds down around 35-40 mph when using a shoulder, but still, it's a helluva lot better than sitting in traffic. And it gives riders a big incentive to use the bus. And it's very cheap.

Could that work on I-70? Are there shoulders through the tunnel? We'd still have to deal with the problem of dispersing traffic off I-70 at the destination end, but at least we might be able to add some congestion-free transit at an affordable cost.

As for the dispersing traffic problem, car-sharing and/or a subsidized car-rental service might be the answer. Take the bus across the mountains, using the shoulder to bypass congestion, and then rent a car for local trips around Vail (or wherever) once you're there. If we can make that an affordable option, and put the rental station right next to the bus station, we might have a workable improvement with a cost only in the millions. It might not get the ridership of a 200mph supertrain, but we could have it in under 5 years at a cost we can actually afford.

[bunt_q]

No workable shoulders through the tunnel. Or the Idaho Springs tunnels, so you'd have quite the bottleneck.

Shoulders work for limited amounts of time in urban (read: frequently maintained) areas. But shoulders also serve a purpose... rocks, snow removal, stalled vehicles... all of which are more common on a mountain highway than they are in normal urban traffic. Add tight curves, narrow bridges (at US 6), etc. Not to mention, it'd be the trucks you'd want to move to the shoulder, which presents different problems (although, it might be time to consider the controversial move of restricting truck traffic during peak periods). It would be worth studying, but I image it would present major safety issues unless you dialed back the speed.

Back to the trucks. We'd have to build some sort of facility if we expect trucks to wait for half a day during peak periods, especially on the west end where there's really nothing, and especially during the winter. But it might be worth it as one item on a menu of little things we can do in lieu of widening. Hugely controversial though.

[Cirrus]

You typically do have to dial back the speed (see image below).

It's definitely not a perfect solution. Relatively slow, bottlenecks where there aren't shoulders, and you have to merge into the general lanes any time someone needs the shoulder for something else. But at the same time, it's basically free. If you could bypass 10 miles of stop-and-go traffic at 25 mph, wouldn't that be worth it? Even it was only 10 miles?

The big problem is that sans very much existing bus traffic, would it be enough incentive to draw new bus companies and new riders? Probably not without a fairly massive subsidy and advertising campaign.

Maybe the answer is to open up the shoulder for HOV use as well as buses. Make it HOV3 or HOV4 if there are too many HOV2s.

[BG918]

Yes the two tunnels, especially the Eisenhower-Johnson, present the biggest challenges for both widening the highway to 6 lanes and/or rail. It would be billions of dollars just to expand the tunnels. But it needs to be done, especially if Denver ever gets the Olympics 15-25 years from now. That is something that needs to be fixed before that happens (if it ever happens).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You typically do have to dial back the speed (see image below).

It's definitely not a perfect solution. Relatively slow, bottlenecks where there aren't shoulders, and you have to merge into the general lanes any time someone needs the shoulder for something else. But at the same time, it's basically free. If you could bypass 10 miles of stop-and-go traffic at 25 mph, wouldn't that be worth it? Even it was only 10 miles?

The big problem is that sans very much existing bus traffic, would it be enough incentive to draw new bus companies and new riders? Probably not without a fairly massive subsidy and advertising campaign.

Maybe the answer is to open up the shoulder for HOV use as well as buses. Make it HOV3 or HOV4 if there are too many HOV2s.

It'd definitely have to be HOV3, or even 4. Another peculiarity of I-70 is that there are few single-occupant vehicles at peak times (it also presents a challenge for a transit system, because you aren't competing on cost with individual drivers, but rather two or more sharing the auto costs).

On the shoulders. Definitely worth studying. But if you have to merge back in more than a few times, it might cause more delay than it saves. And it's not like we're talking continuous rush hour gridlock. Except in inclement weather, it's a few bottlenecks causing issues and the rest is plain old cascading back-up. If you're going to provide what's essentially a queue jump (that's why I say HOV4 - make it a real reward), it'd be awfully nice to get some real bus service going too.

[Cirrus]

Here's another idea to solve the mountain distribution problem: Build your 90mph train, and let people load their cars onto it. It takes a while to load/unload the cars, so you'd probably want to limit it to only one origin and destination station (at least for car loading; you could let passengers on/off at more places).

Amtrak runs a service exactly like that along the east coast that drops you off in Florida. It's pretty expensive, and a big problem is that it doesn't extend far enough north. But it's an idea that ought to be considered.

[bunt_q]

Now that's cool, I've never seen that. A car ferry on rails. Wonder what that does to the grade issues? Not exactly lightweight freight.

They'll haul your jet ski to Florida for Washingtonians who don't want to drive, I love it.

[bunt_q]

I still think a fleet of a couple hundred rental jeeps strategically positioned right at the stations is the best idea I've heard. Presumably the train will have internet, so you can take care of all the rental paperwork garbage en route with a rep who goes seat to seat. Arrive, grab your stuff, get off the train, walk a few hundred feet, get your jeep keys, maybe look over it quick for dents and dings, sign, and go. $40/day, return it to whatever station you want, and we get the bonus of Coloradans no longer having to own a 4wd vehicle to enjoy the mountains. My fear is what sort of fare structure can the train get away with if you also have to pay for a car on the back end.

Say a couple goes up for the weekend. $25 fare each, plus let's say $60 for a standard weekend rental. You're looking at a $160 hiking/camping/shop-in-Breck weekend trip. Versus 150 miles of driving (at 15 mpg, $4/gallon, that's $40 to drive it for that same couple). That's a big gap. Transit - no matter the time advantage - doesn't usually have to overcome a 4-to-1 price disadvantage.

[Cirrus]

Presumably the train will have internet, so you can take care of all the rental paperwork garbage en route with a rep who goes seat to seat.

I suppose that's probably how you'd have to do it for out-of-towners, but for Colorado residents who use it regularly, you'd make it much simpler. You'd use the Zipcar model where you get a membership ahead of time, they send you a membership card with an RFID chip in it, and when you reserve a car online it allows you to unlock it with your membership card.

The pricing is a bigger problem, I agree. We'd have to find a way to make it competitive.

[bunt_q]

RFI-what? Chips, like, ruffles? Remember, you're talking about the state that still can't figure out fare cards on buses.

[SnyderBock]

What about the possibility of interlacing the airline tickets, train tickets and ski lift tickets (even lodging), all into one travel package. Then the ski resort/lodging might be able to provide a shuttle bus to/from the rail station.

[trubador]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I still think a fleet of a couple hundred rental jeeps strategically positioned right at the stations is the best idea I've heard. Presumably the train will have internet, so you can take care of all the rental paperwork garbage en route with a rep who goes seat to seat. Arrive, grab your stuff, get off the train, walk a few hundred feet, get your jeep keys, maybe look over it quick for dents and dings, sign, and go. $40/day, return it to whatever station you want, and we get the bonus of Coloradans no longer having to own a 4wd vehicle to enjoy the mountains. My fear is what sort of fare structure can the train get away with if you also have to pay for a car on the back end.

Say a couple goes up for the weekend. $25 fare each, plus let's say $60 for a standard weekend rental. You're looking at a $160 hiking/camping/shop-in-Breck weekend trip. Versus 150 miles of driving (at 15 mpg, $4/gallon, that's $40 to drive it for that same couple). That's a big gap. Transit - no matter the time advantage - doesn't usually have to overcome a 4-to-1 price disadvantage.

you are forgetting the cost of vehicle ownership in the equation, but then again most consumers do when making these comparison.

[Cirrus]

I'm not sure that's really relevant here.

1. The population of car-free urbanites along the Front Range probably isn't big enough to justify much of a system on its own, so we'll probably have to rely on a lot of car-owning customers to make it pan out. That means it has to be beneficial even if you already own and pay for a car. The market of car-free customers could probably only support a couple of buses per weekend, to a very limited number of destinations.

2. Even if you are a car-free urbanite, the option already exists for you to rent a car locally and drive it to the mountains, and that would likely be cheaper than our plan to transit to the mountains and then rent a car once there. So there's no added value to being car-free under this proposal than there is to begin with. Basically, nobody is going to make the decision to go car-free based solely on this issue (at least, nobody should), so you either already get those benefits, or already don't, based on independent issues.

This mountain thing... really is a wicked problem.

[bunt_q]

It's really only a wicked problem if you start from the assumption that the answer can't be cars and highways. I, for one, am willing to accept that transit is not viable in all situations and that the private automobile does have some qualities that make it inherently better in certain situations. I am a staunch supporter of reducing the use of cars as much as humanly possible in urban areas. But I think cars, love them or hate them, are probably the answer to the challenges of navigating the sparsely populated, spread out, and rugged mountains. Heresy, I know, to acknowledge anything good about the private auto.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's really only a wicked problem if you start from the assumption that the answer can't be cars and highways. I, for one, am willing to accept that transit is not viable in all situations and that the private automobile does have some qualities that make it inherently better in certain situations. I am a staunch supporter of reducing the use of cars as much as humanly possible in urban areas. But I think cars, love them or hate them, are probably the answer to the challenges of navigating the sparsely populated, spread out, and rugged mountains. Heresy, I know, to acknowledge anything good about the private auto.

Agreed completely, Brent!

Originally Posted by trubador

you are forgetting the cost of vehicle ownership in the equation, but then again most consumers do when making these comparison.

See Brent's point above, trubador.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[PLANSIT]

Transit seems to more viable for winter activities, those associated with towns within close proximity. I would assume that tourists and weekend warriors looking for fresh gnar are your most logical choice riders. And they can find a good deal of what they seek in the few areas transit could serve.

Summer gets a little more difficult. I think casual tourists might still use such a service, but the average front ranger is looking to get off the beaten path a little more, hoping to find a place a little less crowded (if that's even possible) and as far removed from the hustle and bustle as possible. Transit, as I can see it, doesn't seem to service those folks.

I'd want to see some travel sheds for I-70 for both winter and summer.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's really only a wicked problem if you start from the assumption that the answer can't be cars and highways. I, for one, am willing to accept that transit is not viable in all situations and that the private automobile does have some qualities that make it inherently better in certain situations. I am a staunch supporter of reducing the use of cars as much as humanly possible in urban areas. But I think cars, love them or hate them, are probably the answer to the challenges of navigating the sparsely populated, spread out, and rugged mountains. Heresy, I know, to acknowledge anything good about the private auto.

I do not think the issue is that people are afraid of highways, or think that the car is never the best form of transportation.

I think the main point of contention is that not everyone buys into the notion that this mountain transportation network needs to go to every single conceivable destination in the mountains in order to be useful. A network that serves every rural trailhead, campsite, etc. is unfeasible anywhere in the world. This network needs to just serve the congested I70 corridor.

Even in the summer I believe theirs enough low hanging fruit (popular destinations) close enough to I 70. The low hanging fruit may not be immediately within walking distance of an AGS station but when combined with Summit County buses, Eagle County's buses, etc. it can be . Some modifications may need to be made to the current summer routes but I do not see that as insurmountable.

Will it require a transfer? Yes. Will that be a hassle? Maybe but compared to the potential alternatives it will likely be worth it. (And they have no problem transferring in Switzerland).

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It's really only a wicked problem if you start from the assumption that the answer can't be cars and highways.

You don't think widening I-70 constitutes a wicked problem? How much would it cost to widen those tunnels? Is a multi-billion-dollar solution OK for highways but not if it's a train? Seems like a pretty tough problem to me.

I agree that the end-point distribution problem is fairly simple if we agree that cars will be part of it. But how do we get the cars out there without making people sit through hours of traffic jam?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You don't think widening I-70 constitutes a wicked problem? How much would it cost to widen those tunnels? Is a multi-billion-dollar solution OK for highways but not if it's a train? Seems like a pretty tough problem to me.

Not at all. For a couple reasons. First, the highway widening was about one-third the cost of the train. And second, any alternative - highway, train, or a combination of the two - requires the tunnels to be widened. (The combination preferred alternative - basically, train plus limited highway widening/safety improvements in the most critical segments - includes the tunnels.)

Originally Posted by bobg

I do not think the issue is that people are afraid of highways, or think that the car is never the best form of transportation.

The people in Clear Creek County are. If you've followed the history of studies in the corridor, that much is obvious.

Originally Posted by bobg

I think the main point of contention is that not everyone buys into the notion that this mountain transportation network needs to go to every single conceivable destination in the mountains in order to be useful. A network that serves every rural trailhead, campsite, etc. is unfeasible anywhere in the world. This network needs to just serve the congested I70 corridor.

Even in the summer I believe theirs enough low hanging fruit (popular destinations) close enough to I 70. The low hanging fruit may not be immediately within walking distance of an AGS station but when combined with Summit County buses, Eagle County's buses, etc. it can be . Some modifications may need to be made to the current summer routes but I do not see that as insurmountable.

Will it require a transfer? Yes. Will that be a hassle? Maybe but compared to the potential alternatives it will likely be worth it. (And they have no problem transferring in Switzerland).

But at what cost? It doesn't have to serve every conceivable destination. But the fewer it serves, the less benefit you get for the same cost. And like it or not, highway widening would, in effect, serve every conceivable destination.

The simple fact is that we haven't been able to come up with a transit alternative for that corridor that isn't $10 billion-plus.

So you tell me. How much ridership do we need to justify a system that costs more than double the entire Fastracks program? (and triple the highway option) Believe it or not, transportation funding is not unlimited.