DENVER | Transportation Thread

[LAM]

Originally Posted by trubador

does RTD already own the ROW on 36 and I-25 north? If they do, then they really need to look at the cost of routing the rail next to these highways instead of paying the ransom that BNSF is suggesting

If I recall correctly from the North Metro project EIS, the cost of running the line up I-25 included purchasing right of way as well as widening the highway. The overall costs were orders of magnitude greater than running on the rail line even after factoring in CDOT contributions. That of course was before BNSF gave the citizens of Denver and RTD the shaft.

[bunt_q]

Snyder, where do you get this "we can do a lot of elevated EMU for $1.7 billion" stuff? No, we can't.

I criticize RTD as much as everyone. But my frustrations are a far cry from assuming utter stupidity. You think nobody ever thought of looking at US 36 again? Really? For all its recent faults, if nothing else, RTD has demonstrated a great willingness to think outside the box to dig themselves out of their hole. US 36 is a bad option, no matter how far BNSF is pushing. And by the way...you think BNSF doesn't have smart people on board? You think they don't know exactly how far they can push before RTD has another viable option?

The only variable here (and the one the BN also can't quantify) is politics. Politics includes the (IMO, idiotic) notion that a train down the middle of the highway is somehow better than a bus that does the same thing. Politics includes the reality that cutting a couple municipalities completely out (Louisville) would entail. Politics would be vehement opposition to an objectively (transportation-wise) superior BRT option.

But I'll play along. You can have your sexy park-n-ride-based train up US 36. You can even have your absurdly expensive elevated structure to overcome those pesky hills we have here in Colorado. But what, I ask, would you do with your US 36-ROW EMU once you get to Boulder? Stop it at Table Mesa? Grade separate your way all the way up Foothills? Or some sort of Warren-esque super-flyover? Let me guess, subway?

[mr1138]

Is it entirely impossible that a US36 based rail alignment could simply deviate from the highway somewhere around Flatirons Crossing and use the BNSF line from that point on? Or for that matter that it could also use the BNSF as far as Westminster Mall before joining up with the highway? I suppose that would still leave a need for BRT to service Table Mesa and McCaslin, but would eliminate the entirely unnecessary zig-zag all the way out to Church Ranch and Wadsworth (where there happen to be no stops planned anyway) and continue to service all of the same communities it currently promises to.

Whether it would actually be faster, more efficient, cheaper ect. I can't personally say, but we do know (based on studies already released by RTD) that rail DOES offer a significant advantage over BRT in terms of capacity (and ability to expand capacity over time). And frankly, I'd be quite surprised if it wouldn't offer some sort of time advantage as well, which is the biggest thing that will get people to ditch their cars in favor of transit.

[trubador]

I should make a correction to my post. I'm sure that the RTD folks did some analysis of the costs to run rail right next to the highway, they just need to share the initial findings to shut people like myself up.

I'm very excited that the 225 line may get finished sooner and with that pricetag. It is sorely needed.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by trubador

I should make a correction to my post. I'm sure that the RTD folks did some analysis of the costs to run rail right next to the highway, they just need to share the initial findings to shut people like myself up.

I am going to copy directly from the Fastracks page. Go dig up these reports and read them. Unless you live in West Highland, you can't reasonably expect an RTD task force to deliver them to your doorstep with the answers to your particular personal questions already tabbed and highlighted for you:

In 1998, RTD and CDOT began the US 36 Major Investment Study (MIS). The three-year process included extensive public involvement, including the formation of the Mayors and Commissioners Coalition (MCC) in 2000 - a group of elected representatives from the City of Boulder, Boulder County, City and County of Broomfield, Town of Superior, City of Louisville and City of Westminster dedicated to furthering the goal of achieving transportation funding for the US 36 Project.

The MIS resulted in the identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which called for a combination of transit and highway improvements to be implemented between Denver and Boulder. In 2003, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) began a comprehensive planning study of transit alternatives between Denver and Boulder. With the voter approval of RTD's FasTracks program in 2004, RTD was able to secure funding for both of the proposed projects that would link Denver, Boulder and Longmont via commuter rail.

In 2005, RTD also completed a study to determine the feasibility of potential commuter rail implementation in the Longmont Diagonal Corridor. The Longmont Diagonal Rail Feasibility Study area consisted of the BNSF Railway (BNSF) alignment from approximately 30th and Pearl Streets in Boulder to 119th Street and the SH 119 Extension, east of downtown Longmont. In late 2005, RTD began an Environmental Evaluation to further analyze the Longmont Diagonal Rail Study area.

In mid-2006, RTD combined the commuter rail portion of the two studies into one project - Northwest Rail - to be studied and implemented separately from the highway improvements planned for US 36. The Northwest Rail environmental study incorporated the analysis of the rail project from Denver to Boulder (which was developed in the first phase of the US 36 EIS) and from Boulder to Longmont (which was developed in the Longmont Rail Feasibility Study).

[...]

The RTD Northwest Rail Line completed the environmental planning process and preliminary engineering phase with the release of the Final Environmental Evaluation (EE) in June 2010.

[Octavian]

http://www.coloradodot.info/projects...2006_27_12.pdf

http://www.coloradodot.info/projects...revised_rb.pdf

Through 2 studies (The Advanced Guideway System (AGS) Feasibility Study & Interregional Connectivity Study (ICS)), CDOT is putting out a DBOM RFP for rail for the I-70 and I-25 corridors. Bidding teams will have a large degree of flexibility to propose a technical and financing solution. The I-70 alignment will roughly parallel the highway, but teams may propose deviation from the highway alignment. The performance characteristics of the proposed system between Golden and Eagle Airport are outlined in the presentation above. A second study is looking at Golden to DIA and Ft Collins to Pueblo. This study will also look at connectivity between this new system and RTD.

Short list of teams by Sept 2012
Study completion by Sept 2013
Proposed completion of an initial operating segment is 2025.

Check out the presentations.

[bunt_q]

Excellent. Now we cut through the advocacy, the excuses, the politics, and the BS. Private industry is going to have to put a real dollar figure on "hurting Clear Creek County's feelings," won't make broad brush assumptions on ridership, won't assume people will pay virtually unlimited fares, and will have to propose something technically feasible (beyond a 10-minute look at some vehicle manufacturers cut sheets). Exciting times.

[bcp]

rocky mountain rail estimate 19mm rides per year...the latest drops to 1.7mm per year? i'm thinking this must be a typo...maybe 1.7mm per month? that would equal 20.4mm per year.

[Cirrus]

1.7 per year sounds much more likely to me. To get into the ballpark of 20 million a year would require a huge mode split.

[bunt_q]

RMRA combines I-70 and the Front Range ridership, IIRC.

(Convenient, when one has 90% of your ridership and the other 90% of your cost...exaggerated some, obviously, but not entirely.)

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by bcp

rocky mountain rail estimate 19mm rides per year...the latest drops to 1.7mm per year? i'm thinking this must be a typo...maybe 1.7mm per month? that would equal 20.4mm per year.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1.7 per year sounds much more likely to me. To get into the ballpark of 20 million a year would require a huge mode split.

In order to attract the 19mm per year figure, a true HSR, 220mph was required. With a 110mph, the RMRA estimates dropped down to near that 2mm passengers per year. However, the CDOT are expecting this system to have peak time ridership of 4,900 passengers per hour. Days of the week which travelers go up and then come back down from the Mountains; with great fluctuations in ridership, as the seasons pass.

In fact, all CDOT is requiring, is a HSR system that meets the Federal "emerging HSR corridor" criteria of 90-110mph service. With the likelihood of bidders opting to share freight rail through metro Denver, this would then require FRA-compliant passenger trains and may also lead to a DMU instead of electrified technology. However, there are special requests that the technology implement green technology into it's plan (solar, wind, renewable energy) and the CDOT also says additional funding could be found, if electrical power transmission lines will be required (from a separate state pot, I assume). Also, the technology used, must be a proven technology, with high efficiency and large operating environmental criteria. This slants favor, possibly towards some European trains, as as tilting trains (UK, Germany) or possibly trains with all axial power (for steeper grades at near full speed). So there is incentives for an EMU, non-FRA compliant system.

Technically, the Silverliner V EMU's, are FRA-compliant and capable of 90-110mph service. This might offer an intriguing way, for integration with RTD's EMU system, opening up easier and more affordable connections with DUS and DIA. They could essentially run on the Gold Line from Golden to DUS and then on the East line from DUS to DIA. The only requirement, is that they would be express trains through the metro, not stopping at each RTD stop. So perhaps passing tracks and such would have to be added (and double tracking of the stretches RTD is initially only going to single track).

[DenverTrans]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Here we go. Some more typical RTD. Only one working TVM (still cash only and a slow as hell dot matrix printer). At last count the line was 18 people deep. Time to purchase ticket: about 20 minutes. Current headways: 15 min.



...

A local rail advocacy group in Philadelphia has recommended using parking meter kiosks instead of typical rail TVMs:



- Takes credit cards, cash, coins, stored value cards
- You could push one button to get the most common media (such as, say, a ticket to downtown zone, which must be the most common inbound ticket. You could offer a roundtrip as well, to save figuring out the return zone).
- Prints a small ticket quickly.
- Solar power / cellular data connection
- Probably affordable operating cost, given that they pull in a small amount of revenue daily for parking rates.
- Probably less expensive than a typical TVM
- Low installation cost compared to typical TVMs.

[DenverTrans]

Some statistics -- Durango and Silverton railroad operating results:

https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/efi...ment_id=157860

2011

Passengers.........................229,956
Passenger Miles................9,567,179
Passenger Train Miles............45,851
Pax Miles/Pax Train Mile.............209

Passenger Revenue..........$12,803,839



Total Revenue................$15,356,822
Operating Expense..........$14,974,427
Net Income........................$382,395

Pax Miles/Pax...........................41.6
Pax Revenue/Pax....................$55.68
Pax Revenue/Pax Mile...............$1.34
Pax Revenue/Pax Train Mile....$279.25
Tot. Revenue/Pax Train Mile....$334.93
Tot. Oper. Exp./Pax Tr. Mi.......$326.59


I post these just to give some dimensions to discussions of the economics of rail. While the D&SNGRR is a tourist railroad, you can also slice up airline operating results and transit agency results to look at average ridership per departure, per mile, passenger (revenue) yields, net income, etc.

What the D&S shows is that with a limited service, over about 45 miles of track, nowhere near a major city, a little railroad gets about a quarter of million rides per year - mostly in the summer season, I expect. The revenue yields are substantially higher than most conventional passenger services, but so are the operating costs, which is not surprising. Also, note that the average train had 209 passengers per mile, which is a significant number, especially considering it is a small narrow gauge line pulled with steam locomotives. This means that peak trains probably carried substantially more passengers.

I tend to think a more pragmatic approach to rail could work in Colorado. Focusing on yield management, going only as fast as necessary to fill a train every hour or so, keeping operating cost as low as possible -- it might work.

[bunt_q]

Except you don't have debt service on that list. The Durango-Silverton could never work if there were major capital costs to recoup.

You're right, of course, about keeping things at a workable scale. But it's also going to be hard to do the mountain corridor incrementally. And there's no hiding from the last $14 billion sticker price. I'm not sure what more pragmatic options exist for I-70 west.

We were all excited last week when California lawmakers approved $4.5 billion in bonds (freeing up another $3.2 in federal money) for HSR. That would get us halfway there. In a corridor with 1/10 of the population.

You should keep one more thing in mind - I'm not sure folks are interested in pragmatic (lower capacity) solutions. The whole point of this rail option is to move mountains to avoid widening the highway. Unless a rail option meets that goal, it's useless. And to meet that goal it has to be fast and high capacity. This is all about being afraid of the highway; it has nothing to do with actually wanting a train option.

[DenverTrans]

Bunt,

I did not forget about capital, and I agree - recouping all capital is difficult to impossible for most railroads in the modern age - and even historically. Many, many railroads went bankrupt back in the day trying to service their debt, thus wiping out the investors who actually built the lines. Often, a bigger, stronger railroad would then acquire the distressed railroad. Even in the modern age we have examples like Eurotunnel to look at.

If we accept your hypothesis that the primary yardstick is to avoid adding a highway lane, then we need to move roughly 1,000 to 1,500 people at peak hour within about ten years of opening. That is probably close to what a highway lane would move, on average, along I-70 (assuming people are riding mostly in cars, not buses). Even if it moves 2,200 on a good day, on a bad day that number plunges.

Say the peak hour is 8:00 am on Saturday near the Divide. Two westbound trains, each with 400 people, would move about 800 people -- not quite a highway lane, but getting pretty close. Within a couple of years demand grows. Three trains per hour = 1,200 people per peak direction-hour (roughly 400 per train). True, the ski train handled over 700 customers, but that was a very long train.

Do such trains need to operate at 200 mph? I would argue no. It would be nice, but not strictly necessary. If the train could get you there in roughly the same amount of time, it will be attractive. Keep in mind it will generally be more reliable and more comfortable. The Ski Train was a good example. The Moffat Road is actually very slow, but it is more direct than I-70/US 40. It might have been even more successful if there were a major western park and ride (especially with cheap parking, which could possibly be shared with local transit since the peaks of usage are complementary).

The train might not necessarily be cheaper than driving in today's terms. That may not matter as much as people think. First, many travelers would pay more for a premium experience, but they have no option. They drive because what is the alternative? Second, the cost of the resort parking is currently being subsidized. Over time, there may be more economic value in developing the parking lots, and this will eventually lead towards a market-driven parking price. Again, because there is no alternative to driving, the ski operators are stuck with parking. It has no little to no value, and little to no economic value either.

The reverse direction economics also apply. If the I-70 corridor was connected to downtown, DIA, and other major destinations, it becomes more attractive than driving to those locations which typically charge for parking. This is why the DIA facility should have been designed with this in mind.

I am sure we have both been stuck on I-70 heading home when things get bad. Dark, snowing, brake lights, sliding cars, and tired from a day on the slopes. Fun times, right? Now imagine having the apres-ski snacks and drinks in a comfortable seat quietly gliding through the snow in modern rail cars. Estimated travel time, a couple of hours. OTP Reliability? 90%. You can see why diverting 25 to 30% of peak hour travel might not be such a stretch, even at 70 to 100 mph. Even in Europe most of the mountain trains operate at regular speeds (even the mighty TGV).

But hey, maybe you are right. Maybe no one is interested. What could possibly be gained by having that?

[bunt_q]

Why the assumption that peak time is during ski season, and the primary destination is the resorts? As we've discussed time and again, that is not the case for most of the year (and peak is in July).

I am still waiting for an option that includes a (funded) plan for serving non-ski-area dispersed destinations effectively, and cuts the capital cost in half. All a $14 billion preferred alternative does is stifle other improvements in the corridor. Because we are decades away from being able to fund that.

Oh, and cost is a bigger factor if you include the need for a shuttle bus transfer, which nearly every passenger will be required to do. It stops being a "premium" or "attractive" experience when you add that. Every trip is a two transfer trip - park-n-ride, train, bus. It needs to be modeled that way.

The people who are focused exclusively on serving resort traffic demonstrate their lack of understanding of today's dynamics in that corridor. For crying out loud, the ski season was effectively two months this past winter. Two months. If we take your assumptions at face value, there is simply no system that can be justified. We can't afford that kind of investment on infrastructure that is ineffective for 10 months out of the year.

I would prefer we build the best damn train system possible on the Front Range, where it'll get used (and possibly even spur further complementary transit investments in cities up and down the Front Range), and stick with a combination of highway widening, managed toll lanes, and better buses for the I-70 corridor. As long as we're wasting our time discussing a $14 billion train (that everybody hopes the other guy on the highway will use), we are distracting ourselves and hindering progress on every other front.

[DenverTrans]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Why the assumption that peak time is during ski season, and the primary destination is the resorts? As we've discussed time and again, that is not the case for most of the year (and peak is in July).

Perhaps you are right. Highways it is.

I am not sure that I agree, by the way, that the shuttle bus is horrible or expensive. So much depends on the details.

I did use the ski season because the highway is more likely to suffer catastrophic delay, the demand is point-load driven by the resorts, etc. This does not mean it is ineffective the rest of the year, though that depends on the travel markets served, I suppose. Most personal travel peaks in the summer, I think (while business travel may dip). The question, then, is still not so much about top speed as much as what the future of the travel market is.

[DenverTrans]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I would prefer we build the best damn train system possible on the Front Range, where it'll get used (and possibly even spur further complementary transit investments in cities up and down the Front Range), and stick with a combination of highway widening, managed toll lanes, and better buses for the I-70 corridor. As long as we're wasting our time discussing a $14 billion train (that everybody hopes the other guy on the highway will use), we are distracting ourselves and hindering progress on every other front.

I hope you will see progress in your effort!

[bunt_q]

Business travel? In the mountains? . I suppose I do have a conference in Keystone is September. But I'm going up on a weeknight, so it's not something I would ever use a train and shuttle bus for. I feel like a broken record player because we've discussed this so many times. I just see the last mile problem in the mountains, which is really a last 20 mile problem up there, being near-insurmountable.

I recognize that I am in the minority here. I fully expect that our transportation budgets for the next 20 or 30 years will be held hostage by a few thousand people in Clear Creek County and a bunch of idealists on the Front Range who will never read a report but who think a fancy train sounds like a neat idea.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by DenverTrans

Bunt,

I did not forget about capital, and I agree - recouping all capital is difficult to impossible for most railroads in the modern age - and even historically. Many, many railroads went bankrupt back in the day trying to service their debt, thus wiping out the investors who actually built the lines. Often, a bigger, stronger railroad would then acquire the distressed railroad. Even in the modern age we have examples like Eurotunnel to look at.

If we accept your hypothesis that the primary yardstick is to avoid adding a highway lane, then we need to move roughly 1,000 to 1,500 people at peak hour within about ten years of opening. That is probably close to what a highway lane would move, on average, along I-70 (assuming people are riding mostly in cars, not buses). Even if it moves 2,200 on a good day, on a bad day that number plunges.

Say the peak hour is 8:00 am on Saturday near the Divide. Two westbound trains, each with 400 people, would move about 800 people -- not quite a highway lane, but getting pretty close. Within a couple of years demand grows. Three trains per hour = 1,200 people per peak direction-hour (roughly 400 per train). True, the ski train handled over 700 customers, but that was a very long train.

Do such trains need to operate at 200 mph? I would argue no. It would be nice, but not strictly necessary. If the train could get you there in roughly the same amount of time, it will be attractive. Keep in mind it will generally be more reliable and more comfortable. The Ski Train was a good example. The Moffat Road is actually very slow, but it is more direct than I-70/US 40. It might have been even more successful if there were a major western park and ride (especially with cheap parking, which could possibly be shared with local transit since the peaks of usage are complementary).

The train might not necessarily be cheaper than driving in today's terms. That may not matter as much as people think. First, many travelers would pay more for a premium experience, but they have no option. They drive because what is the alternative? Second, the cost of the resort parking is currently being subsidized. Over time, there may be more economic value in developing the parking lots, and this will eventually lead towards a market-driven parking price. Again, because there is no alternative to driving, the ski operators are stuck with parking. It has no little to no value, and little to no economic value either.

The reverse direction economics also apply. If the I-70 corridor was connected to downtown, DIA, and other major destinations, it becomes more attractive than driving to those locations which typically charge for parking. This is why the DIA facility should have been designed with this in mind.

I am sure we have both been stuck on I-70 heading home when things get bad. Dark, snowing, brake lights, sliding cars, and tired from a day on the slopes. Fun times, right? Now imagine having the apres-ski snacks and drinks in a comfortable seat quietly gliding through the snow in modern rail cars. Estimated travel time, a couple of hours. OTP Reliability? 90%. You can see why diverting 25 to 30% of peak hour travel might not be such a stretch, even at 70 to 100 mph. Even in Europe most of the mountain trains operate at regular speeds (even the mighty TGV).

But hey, maybe you are right. Maybe no one is interested. What could possibly be gained by having that?

I agree with you DenverTrans that top speed is not so important in the I-70 corridor. A train with an average speed of 70 mph (with stops) would be great. More important is the ability to climb steep grades.

Along I-25, where the geometry allows, top speed is more important.

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.

I actually think you have a bigger last mile problem on I-25 (outside of Denver). If I take the train to downtown Colorado Springs, what then? Chances are I'm not close to my destination.