HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5801  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 12:42 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
we're reading..its just boring - put better transit and busses where people already are RTD.

would be great to take the hop/skip/jump idea and bring it to Colfax, broadway, federal, speer and 38th
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5802  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 1:27 AM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
we're reading..its just boring - put better transit and busses where people already are RTD.

would be great to take the hop/skip/jump idea and bring it to Colfax, broadway, federal, speer and 38th
Those services are "bought-up" by Boulder. Denver would have to step up and buy-up service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5803  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 2:23 AM
Octavian Octavian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,023
Denver Post editorial:

"Preliminary findings put costs of a bus rapid-transit system at up to $300 million to serve up to 27,000 people daily by 2035.

Meanwhile, just extending the Northwest Rail Line from its current, funded destination of Westminster 11 miles to Broomfield would cost as much as $681 million, according to the study. But that extension would only serve some 3,400 more people."

"We've said before we want folks in the northern suburbs to get the rail they were promised if possible, and we have been open to the idea of an additional, metrowide sales tax to finish the job.

But we also agree we can't have the Northwest Line at any cost."

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials...est-rail-study
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5804  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 4:52 AM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverPost
Building one 11-mile segment of commuter rail from Westminster to Broomfield could cost as much as $681 million while about 100 miles of enhanced bus service in the northern suburbs would cost roughly half that and serve nearly eight times as many passengers, according to an analysis for the Regional Transportation District.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...inst-100-miles
Bus advocates often don't take all the advantages rail into account. This isn't one of those times. This time, buses are the answer.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5805  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 6:04 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
what a cluster fuck...too late to just jam the rail in on 36? they 've been widening and working on it for quite awhile...bridges, parking and extra lanes are in place (I know iknow...this would be a compelte re-do...) I cringe looking at the system map thinking that the NW line may truncate at 72nd ave...that's just going to look very odd for a long, long time.

crying over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5806  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 6:39 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavian View Post
Denver Post editorial:

"Preliminary findings put costs of a bus rapid-transit system at up to $300 million to serve up to 27,000 people daily by 2035.

Meanwhile, just extending the Northwest Rail Line from its current, funded destination of Westminster 11 miles to Broomfield would cost as much as $681 million, according to the study. But that extension would only serve some 3,400 more people."
Sometimes, people miss the forest looking at specific trees.

Take that projected 27,000 ridership for rapid bus. Splt that number in half to 13,500 to estimate those using the bus in the mornings, and then the same in the afternoon. Since a 40-foot coach is the common type bus used in larger system, and usually holds about 42 ambulatory passengers when two wheelchair tiedowns are provided. Some math:
13,500 passengers / 42 passengers/bus = 321.4 buses.
Then let's assume rush hour lasts 3 hours, from 6 am to 9 am, or 4 pm to 7 pm, that's 180 minutes per rush hour. some more math:
321.4 buses / 180 minutes = 1.78 buses per minute, or a bus every 33.7 seconds on US 36.

Can any bus stop, unload, and load new passengers at a bus stop within 34 seconds?

At some point, running buses isn't feasible.

Another point I wish to point out is that usually trains attract more passengers than buses. The only way buses could attract more riders is with increased frequencies. A bus every 34 seconds is very frequent, but it needs to be that frequent to carry all those passengers. How frequent would a train have to run to carry the same number of passengers (assuming it does attract the same amount)? That of course depends upon the length of the train, and the capacity of each rail car. Assuming using high floor cars to match the high level platforms, here's a list of a few commuter configured rail cars available:
Nippon Sharyo's Highliner = 150 , Bombardier's Multilevel = 127 , Nippon Sharyo's single level = 110
Let's assume a Highliner was chosen. Some math:
13,500 passengers / 150 passengers/car = 90 cars.
Therefore, with a ten cars per train we'll need just 9 trains over 180 minutes, or a train every 20 minutes.
If we dropped that to five cars per train we'll need 18 trains over 180 minutes, or a train every 10 minutes.

Are you getting the point I'm trying to make?

Being realistic, I assumed 100% full buses and railcars, which will not happen in real life. You're going to need more buses and railcars because some will arrive in Denver just 75% full. I also suggest that few passengers forced to stand on a bus repeatedly for such a long trip between Boulder and Denver will be loyal and true, they will stop riding. I also realize not everyone rides public transit between 6 and 9 am, and 4 to 7 pm, and that they all will be traveling in the same direction, never-the-less you're going to need far more buses than railcars to handle the projected demand, maybe too much.....

Last edited by electricron; Oct 9, 2013 at 7:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5807  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 6:59 AM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,143
well, just string them together....ya know, like a train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5808  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 1:00 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Your numbers are way off. If we were seeing 4,000+/hour ridership in the peak direction, we'd already be talking train. But it's not that high.

And actually, yes, 1-minute headways on a BRT would be quite doable.

Your capacities are incorrect too. No reason you couldn't use an articulated bus with 120-person capacity. Not to mention, commuter rail with the operating characteristics RTD is planning would hardly be much better - there wouldn't be 10 minute headways on the northwest route. And a bus in the correct corridor (US 36) will always attract more riders than a train in the wrong corridor.

I think you're worried about the wrong thing here. Too little transit capacity is a fantasy we in Colorado are far from realizing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5809  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 1:48 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcp View Post
what a cluster fuck...too late to just jam the rail in on 36? they 've been widening and working on it for quite awhile...bridges, parking and extra lanes are in place (I know iknow...this would be a compelte re-do...) I cringe looking at the system map thinking that the NW line may truncate at 72nd ave...that's just going to look very odd for a long, long time.

crying over.
What would you do with it in Boulder? You'd still lose that ridership to the bus if you couldn't get people to the train station. Massive park n rides and forced transfers are not an improvement.

In my opinion, this is only the first. But we would be well served switching a number of our rail ideas to buses. I think we have it exactly backwards. Many of our regional routes would do better with buses. And many of our local routes would do better with rail. That's true in Denver and in Boulder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5810  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 1:53 PM
bobg bobg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 466
Additionally, I believe the ridership number the DP editorial is citing is a rounding up of the upper limit of the arterial "BRT" -enhanced bus- system since 16,300-26,600 is the range in the preliminary findings.

The arterial bus system is not just one corridor, in fact the only thing that could be along 36 is extending it through Boulder to connect to the other corridors. The arterial corridors studied include highway 119 (Diagonal), South Boulder Road, highway 7 (Arapahoe), U.S. 287 (Wadsworth), 120th, and an access route into central Louisville.

The arterial BRT-lite proposal is more of an improved service and modest capacity improvement along existing routes, than it is high capacity along a single corridor. However, the arterial BRT-lite system fits existing and likely future commuting patterns of the Boulder metro area better than Fastracks does.

Last edited by bobg; Oct 9, 2013 at 2:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5811  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 2:01 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
What RTD needs to do is get a bunch of fancy renderings out to the public today, showing what this could look like, with some sort of specially branded bus. Get people interested in something different. Not unlike what Austin posted in the other thread for Fort Collins:

Quote:
Originally Posted by austingood View Post

The MAX buses are supposed to be delivered sometime this month. Looking forward to these sexy buses:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5812  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 2:11 PM
Zmapper Zmapper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 210
electricion:

Two issues with your napkin analysis:
1. Not everyone is travelling at peak hours - I-25 and US 36 are congested from nearly 6 am to 10 pm at night, 7 days a week.

2. Not everyone is travelling in the US 36 corridor ONLY - some improvements made are in other, connecting routes. A customer travelling from Louisville to, say, Thornton can take an improved L bus, connect to the 120 bus and avoid the B buses altogether.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5813  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 3:39 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobg View Post
The arterial bus system is not just one corridor, in fact the only thing that could be along 36 is extending it through Boulder to connect to the other corridors. The arterial corridors studied include highway 119 (Diagonal), South Boulder Road, highway 7 (Arapahoe), U.S. 287 (Wadsworth), 120th, and an access route into central Louisville.
This is a key point. BRT on 36 is indeed better than NW rail on its own terms, but w/ BRT we're also getting an entire network of other new lines. In essence, Boulder County gets its own entire FasTracks-like regional rapid transit system.

You'd have to really be bull-headed not to admit the benefit of that, even if (like me) you really really like trains a lot better than buses.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5814  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 3:43 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I hope that's true, but I am not convinced of it. Why would transit users walk through Union Station? There will not be any actual transit connections there. People getting off the train and going to LoDo will maybe walk through. People catching one of the shuttles will not.

I'm very curious to see how active the old building ends up.
Why would anyone? The downtown circulator runs up 18th and 19th streets. most people who want to walk anywhere from the stations are going to walk on 16th to or through the mall, and vice versa (to platforms that appear more and more to be uncovered in the train "room"). Or on the bridge along 18th street to get to the circulator. The entrance to US is on 17th street. It's almost intentionally left out of the picture.

So I voted for what exactly? (And I was in on this vote). A transit service which almost exclusively benefits suburban commuters (Downtown Denver is doing just dandy without them coming in on trains now), another free service for the circulator that really DOES only benefit suburban commuters, a bunch of new apartment buildings that but for maybe 8 stories on the top of a couple of the buildings are the exact same size/product all of the rest of downtown is getting, a new bus cave which yeah fine is a little better than Market Street, aaaaaand a lonely, forgotten, Union Station which is going to be a hotel mostly because people would have flipped out if they made it THAT obvious that it was being ignored; certainly could have made that happen without the vote. 5 Billion dollars in other words to "Restore" Union Station into a hotel. (absolutely, positively better than letting it sit empty or falling down of course, and better than it was when this started yes).

I could have a surgeon wrap gold leaf around my appendix if I wanted but that wouldn't make it any less vestigial.

And what does Denver NOT get out of this, or at least delayed indefinitely? No streetcar up Colfax, none along Broadway, nothing to Cherry Creek, no rail to move around downtown. The ONE line that really does great things for the city is the Airport line. Next time around Denver should seriously consider the bribes it has to pay to get the rest of the region agree to improving transit and perhaps go it alone with rail, streetcar, or even better busing.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5815  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 3:44 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Too little transit capacity is a fantasy we in Colorado are far from realizing.
For buses, you'd be surprised.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5816  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 4:02 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Brainpathology, I get your frustrations, and I agree with them, except that getting the suburban commuters to come in on trains rather than in cars will indeed benefit downtown in many ways that matter to urbanists:
  • Less parking is required, which means less land is needed for parking lots AND that new developments can be built with smaller parking garages, which makes new development more affordable (freeing developers to either build more, or build at higher quality).
  • Less traffic on city streets means more street space can be re-purposed for other uses, including better sidewalks, transit lanes for local buses, and bikeways.
  • Development of a transit culture among downtown workers will make it easier to politically sell all future transit investments regionwide, including potential inner city streetcars.
  • Reduced pollution will improve air quality for everyone.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5817  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 4:28 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Brainpathology, I get your frustrations, and I agree with them, except that getting the suburban commuters to come in on trains rather than in cars will indeed benefit downtown in many ways that matter to urbanists:
  • Less parking is required, which means less land is needed for parking lots AND that new developments can be built with smaller parking garages, which makes new development more affordable (freeing developers to either build more, or build at higher quality).
  • Less traffic on city streets means more street space can be re-purposed for other uses, including better sidewalks, transit lanes for local buses, and bikeways.
  • Development of a transit culture among downtown workers will make it easier to politically sell all future transit investments regionwide, including potential inner city streetcars.
  • Reduced pollution will improve air quality for everyone.
You are absolutely correct of course. And those are all important points. They also sound like what you say after your team loses the super bowl, or Stanley cup etc. Good season, good team to come, better than a losing season; so much worse than it could have been. All of those things should be assumed in a project like this. It's clear that what we are getting is "well at least we have these advantages that all transit projects have."

That's inspiring.
__________________
Alamosa - La Veta - Walsenburg - Rye - Pueblo - Boulder - Colorado Springs - Denver - Los Angeles - Orlando - Tacoma, Old Town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5818  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 4:50 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
ColoRADo
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
Why would anyone? The downtown circulator runs up 18th and 19th streets. most people who want to walk anywhere from the stations are going to walk on 16th to or through the mall, and vice versa (to platforms that appear more and more to be uncovered in the train "room"). Or on the bridge along 18th street to get to the circulator. The entrance to US is on 17th street. It's almost intentionally left out of the picture.

So I voted for what exactly? (And I was in on this vote). A transit service which almost exclusively benefits suburban commuters (Downtown Denver is doing just dandy without them coming in on trains now), another free service for the circulator that really DOES only benefit suburban commuters, a bunch of new apartment buildings that but for maybe 8 stories on the top of a couple of the buildings are the exact same size/product all of the rest of downtown is getting, a new bus cave which yeah fine is a little better than Market Street, aaaaaand a lonely, forgotten, Union Station which is going to be a hotel mostly because people would have flipped out if they made it THAT obvious that it was being ignored; certainly could have made that happen without the vote. 5 Billion dollars in other words to "Restore" Union Station into a hotel. (absolutely, positively better than letting it sit empty or falling down of course, and better than it was when this started yes).

I could have a surgeon wrap gold leaf around my appendix if I wanted but that wouldn't make it any less vestigial.

And what does Denver NOT get out of this, or at least delayed indefinitely? No streetcar up Colfax, none along Broadway, nothing to Cherry Creek, no rail to move around downtown. The ONE line that really does great things for the city is the Airport line. Next time around Denver should seriously consider the bribes it has to pay to get the rest of the region agree to improving transit and perhaps go it alone with rail, streetcar, or even better busing.
But, like you said, you voted on it... and you knew exactly what Denver was going to get (Suburban Lines running to DUS and a circulator). DUS didn't turn out perfectly and the circulator only goes to CCS, but most of everything else was built as promised and they are now considering replacing the Welton Line with Streetcar.

FasTracks was always going to be heavily suburban in nature - that hasn't changed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5819  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 4:59 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLANSIT View Post
For buses, you'd be surprised.
In dedicated right of way, I should have clarified. Or at least for anything resembling BRT. We're limited by the ability to add buses on existing streets, sure - but we don't exactly have a corridor today where <3 minute headways would be practical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5820  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2013, 5:04 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
So I voted for what exactly? (And I was in on this vote).
What exactly? You voted for tax and debt authorization. The details were always subject to some tweaking by the Board of Directors - they are not legally required to go to the voters for that. Only for the money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
  • Less parking is required, which means less land is needed for parking lots AND that new developments can be built with smaller parking garages, which makes new development more affordable (freeing developers to either build more, or build at higher quality).
  • Less traffic on city streets means more street space can be re-purposed for other uses, including better sidewalks, transit lanes for local buses, and bikeways.
I just learned how to do a list, quoting you. Nice.

I highly doubt much of the parking being provided today is intended to cater to suburbanites driving into the city. I'd bet most of it is for city residents, who drive as much (of not more) than their suburban counterparts nowadays. Unless you live in the immediate core of the city, you don't have much of a choice.

Maybe we should put a halt to all infill until we can catch up?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.