DENVER | Transportation Thread

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Anybody recall my pet peeve over infrastructure costs going up due to delays caused by ahem 'special interests'?

This is a little different since we're now into the third decade of planning so you'd expect cost increases. Seems like it started out at $50 million, the $75 million rising to $100-$125 million.

To be fair the East Colfax BRT originally was planned as a simpler curb-side pickup and morphed into dedicated center lanes which I like. So where are we now?

https://denverite.com/2021/08/31/colfax-brt-denver-bus/

I can recall Cirrus arguing correctly about the challenges.

It's a bit unique that I would agree with Jill Locantore.

Well, I can't say I'd agree with Jill's snarkiness.

Note: The reason I don't mind getting rid of one traffic lane in each direction is simple. I've seen the people who drive up and down Colfax and I don't like them.

I think if the city was behind it more it would be done faster. I've seen bureaucracy move at lightning speeds when someone deems something a priority. Slightly different scenario but Albuquerque did it in about half the time (city transit agency, but state highway), and they even had a bus procurement disaster that slowed them down.

But if this is truly as long as it takes to get BRT done, why aren't we getting to this point with Federal, Speer, Park Ave and other corridors that Denver Moves identified? Unfortunately I think the answer is the city isn't serious about meeting its modal split goals, because we're not going to come close at this rate.

[LooksLikeForever]

United Airlines is adding a non-stop between Denver and Munich, Germany starting in Spring of 2022: https://www.9news.com/article/travel...8-a1b829a81c2d

[LooksLikeForever]

More airport news, and a new carrier: "Flair Airlines to launch new flights between DIA and Toronto this spring"

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/10/1...rlines-denver/

[TakeFive]

Good News begets more good news

DIA is currently 3rd busiest airport in the world
Oct 17, 2021 by: Michael Konopasek - Denver KDVR

DIA officials said Sunday that the airport is the third busiest airport in the world. The recent snapshot showed only Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth as busier airports than Denver worldwide.

“We rely heavily on our domestic network, and our domestic network is really strong,” she said. “Denver International Airport is the third busiest airport in the world right now. This has never happened before.”

This is quite amazing!

Ofc, metro Denver has grown a ton over the last 20 years but both Atlanta and Dallas have outgrown Denver by a country mile (which is fine) so it's not surprising given the huge amount of international traffic that both of those airports generate that they would be ahead of DIA.

Here's a fun and informative article about DIA

Denver airport CEO outlines current, future solutions to increase in passengers
Oct 22, 2021 By: Stephanie Butzer - 7Denver ABC

During a press conference Friday morning, airport CEO Phil Washington explained the current and future projects that will help alleviate some of the pressures around the airport. Denver City Council voted unanimously in mid-July to confirm Washington as the next CEO of the airport.

Welcome back Phil; hopefully he brings the same magic to DIA as he did with RTD.

Worth the read.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Denver airport CEO outlines current, future solutions to increase in passengers
Oct 22, 2021 By: Stephanie Butzer - 7Denver ABC

Welcome back Phil; hopefully he brings the same magic to DIA as he did with RTD.

Worth the read.

What I kind of honed in on when I read this is the train issue between terminals. It's not the first time something like this has happened, the trains have completely gone down several times before so I'm not sure where Phil Washington is getting the first time in 26 years and 100 year flood analogy from. Maybe it's the first time for that specific reduced capacity issue?

It's always been a vulnerability that there's 2 terminals at that airport completely dependent on access from trains that could fail at any time (especially with age) and a pretty bad backup plan of running buses between (they struggle to scramble together enough capacity from cdl drivers doing other things and they take forever to mobilize).

Bridges that go that far between a/b and b/c while giving sufficient plane clearance would be expensive.

We all know how expensive tunneling is and the cheaper cut and cover would be tough to make work at a busy airport without impacting operations.

Does anyone know if they've looked at gondolas between a/b and b/c? Generally I think gondolas are a small transportation niche and have been proposed in some massively stupid ways (ie dodger stadium), but where they work they're pretty good at transporting a steady amount of people to hard to reach places. I just don't know if gondolas would have the throughput needed or if they might have some aviation/regulatory drawback at an airport.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bobg

Does anyone know if they've looked at gondolas between a/b and b/c? Generally I think gondolas are a small transportation niche and have been proposed in some massively stupid ways (ie dodger stadium), but where they work they're pretty good at transporting a steady amount of people to hard to reach places. I just don't know if gondolas would have the throughput needed or if they might have some aviation/regulatory drawback at an airport.

If we're doing stupid, let's just propose Munsk's The Boring Company to drop a dual bore tunnel between the terminal and all the concourses. No walkway, just some asphalt and let people walk the mile to Concourse C.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If we're doing stupid, let's just propose Munsk's The Boring Company to drop a dual bore tunnel between the terminal and all the concourses. No walkway, just some asphalt and let people walk the mile to Concourse C.

Seems like someone has a case of the Mondays

Unlike musks attempts to reinvent the tunnel and how to get through it, gondolas have actually been used for legitimate transportation purposes in Latin America, Europe, and Asia for decades.

They've been proposed in some massively stupid ways in North America (ie instead of a light rail system in austin) but if you can get max throughput of about 6k per hour each direction on one for much less of the cost of a bridge that's something I think would warrant some cursory analysis on.

I'm just genuinely curious if it's been looked at, and if this is one of those rare circumstances it would work.

[bunt_q]

While I know you guys were joking, Musk is part of the conversation here. They've been talking to airlines and DIA both. This whole "reach out for ideas" stuff is not unrelated.

Edit: It's hard to get enough distance between pylons (and heights that are acceptable) for gondolas to work in an airport setting. Aircraft are quite large.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by bobg

What I kind of honed in on when I read this is the train issue between terminals. It's not the first time something like this has happened, the trains have completely gone down several times before so I'm not sure where Phil Washington is getting the first time in 26 years and 100 year flood analogy from. Maybe it's the first time for that specific reduced capacity issue?

It's always been a vulnerability that there's 2 terminals at that airport completely dependent on access from trains that could fail at any time (especially with age) and a pretty bad backup plan of running buses between (they struggle to scramble together enough capacity from cdl drivers doing other things and they take forever to mobilize).

Bridges that go that far between a/b and b/c while giving sufficient plane clearance would be expensive.

We all know how expensive tunneling is and the cheaper cut and cover would be tough to make work at a busy airport without impacting operations.

Does anyone know if they've looked at gondolas between a/b and b/c? Generally I think gondolas are a small transportation niche and have been proposed in some massively stupid ways (ie dodger stadium), but where they work they're pretty good at transporting a steady amount of people to hard to reach places. I just don't know if gondolas would have the throughput needed or if they might have some aviation/regulatory drawback at an airport.

This'll end up being cut and over with planes being essentially unable to cross the construction zone and having to move in less efficient patterns. Not ideal, but the most feasible.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

While I know you guys were joking, Musk is part of the conversation here. They've been talking to airlines and DIA both. This whole "reach out for ideas" stuff is not unrelated.

Edit: It's hard to get enough distance between pylons (and heights that are acceptable) for gondolas to work in an airport setting. Aircraft are quite large.

Okay that makes sense about the pylon spacing and clearance.

If they're talking to Musk they have to be desperate for a different solution. As much as I'd like to see boring company get some definitively bad PR so it finally puts a nail in that coffin, for the good of the airport/city I really hope they get scared off by the history of expansive soil problems.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

While I know you guys were joking, Musk is part of the conversation here. They've been talking to airlines and DIA both. This whole "reach out for ideas" stuff is not unrelated.

Edit: It's hard to get enough distance between pylons (and heights that are acceptable) for gondolas to work in an airport setting. Aircraft are quite large.

I wasn't joking. When Washington mentioned soliciting the private sector for ideas I figured that one of the options that was being analyzed was the The Boring Company as no one mentions that in an article without an idea of where they are already looking and had preliminary discussions with.


A tunnel of some kind is about the only thing that makes sense given where the concourses ingress/egress points are. A gondola doesn't seem to make sense given where you'd have it access the concourse. Though a rooftop to rooftop gondola system from A to B to C would be neat.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by mishko27

This'll end up being cut and over with planes being essentially unable to cross the construction zone and having to move in less efficient patterns. Not ideal, but the most feasible.

Cut and cover pedestrian tunnel you think? If so that wouldn't be the end of the world cost wise.

The plane taxi times would probably be insane for a few years though, so yeah not ideal.

[mr1138]

A friend of mine often says (and only half joking) that major cities should really just have two airports at all times - one that is operating at full capacity and another that is being reconstructed. Rinse and repeat.

In the case of Denver, it could just be a north terminal accessed from I-76 and a couple extra concourses like shown on previous site master plans I have seen. Then in 30 years, the north terminal could be closed down and swapped out again for a re-built south terminal.

For the record - I too am joking. It is interesting food for thought though given the logistical headaches of what is being discussed here.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bobg

Cut and cover pedestrian tunnel you think? If so that wouldn't be the end of the world cost wise.

The plane taxi times would probably be insane for a few years though, so yeah not ideal.

Aren't the taxiways between concourses wide enough to let two jumbo jets pass each other without clipping wings? Feels like we could close the southern halves of the tunnels between the concourses so that at least 1 plane can pass at a time, then after completing those, we would do the northern halves, limiting the impact.

Originally Posted by mr1138

A friend of mine often says (and only half joking) that major cities should really just have two airports at all times - one that is operating at full capacity and another that is being reconstructed. Rinse and repeat.

In the case of Denver, it could just be a north terminal accessed from I-76 and a couple extra concourses like shown on previous site master plans I have seen. Then in 30 years, the north terminal could be closed down and swapped out again for a re-built south terminal.

For the record - I too am joking. It is interesting food for thought though given the logistical headaches of what is being discussed here.

Honestly, this is brilliant. Why not open a brand new airport southeast of Castle Rock to serve the southern metro and Colorado Springs? This will take pressure off the Springs airport while they upgrade it... or close it and build something between CS and Pueblo to serve both metros. Then connect all of them with the Front Range rail project. I'm sure some engineers can be convinced to put out a study about how we're losing millions of dollars in productivity if we don't do this and the politicians will be dumb enough to believe them.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Aren't the taxiways between concourses wide enough to let two jumbo jets pass each other without clipping wings? Feels like we could close the southern halves of the tunnels between the concourses so that at least 1 plane can pass at a time, then after completing those, we would do the northern halves, limiting the impact.



Honestly, this is brilliant. Why not open a brand new airport southeast of Castle Rock to serve the southern metro and Colorado Springs? This will take pressure off the Springs airport while they upgrade it... or close it and build something between CS and Pueblo to serve both metros. Then connect all of them with the Front Range rail project. I'm sure some engineers can be convinced to put out a study about how we're losing millions of dollars in productivity if we don't do this and the politicians will be dumb enough to believe them.

I also don't think that cut and cover would take that long. Considering the need, it's a no brainer.

I wonder if they should just build it out to potential Concourse D, because realistically, this airport will need it sooner or later.

And secondary airport would make sense. Especially for low-cost carriers. Maybe I'm too European, but it's just so common over there that I don't quite get how our metro is served by one airport.

[N830MH]

Isn’t Denver airport getting more extremely overcrowded?? They wait to go through at security. That’s too much!! Too many passengers!! We will avoid it. I won’t visit Denver. I think they need more security checkpoints. That way they will reduce wait time. Airport is growing!! Can’t they do something?? Build the walkway tunnels and not go into the trams. This is better work.

[CharlesCO]

There's been a lot of talk on some aviation forums about what to do about DIA.

I don't think a pedestrian tunnel is a great idea. They couldn't put it in between the trains like at ATL because there are all those track switchbacks. Putting it somewhere to the side might be convenient for connecting passengers, but less so for O&D. There's also the distance problem – the concourses are massively far apart, and it could easily be close to a 2-mile walk from the terminal to whatever gate is on the far end of C that they're building.

If the airport does end up building Concourses D and E as originally planned, they've explored the idea of building two extra train tunnels that would hit the outer nodes of each concourse. I really like this idea, but I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap. Then again, one of the biggest costs of building subways in cities is utility relocation. I wouldn't think they'd have to worry about that there.

As of now, I think they're hoping that software changes and new train cars will allow for shorter headways. That should be good, but they also really should think about going from four-car to six-car trains. The platforms were already built to expand that way.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

There's been a lot of talk on some aviation forums about what to do about DIA.

I don't think a pedestrian tunnel is a great idea. They couldn't put it in between the trains like at ATL because there are all those track switchbacks. Putting it somewhere to the side might be convenient for connecting passengers, but less so for O&D. There's also the distance problem – the concourses are massively far apart, and it could easily be close to a 2-mile walk from the terminal to whatever gate is on the far end of C that they're building.

If the airport does end up building Concourses D and E as originally planned, they've explored the idea of building two extra train tunnels that would hit the outer nodes of each concourse. I really like this idea, but I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap. Then again, one of the biggest costs of building subways in cities is utility relocation. I wouldn't think they'd have to worry about that there.

As of now, I think they're hoping that software changes and new train cars will allow for shorter headways. That should be good, but they also really should think about going from four-car to six-car trains. The platforms were already built to expand that way.

Yeah, the more I thought about this after reading some of the comments, the more I suddenly realized DIA is facing a huge challenge here.

There isn't an optimal, efficient way to solve the problem of getting people from security to B/C faster.

And train upgrades are only going to get you so far. With the terminal expansions, this means more people are going to be funneling through DIA (whether local or connecting). So.... What do you do?

The terminals are too far apart to build above-ground connections. Pedestrian tunnels would be expensive, and take a long time, even with moving walkways.

You can't simply build roads that go up to the terminals.

So.... you either build new underground train lines, or...... I don't know?

It's a potentially huge problem for DIA that may help cap growth at some point. It has all the room in the world to grow more runways and terminals, but if there if it starts to take people more than 30 minutes to get from security to their terminal, then you have a major problem.

[EngiNerd]

Why can't it just be like Atlanta Hartsfield with a train and moving walkways? Travelers can opt for the walkways which could also be used as a backup, but most will still take the train. It will require another tunnel which is an expensive endeavor, but if they already need another tunnel anyway for the train then you design the new tunnel to carry both.

FYI, its a longer walk from one end of B-concourse to the other than would be to walk from the north end of the Main Terminal to C concourse, really its not that big of a deal, plenty of airports require a lot of walking, especially if they have moving walkways.

[The Dirt]

Isn't Atlanta basically DIA - same trains, same terminal with concourses setup, except the concourses are closer together? As a result, they were able to squeeze 5 stubbier concourses into the space where we put in 3?

But yeah, put a secondary tunnel down the middle with moving walkways, increase the train to 6 cars and run them more frequently. Unless that interferes with the tunnels for the lizard people.