DENVER | Transportation Thread

[seventwenty]

Bunt, did you have a good bike to work day?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Bunt, did you have a good bike to work day?

Oh that's right; bunt has a brand new Huffy 6300.

[Scottk]

Had a 5 minute transfer to catch the flatiron flyer from the E line.

The E line showed up 8 minutes late so I missed my transfer and now have 30 minutes to kill.

If I'd known the E line would have been so late I would have just taken the D and walked down 16th.


#RTDlife

[TakeFive]

So Denver LRT transit is better than Portland's?
That's what the guy said, yes.

"LRT must be more than a Hail Mary"
Jun 08, 2016 By James Bow - Kitchener Post

When I boarded the train for an 11-day transcontinental tour of America, I wanted to pay a visit to a number of cities to ride their LRTs.

I am a train and transit geek, but I’m also an urban planner by training, and I wanted to see what lay in the future for our city by looking at comparable examples like Denver and Portland.

A stereotypical picture of a number of American cities... However, I was pleasantly surprised by how much the cities I’d visited had rebuilt their downtowns, and how effective their LRTs were at moving people.

Now that you've got me breathing heavy, please go on.

Portland is often cited as the example... They tore down an expressway to install an LRT and today their downtown is bustling and the city is easy to get around without a private automobile.

But I was more impressed by what Denver has done.

And?

After passing a referendum to raise sales taxes, the cities of the Denver metropolitan area embarked on a major expansion of their rapid transit network.

While this plan hasn’t gone off without a hitch, new projects launched this year, and more are due to arrive. The city opened the first line of an electrified regional commuter rail system, connecting Denver’s airport to a revitalized Union Station. New LRT lines are set to run, and both are given equal prominence on the transit maps.

Thanks, James. As a professional urban planner living the the eastern part of the country you obviously know how to separate the Contenders from the pretenders

[TakeFive]

RadicalBender via English Wikipedia via the Dallas Observer

"DART Has Spent $5 Billion on Light Rail. Is It Worth It?"
JUNE 10, 2016 BY ERIC NICHOLSON - Dallas Observer

Twenty years ago on Tuesday, Dallas Area Rapid Transit officially got into the light-rail business, opening an 11-mile “starter system”... Since then, the system has grown to truly prodigious proportions, adding lines and snaking deep into the suburbs.

With 90 miles of track, DART boasts the longest light-rail system in the country, as the transit agency will happily point out.

According to DART, it has carried 360 million passenger trips, had $8 billion in economic impact and generated $5 billion in transit-oriented development around its 62 stations. More than that, “changing the way the region grows and how North Texans live,” according to DART CEO Gary Thomas.

In-depth analysis of DART that is somewhat critical but also pretty fair. Eric also points out:

A 2014 paper out of Florida State University compared DART’s light-rail system with seven peer transit systems: Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego and St. Louis.

When the authors look at operational measures, which seek to capture some of the actual experience of using the system, DART does fairly well. It ranks in the middle of the pack...

Couple of things:

Like Denver "DART is a hub-and-spoke system. Trains radiate outward from downtown Dallas, and bus lines radiate outward from the train stations."

I know from reading that the line to North Dallas, specifically Richardson, became the focus of creating the equivalent of a whole new DTC on Steroids. The development was more mixed-use and walkable and a centerpiece for prominent corporate HQ's and regional office relocations.

[Cirrus]

Portland's LRT > Denver's LRT > Dallas' LRT

From the standpoint of project delivery, Denver's FasTracks expansion is the most impressive "single project," as everything in Portland and Dallas has happened more incrementally. But from the standpoint of "ability to get around the city via transit" Portland's system is far superior to Denver's. The portion east of the Willamette River is relatively comparable to Denver, but the part west of the Willamette is where Portland's system really shines. West of the Willamette Portland *has* the inner city system that we keep dreaming about for Denver, with criss-crossing LRT and streetcar lines.

Dallas is similar to Denver in that it's oriented more towards long distance park-and-ride users, except even more so. And trains only come every 1/2 hour. It honestly probably was not worth the expense.

"Ridership per mile" is a good way to compare the efficiency of transit systems, while correcting for length. Basically, take the total ridership of a system and divide it by the track mileage. Here's how these three cities measure up (LRT+streetcar only, so doesn't include the Denver's A line, Portland's Westside Express, or Dallas' TRE):

Portland: 2,051 riders/mile
Denver: 1,630 riders/mile
Dallas: 1,147 riders/mile

[Cirrus]

BTW, Houston has learned from Dallas' mistakes and is building a more well-planned system, with lines that more directly serve destinations, rather than easy-but-useless rights-of-way. Houston only has 23 miles of LRT, compared to 90 for Dallas, but take a look at Houston's efficiency:

Houston ridership/mile: 2,670

[PLANSIT]

^ Would it be safe to say that larger systems (especially in western commuter-based cities) are naturally less efficient (ridership/mile)? For example, I'd be curious to see Denver's ridership/mile number back when it had ~23 miles of LRT. I'm guessing it would be significantly higher.

[PLANSIT]

Quick look at APTA ridership for RTD LRT system from Q2 2011 (earliest data set) through Q1 2013 (just prior to W Line opening) shows average ridership of ~67k on a 34.8 mile system. That puts riders/mile at 1,926. So, a 15% decrease in riders/mile when W Line opened.

I don't have data for the LRT prior to SE extension (19 miles), but would be interested what that 15.8 mile system (Central, CPV spur, SW Line) had for ridership.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Would it be safe to say that larger systems are naturally less efficient (ridership/mile)?

Yes and no. That is one possible result, particularly for long extensions into suburbia, but it's not universal. Additional lines also increase the number of places accessible by transit, contributing to an overall network effect that raises ridership everywhere. It's not so much a matter of length as it is a matter of where you put your length (queue the dirty jokes).

The most efficient systems are the ones with a dense web of many short lines, covering dense areas. SF's Muni Metro (4370 riders/mile) is the clearest US example. LA's system is a little weird because LA is so gigantic, but it also works as example, with over 80 miles of light rail and a solid ridership/mile of 2339.

The least efficient systems are short, single lines with few destinations along them, and no network effect. The tiny downtown streetcars in Tampa (222 riders/mile) and Little Rock (118 riders/mile) are the most illustrative examples. They're so unused that they have nowhere to go but up, so even a suburban extension would probably help them.

The commuter systems are in the middle, but also vary based on where extensions go. Denver's system would get more efficient with 10 miles of new line on Broadway and Colfax, but less efficient with 10 miles of new line going south from Littleton.

The ridership/mile calculation also varies based on where your starter line goes. Houston made a great decision and put its first line on what's probably the best segment of its best corridor. So their efficiency may well drop over time. But Seattle's 2nd line was much more efficient than its first, so when they opened their 2nd line, their efficiency shot up. It just all depends.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Houston made a great decision and put its first line on what's probably the best segment of its best corridor. So their efficiency may well drop over time.

As did Phoenix.

[Cirrus]

Yes! Phoenix is at 2258. It's quite good.

The newer systems tend to be better than the ones that were built in the 1990s and early 2000s, because federal rules changed. Most of these lines are built with federal New Starts grants, which are very competitive. It used to be that the most important factor in securing a New Starts grant was speed, which tended to favor long commuter-focused systems. Now the New Starts scoring formula weighs ridership more heavily. The result is that you get more lines on arterial main streets (ie where all the customers are) and fewer in old industrial railroad rights-of-way.

[TakeFive]

Congratulations DIA and Ferrovial; I'm anxious to hear more about this.

Courtesy: Flight Reviews

"DIA picks preferred team for main-terminal makeover"
Jun 30, 2016 by Mark Harden - Denver Business Journal

DIA wants to move TSA security checkpoints off the floor of the sprawling, tented Jeppesen Terminal and onto level 6, where they will share space with a consolidated set of airline ticket and baggage drop-off counters.

It's not a done deal yet.

“At the end of the pre-development phase, the airport and city will make a decision whether to proceed with this P3.”

Checking out Ferrovial's website they do seem very capable. They also have a USA specific site.

Didn't mention the suspected cost and it's likely that will rise as they get into more detail. The scope of their vision looks to be very substantial but I hope they can ultimately find a way to justify the cost and proceed.

[CharlesCO]

I'd like to see the Great Hall returned to its former glory as much as anyone, but with the current state of the TSA, security really does take up almost all the space on level five. I even saw recent pictures of the line wrapping all the way back around the baggage carousels. I don't see how any sort of rehab project will be able to shoehorn security onto the middle of level six.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

I'd like to see the Great Hall returned to its former glory as much as anyone, but with the current state of the TSA, security really does take up almost all the space on level five. I even saw recent pictures of the line wrapping all the way back around the baggage carousels. I don't see how any sort of rehab project will be able to shoehorn security onto the middle of level six.

That's what I'm thinking. I don't see where there's room for it up there. And then how do you get to the trains? I hate cramped security areas in other airports.

[The Dirt]

Will passengers getting off the commuter train have their own check-in and security counters, then? Because, otherwise they'll have to funnel them from the great hall entrance up to level 6 somehow. Any word on baggage check-in at Union Station?

[seventwenty]

Better yet, have a bag drop at DUS and a few other stations.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

That's what I'm thinking. I don't see where there's room for it up there. And then how do you get to the trains? I hate cramped security areas in other airports.

Agreed.

One of the nice things about security at DIA is how open and spacious it feels. I would hate to see our security area crammed like it is in Newark, for example.


This plan seems misguided to me.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

BTW, Houston has learned from Dallas' mistakes and is building a more well-planned system, with lines that more directly serve destinations, rather than easy-but-useless rights-of-way. Houston only has 23 miles of LRT, compared to 90 for Dallas, but take a look at Houston's efficiency:

Houston ridership/mile: 2,670

To be fair, there aren't that many destinations within Dallas that the light rail system misses. Some from Houston will criticize DART for not tunneling under Love Field to service it directly, yet Houston's Metro doesn't even approach either of its major airports, not even close.

If by "direct" you mean within a city block or two (300 feet to 600 feet) to a destination, what happen to the constantly expressed studies that show most people will walk a quarter mile (1320 feet) to ride transit? The fact remains that most of the destinations within Dallas are close to major freeways that were built parallel to railroad corridors.

When stringing rail corridors together that stretch over 15 miles from downtown, your choices are limited to using available intact corridors; rail, utility, streets, and freeways. Trains in dedicated corridors will always run with higher average speeds than trains in dedicated lanes.

And last, the Metro board members are appointed differently from DART's board. DART's board is 47% represented by suburban citizens, 53% by Dallas citizens; while Metro's board is 78% represented by Houston citizens. It follows logically that they will build entirely different systems.

[Cirrus]

DART is great at hitting "major destinations" that people don't actually go to every day, like airports, fairgrounds, and sports arenas. It's bad at hitting the kind of destinations that actually drive transit ridership, like dense neighborhoods and commercial main streets.

DART should've been DMU. It would be a totally respectable commuter rail system. There's nothing wrong with running trains every half hour on old freight ROWs; it's just never going to generate the kind of ridership that an arterial-focused LRT system would.

This is another lesson cities have learned over the last 15 years or so. Denver is a great example, with all its EMU lines. Austin, Portland, SF, San Diego... a lot of cities are building DMUs or EMUs now that probably would've been LRT 20 years ago.