DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I'm fine with this too, the extra lanes are all toll anyway, that stretch of highway looks horrible. The way the I-25 corridor ended up looking makes me optimistic that it will make a big difference in the area. Plus the toll lanes being all the extra capacity is pretty much the definition of making driving a little less convenient. Either sit in congested lanes, pay for the toll lanes or get an RTD pass. Assuming, of course that you're white, rich, or young enough for the bouncers to let you onto the train.

IF the highway becomes obsolete the toll lanes can be converted into BRT and the regular lanes can be converted to toll anyway. It's a perfect BRT corridor anyway - so just think of it as anticipating that future need.

Imagine that CDOT could not get the $1.8 billion, which due to I-70 being a Federal Interstate, has been far easier for CDOT to do than get additional monies for US 36....

What is the simplest solution? Keep things as they are.

What is a simple cheap solution? Eliminate on/off ramps at Brighton Blvd, Vasquez, and possibly Washington and use the lanes on I-70 that are designed for the on/off ramps as primary lanes. This would effectively increase the width of the freeway by 2 lanes in critical segments.

Next improvement

Improve I-270 by widening it to 4 lanes x2. Improve the Quebec Street- I-270 interchange to provide unhindered access onto west I-70. Improve the access between I-76, I-25, and, I-270.

But these alternatives do not fit CDOT orthodoxy which based upon it's history with the Federal Government has been to maximize Federal monies and to build as big a project that can be significantly subsidized with such monies.

This feeds the long established CDOT network of engineers, and, contractors with which CDOT has had multigenerational relationships.

We are talking about a lot of money, here. This the largest plum for the local highway construction industry in a generation.

(the covered freeway segment just is just construction frosting on the cake.)

[builtittall]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I'm fine with this too, the extra lanes are all toll anyway, that stretch of highway looks horrible. The way the I-25 corridor ended up looking makes me optimistic that it will make a big difference in the area. Plus the toll lanes being all the extra capacity is pretty much the definition of making driving a little less convenient. Either sit in congested lanes, pay for the toll lanes or get an RTD pass. Assuming, of course that you're white, rich, or young enough for the bouncers to let you onto the train.

IF the highway becomes obsolete the toll lanes can be converted into BRT and the regular lanes can be converted to toll anyway. It's a perfect BRT corridor anyway - so just think of it as anticipating that future need.

Why is this a perfect BRT corridor? This is the east line corridor. Why would we want to duplicate any service.

The problem I have with this is that toll lanes, especially in the west, routinely under perform. Yet again we will be subsidizing a large interstate expansion that we do not need and will not recoup costs through tolling. And why cant we toll Interstates? Interstates are federally financed/subsidized and there is no federal law prohibiting tolling.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by builtittall

Why is this a perfect BRT corridor? This is the east line corridor. Why would we want to duplicate any service.

The problem I have with this is that toll lanes, especially in the west, routinely under perform. Yet again we will be subsidizing a large interstate expansion that we do not need and will not recoup costs through tolling. And why cant we toll Interstates? Interstates are federally financed/subsidized and there is no federal law prohibiting tolling.

Who cares if one corridor is taking a few riders from the other IF in the future more capacity is needed. Also it obviates the racial argument (in that brown, poor, old people can ride the bus) that I swear must have been an April fools joke (it certainly had SOMETHING to do with fools).

It's perfect because it actually could duplicate (eventually) service that the east corridor is going to provide. It's perfect because the lanes will already be there. It's perfect because it follows a route most commuters are used to taking. It won't have to go to the airport, it can serve the neighborhoods that are supposedly being rejoined and if that actually works might need more service directly into their hearts. It could also add capacity down brighton/broadway or terminate at a brighton/broadway streetcar line.

We are going to be subsidizing expanded highways regardless of whether we want to or not. And subsidizing an improved corridor this close to the urban center of Denver is WAY WAY WAY WAY better than building the money bonfire that would result from spending almost as much to make Pueblo feel important "fixing" their perfectly adequate stretch of I-25 or making it easier for truckers to fly through there on Highway 50... or even to throw money at COS to improve their part of I-25.

If this makes it more practical for workers to commute from the new downtown residential stock to say the health sciences center or the airport or wherever else they want to work along I-70 I say great! We are NOT going to get more rail transit in downtown Denver anytime soon (or any other mode of RT). So any project that helps that part of the city grow is something we should be getting behind. This most certainly does - which is why the extra capacity will definitely eventually be used and congested just as you say.

Then whenever Denver decides to grow up and act like the region's leader instead of constantly wanting to be a team player in transit there MIGHT be enough population in all of those areas to make streetcars, LRT, or BRT successful from the start. It doesn't matter if they'd be successful now.

I know I completely ignored your point about toll lanes underperforming in the west. I don't really care about that either. If they're empty there will be demand to make them work either through lowering the tolls or (hopefully) converting it to BRT or even rail. And if the east line IS duplicated too soon let one of the routes be express lines to the airport and back for a while.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by builtittall

Why is this a perfect BRT corridor? This is the east line corridor. Why would we want to duplicate any service.

The problem I have with this is that toll lanes, especially in the west, routinely under perform. Yet again we will be subsidizing a large interstate expansion that we do not need and will not recoup costs through tolling. And why cant we toll Interstates? Interstates are federally financed/subsidized and there is no federal law prohibiting tolling.

There is a federal ban on tolling existing lanes on interstates. You can add new toll lanes to an interstate, but you cannot institute tolls on the existing capacity. That's why the I-70 rebuild would include two new toll lanes, but would not reduce the existing three lanes to two- you cannot. I think that a good question would be why there are two toll lanes in each direction instead of just one. Is the demand really there for two lanes or is it because CDOT planned two new lanes in each direction in the initial EIS and are sticking with it just because? The project is not going to happen w/o toll lanes and a private partner because that's where the money will come from, not from public funds, but are two lanes in each direction really neccesary?

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

We are going to be subsidizing expanded highways regardless of whether we want to or not. And subsidizing an improved corridor this close to the urban center of Denver is WAY WAY WAY WAY better than building the money bonfire that would result from spending almost as much to make Pueblo feel important "fixing" their perfectly adequate stretch of I-25 or making it easier for truckers to fly through there on Highway 50... or even to throw money at COS to improve their part of I-25.

Surprise! We are doing this too- http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/southi25expansion. The others are not far behind I am sure. Meanwhile, fasttracks is 30 years away from completion at which point we can begin to consider transit in denver proper.

I know there are politics which make parity between highways and transit impossible at this moment, but if a dedicated urbanism forum like this supports such policies, I am about ready to abandon all hope .

[bobg]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Of course this assumes that traffic projections are accurate and tolls will actually be able to cover the 1.8 billion.

Annual DOT predictions vs. actual VMT

http://www.ssti.us/2013/12/new-trave...0b53a-45447449

If both the risk and the reward are privatized in the PPP agreement I really do not see the big issue with missed traffic projections either. Besides this isn't breaking ground tomorrow or anything, these things take time if future projections are vastly lower than no private party would consider it, and CDOT would have to revise.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Surprise! We are doing this too- http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/southi25expansion. The others are not far behind I am sure. Meanwhile, fasttracks is 30 years away from completion at which point we can begin to consider transit in denver proper.

I know there are politics which make parity between highways and transit impossible at this moment, but if a dedicated urbanism forum like this supports such policies, I am about ready to abandon all hope .

You scared me, until I saw it wasn't Pueblo...

And what is the alternative there? Getting El Paso County residents to ride a train into Denver? That's not even a funny joke.

You want us to try to advocate not spending money on highways? I've always said it would be GREAT if we stopped spending money on highways until we've spent the same on mass transit as we have the last 6 or 7 decades on roads. But I've never claimed I wouldn't be insane to actually try to advance that agenda in Colorado or any other state. And I'm ALWAYS against new large freeway type highways being built in the state.

The project on I-70 keeps money in Denver and keeps improvements in Denver.. that's all anyone here can reasonably hope for right now. It's the best case scenario. Another set of projects for Denver similar to what Cirrus is helping to plan would be great.. but that won't happen for a while, and it would be in addition to CDOT, not instead.

[PLANSIT]

Car2Go working well for Opening Day. Over 100 in downtown alone.

[phatfish]

So, I've read the colfax streetcar study...

http://thefaxdenver.com/wp-content/u...ilitystudy.pdf

And I just stumbled across this one for a 5 points streetcar.

http://fivepointsbiz.org/downloads/5...t.may.2013.pdf

Personally I think one continuing down Broadway would make a lot of sense too. Or one Cheery creek to highlands via Speer perhaps. ...course, I think any streetcar line that doesn't replace an existing light rail line makes more sense than one that does.

Or hey look at this. Lets put in another branded bus to connect cherry creek!
http://www.transolutions.org/wp-cont...ity-Study1.pdf

We can call it the FreeShoppingRide. Why not look at these 3 (and more) lines/areas together?

My point is that it seems crazy to consider a colfax or 5 points streetcar without thinking about connecting them and having a true network. Is anyone thinking about the potential inter-city system on the whole (streetcar or otherwise)? I feel like I keep seeing these different "area studies" that occur in a vacuum.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by phatfish

So, I've read the colfax streetcar study...

http://thefaxdenver.com/wp-content/u...ilitystudy.pdf

And I just stumbled across this one for a 5 points streetcar.

http://fivepointsbiz.org/downloads/5...t.may.2013.pdf

Personally I think one continuing down Broadway would make a lot of sense too. Or one Cheery creek to highlands via Speer perhaps. ...course, I think any streetcar line that doesn't replace an existing light rail line makes more sense than one that does.

Or hey look at this. Lets put in another branded bus to connect cherry creek!
http://www.transolutions.org/wp-cont...ity-Study1.pdf

We can call it the FreeShoppingRide. Why not look at these 3 (and more) lines/areas together?

My point is that it seems crazy to consider a colfax or 5 points streetcar without thinking about connecting them and having a true network. Is anyone thinking about the potential inter-city system on the whole (streetcar or otherwise)? I feel like I keep seeing these different "area studies" that occur in a vacuum.

The City of Denver needs a Transit Master Plan. Most of the issues you raised would be addressed in such a plan. There isn't one yet, but for now check out THIS THREAD.

[RyanD]

We also need a website like this to get the word out on how we would be doing said streetcar transit in Denver:

http://vision.transitfuture.org/

[phatfish]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

The City of Denver needs a Transit Master Plan. Most of the issues you raised would be addressed in such a plan. There isn't one yet, but for now check out THIS THREAD.

Sweet, thanks! Lot of good stuff here.

[Wizened Variations]

This is an extremely cool map showing where buses are in real time in another city. Something like this on an app level for Denver buses and light rail would be extremely nice, and of great prestige value.

http://www.demap.info/tetsudonow/

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverRider2

Surprise! We are doing this too- http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/southi25expansion. The others are not far behind I am sure. Meanwhile, fasttracks is 30 years away from completion at which point we can begin to consider transit in denver proper.

I know there are politics which make parity between highways and transit impossible at this moment, but if a dedicated urbanism forum like this supports such policies, I am about ready to abandon all hope .

How is a highway expansion in suburban Colorado Springs in any way related to Fastracks? Do you understand how RTD funding works at all?

Also, there isn't anything left unfunded on Fastracks worth doing. (The southern extensions are worthwhile, but those will get done because they'll have ridership enough to get them funded. I don't care if it takes 300 years to finish the Boulder train.)

[DenverRider2]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How is a highway expansion in suburban Colorado Springs in any way related to Fastracks? Do you understand how RTD funding works at all?

I provided that link because it was an example BP gave as less worthy of transporation funding. But highway expansion along 6 ave, I70 and 25 within denver metro is very relevant to fasttracks because they will be competing for modeshare.

[bunt_q]

Fair enough. But I-70 *has* to be rebuilt. And the only way to pay for it is tolling. And the only way we're doing that is through expanding it. The trench is by far the best available feasible option. So together, the proposed package seems like a no-brainer to me.

[bunt_q]

Here's another reason to support the I-70 project (with I say tongue in cheek, with a grumble). Because when we actually build transit around here, we like to place it as far as humanly possible from where people actually want to be. I think when we first discussed the realignment, I assumed there'd be a station a little north of the Colfax one with an east-west connection to the hospitals. I guess I didn't think in my head anybody would be so dumb as to relocate the station all the way up to Ursula and Fitz Pkwy. You can't even see any of the hospitals on this first map:



SO it's over a mile (~10 blocks) north of Colfax now - so a full mile away on the backside of the hospitals. What a waste. This is why people drive.



This is also related to the streetcar discussion the other day - another reason to keep it on Colfax, and not push it up Peoria to the middle of the industrial area just to connect with the airport train - now we need something to actually serve Fitz!

I think Children's Hospital is labeled wrong on that map? But it any case - who is going to take the light rail to go there? It's a brutal walk from either station. Girl I have been dating lives in those apartments on Ursula north of where the Montview Station was supposed to be, and she already drives to Childrens (they all do). But this, this just makes the 225 line a bad joke.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Here's another reason to support the I-70 project (with I say tongue in cheek, with a grumble). Because when we actually build transit around here, we like to place it as far as humanly possible from where people actually want to be. I think when we first discussed the realignment, I assumed there'd be a station a little north of the Colfax one with an east-west connection to the hospitals. I guess I didn't think in my head anybody would be so dumb as to relocate the station all the way up to Ursula and Fitz Pkwy. You can't even see any of the hospitals on this first map:



SO it's over a mile (~10 blocks) north of Colfax now - so a full mile away on the backside of the hospitals. What a waste. This is why people drive.



This is also related to the streetcar discussion the other day - another reason to keep it on Colfax, and not push it up Peoria to the middle of the industrial area just to connect with the airport train - now we need something to actually serve Fitz!

I think Children's Hospital is labeled wrong on that map? But it any case - who is going to take the light rail to go there? It's a brutal walk from either station. Girl I have been dating lives in those apartments on Ursula north of where the Montview Station was supposed to be, and she already drives to Childrens (they all do). But this, this just makes the 225 line a bad joke.

When this station change got announced for me it called into question the entire utility of this line. It is supposed to be anchored by two employment centers the DTC on one end and Fitzsimons on the other with suburban park and rides in-between. We already know the DTC has proven to be a poor draw for LRT ridership. Then they move a station away from the middle of Fitzsimons and replace it with a station on the undeveloped North side of the periphery of the complex.

When CU asked for this last minute RTD rushed the station change through rather than risk delaying the entire line again, and we get this crappy station placement as a result. I have no idea how their models thought ridership would not be impacted by this move.

Fortunately you are correct that Children's is mislabeled on your map. Children's is within walking distance of the Colfax station (a little less than half a mile), and the VA is right across the street -if it ever opens-. Unfortunately the biggest player CU (including hospital/school/labs) will not have facilities anywhere close to a light rail station. Granted CU asked for this idiocy so they kind of deserve it, but it puts the entire G line comeback in jeopardy.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think Children's Hospital is labeled wrong on that map? But it any case - who is going to take the light rail to go there? It's a brutal walk from either station. Girl I have been dating lives in those apartments on Ursula north of where the Montview Station was supposed to be, and she already drives to Childrens (they all do). But this, this just makes the 225 line a bad joke.

Damn, that's super lazy.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Damn, that's super lazy.

I think labeling the hospitals wrong goes to show you how rushed this decision was on RTD's part. They didn't even have time to take stock of what they might be missing by relocating the line.