Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm...I dont think people have the same aversion to rail as they have to busses. Also, lots of trains allow kids to ride free or they have specials on weekends that allow you to ride all weekend. Its not neccessarily going to be cheaper to drive if you have 4 people or whatever. Trains are usually more comfortable and even sophisticated or charming compared to busses. Certainly train travel does not have the stigma of bus travel. Many people love to take trains and I do believe they would. It would definitley be a nice option and would allow for teens and young adults to travel to ski and the parents could stay home with the car. It would also be nice if it was billed as a sort of scenic type thing, with food service like Amtrak.
I know trains are not pollution free.....but...I just can't see it comparing to increasing traffic, especially of the SUV type.
If the train really was a good idea Amtrack or some other private firm would have built a train for such purposes and it would be profitable. Currently, that is not the case. It is not profitable nor practical and does not exist.
Can anybody explain how the train to ski resorts will pay for itself during the week? How about during summer? The (government) expense would never be recouped. If the train fares would reflect the cost of building and operation they would be too high for any normal person to afford.
If it was a huge success (which is doubtful) the train would stimulate growth only to the resorts with stops on site or nearby. Wouldn't that end up leading to near monopolies by those resorts?
A lot of people suggest the lanes would be a waste because they would fill up when construction is complete. Let's keep this in perspective. We are not talking about I-25 during rush hour. This is weekend recreational travel. (What would I-25 be like if TREX never happened? I may be mistaken, but I think they added those pesky lane things... and finished early and under budget. TREX Started in 2001 and ended 5 years later. I find the claims of 10 to 15 years for I-70 hard to swallow).
amtrak does not build tracks, as far as I know. The frieghters built and own the tracks. Amtrak makes money not just by passenger fares, but by delivering mail and such. Amtrak already does stop at some ski towns -- Winter Park (others I am not sure of). I do not know those to have any monopoly....I did take that train though and had dinner with people who were taking the train to go skiing.
As a Colorado Springs resident and former resident of both Grand Junction and Denver...give 285(?) through Bailey and up through Fairplay a chance.
Hell, I use 24 through to 9 to get up to the moutnain towns most of the time. No reason that the Denver Metro area can't use that corridor through Bailey to get to the mountain towns and reduce traffic on I-70.
If the train really was a good idea Amtrack or some other private firm would have built a train for such purposes and it would be profitable. Currently, that is not the case. It is not profitable nor practical and does not exist.
Can anybody explain how the train to ski resorts will pay for itself during the week? How about during summer? The (government) expense would never be recouped. If the train fares would reflect the cost of building and operation they would be too high for any normal person to afford.
So why is that transit actually has to make a net profit to be viable? The fact that it brings in any revenue at all is a remarkable advantage. Adding lanes won't bring in one dime of revenue, but somehow we don't hold adding lanes to the same standard. Even toll roads like E-470 don't "make a profit."
We build transit and transportation systems for the public benefit, not to make profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikieo415
and finished early and under budget. TREX Started in 2001 and ended 5 years later. I find the claims of 10 to 15 years for I-70 hard to swallow).
Yes, and T-Rex was from mile marker 197 to 207, a whole 10 miles, and it took five years. This highway expansion would be closer to 70 miles. 10-15 years is if anything, optimistic. Plus, 10-15 year estimate is from CDOT's own study on the matter.
The Maglev train is a nice idea, and it would definately boost the tourist industry, but unless it can be proven that it will pay for itself, I don't think there's any way it will be built. Probably the best option is to build two reversible toll lanes (don't even let HOV's go through free), and then if we still need a train, we can use that money to fund one. Trucks wouldn't be allowed to use those lanes, and it would only have a few exits (Evergreen, Idaho Springs, Dillon, Copper, Vail, Eagle?) Something like that. Another way to raise money would be to make the ski resorts add about 5 dollars to their lift tickets and give that money toward fixing I-70. Not that the ski resorts could be convinced to do that, though...
Unfortunately it looks like they're going to just widen I-70 to three lanes. It's really too bad, considering this is probably the only chance we'll get to actually fix this problem.
I have read both ways so I decided to do the research. One lane of traffic will handle 2300 cars per hour. 4 people per car gives us 9200 people per hour. That same lane can carry 1150 busses per hour or 69,000 people per hour (seated.)
Bagz, thanks for doing the research for us. What you found is that the theoretical throughput for rail is 4-5 times that of a lane of car, if we assume one occupant per auto. Granted, we're already seeing a lot of ride sharing during peak periods, but there are still lots of single-occupant autos, plus trucks, which are invariably single occupant. I think assuming 4 occupants per auto is WILDLY optimistic in your calculation -- far more so than 2 minute headways, which is certainly achievable. You're also wildly optimistic that you leave out accidents, weather, disabled vehicles, and trucks, which are going to dramatically reduce that 2300 figure. Not to mention that on Sunday afternoons, both lanes of I-70 are getting close to zero cars per hour today. This brings up yet another disadvantage of highway lanes: there is NO guaranteed throughput. The worst case throughput of a highway lane is zero. This is not true of a train.
You bring up buses as an option, and I do think that Bus Rapid Transit is an intriguing alternative to consider. One advantage of buses is that you can start buses today, which I think are long overdue. However, I see Buses as more of a stopgap measure while getting rail on-line, rather than a long-term solution.
It's highly debatable about the relative costs between lanes versus trains. CDOT considered a lane to be slightly cheaper ($4B versus $5B), but remember that CDOT doesn't do transit, only highway lanes, so I consider the latter figure quite suspect. There are literally dozens of rail technologies to consider.
Other than the ridiculously long construction window, the biggest obstacle to lanes in terms of cost is ROW acquisition. In some cases, the ROW simply isn't there without tunneling or stacking (Both are extremely expensive). Idaho Springs, Silver Plume, and to a lesser extent Georgetown have virtually no room whatsoever to accommodate additional highway ROW without destroying much of the town, much of which is protected as historic properties. No way you can blow away a whole town in this day and age to accommodate one lane of traffic. So, you're going to have to look at tunneling, cut-and-cover, or stacking in this case as well. That's going to cost you insane amounts of money, and how are any of those going to happen while still allowing the current two lanes to pass by unimpeded during construction? This doesn't even include the cost of the third bore -- rail will likely require a tunnel as well, but with only half the width.
Rail's big ROW advantage is its footprint. With elevated rail, the footprint could be very small indeed (just the footprint of the piers). You can even single-track in small stretches if necessary. Double track rail alone is going to require less ROW than even one lane in one direction. Single track can squeeze in even tighter spaces.
Ultimately, however, the thing that makes lanes unviable is the inevitable disruption due to construction. Unlike T-rex, there are no parallel routes, no surface streets, no alternatives. If we had had this conversation before, when we had extra capacity on I-70 to constrain, such a thing would be doable, but now; I simply don't see it happening. To make this work, any construction will have to be done in such a way that no capacity is constrained during construction. That's a whole lot easier to do with rail than it would be with highway lanes.
I'm not necessarily against lanes in addition to trains at some point. However, we currently have one mode of transit up to the mountains (highway), and this mode is currently failing. Before we invest more in that mode, we should add a alternate mode (transit). Once the alternate mode is in place, it will be actually help you in making refinements to the highway mode, since the alternate mode will be in place. That will enable us to be able able to constrain highway capacity for additional construction, because it will provide a viable alternative.
As a Colorado Springs resident and former resident of both Grand Junction and Denver...give 285(?) through Bailey and up through Fairplay a chance.
Hell, I use 24 through to 9 to get up to the moutnain towns most of the time. No reason that the Denver Metro area can't use that corridor through Bailey to get to the mountain towns and reduce traffic on I-70.
how are those roads during adverse conditions though? im assuming the i70, even with the congestion, would be safer and better maintained during adverse conditions.. but perhaps im wrong?
Amtrak already operates bus service on I-70 or at least Amtrak uses a bus service for passengers getting off at Denver or Glenwood Springs area to get to the resorts along I-70. This leads me to believe there is already an independent bus service (or probably a a couple) operating on I-70.
Bagz, thanks for doing the research for us. What you found is that the theoretical throughput for rail is 4-5 times that of a lane of car, if we assume one occupant per auto. Granted, we're already seeing a lot of ride sharing during peak periods, but there are still lots of single-occupant autos, plus trucks, which are invariably single occupant. I think assuming 4 occupants per auto is WILDLY optimistic in your calculation -- far more so than 2 minute headways, which is certainly achievable. You're also wildly optimistic that you leave out accidents, weather, disabled vehicles, and trucks, which are going to dramatically reduce that 2300 figure. Not to mention that on Sunday afternoons, both lanes of I-70 are getting close to zero cars per hour today. This brings up yet another disadvantage of highway lanes: there is NO guaranteed throughput. The worst case throughput of a highway lane is zero. This is not true of a train.
You bring up buses as an option, and I do think that Bus Rapid Transit is an intriguing alternative to consider. One advantage of buses is that you can start buses today, which I think are long overdue. However, I see Buses as more of a stopgap measure while getting rail on-line, rather than a long-term solution.
It's highly debatable about the relative costs between lanes versus trains. CDOT considered a lane to be slightly cheaper ($4B versus $5B), but remember that CDOT doesn't do transit, only highway lanes, so I consider the latter figure quite suspect. There are literally dozens of rail technologies to consider.
Other than the ridiculously long construction window, the biggest obstacle to lanes in terms of cost is ROW acquisition. In some cases, the ROW simply isn't there without tunneling or stacking (Both are extremely expensive). Idaho Springs, Silver Plume, and to a lesser extent Georgetown have virtually no room whatsoever to accommodate additional highway ROW without destroying much of the town, much of which is protected as historic properties. No way you can blow away a whole town in this day and age to accommodate one lane of traffic. So, you're going to have to look at tunneling, cut-and-cover, or stacking in this case as well. That's going to cost you insane amounts of money, and how are any of those going to happen while still allowing the current two lanes to pass by unimpeded during construction? This doesn't even include the cost of the third bore -- rail will likely require a tunnel as well, but with only half the width.
Rail's big ROW advantage is its footprint. With elevated rail, the footprint could be very small indeed (just the footprint of the piers). You can even single-track in small stretches if necessary. Double track rail alone is going to require less ROW than even one lane in one direction. Single track can squeeze in even tighter spaces.
Ultimately, however, the thing that makes lanes inviable is the inevitable disruption due to construction. Unlike T-rex, there are no parallel routes, no surface streets, no alternatives. If we had had this conversation before, when we had extra capacity on I-70 to constrain, such a thing would be doable, but now; I simply don't see it happening. To make this work, any construction will have to be done in such a way that no capacity is constrained during construction. That's a whole lot easier to do with rail than it would be with highway lanes.
I'm not necessarily against lanes in addition to trains at some point. However, we currently have one mode of transit up to the mountains (highway), and this mode is currently failing. Before we invest more in that mode, we should add a alternate mode (transit). Once the alternate mode is in place, it will be actually help you in making refinements to the highway mode, since the alternate mode will be in place. That will enable us to be able able to constrain highway capacity for additional construction, because it will provide a viable alternative.
I would disagree that the current mode is failing. It carries 12 million cars through the tunnel each year. What is clear is that the current capacity is too small for a few hours a week. We are looking for a solution for those few hours. I think we can all agree that the current solution of CDOT of making 3 lanes in each direction is not the best solution. It only allows 1 additional lane of traffic in the direction that is crowded.
It is true that AMTRAK does not pay for the tracks, they use the existing lines.. and they still are heavily subsidized by the government and are going bankrupt. Why? Because NOBODY USES TRAINS. They are inconvenient and more expensive. IF kids could take trains to the area for free, probably lots more kids would ski on the weekends and conductors would become babysitters....and the traffic on I-70 would not be reduced. No matter what the theoretical capacity of a train would be, the only way to get the traffic problem fixed would be to get people who currently drive to use them. This will be very difficult if the time or cost is greater. The only way the time will be less is if there is still congestion on I-70. So in order for the train to be utilized, the I-70 problem has to remain. When the problem has to remain for the solution to be viable, you are not fixing the problem. One thing that is blatantly clear and there can be no question that additional lanes of traffic will get used.
Now to the numbers...4 cars per vehicle is not unrealistic when we consider the marginal traffic that we are trying to take care of. I-70 always has trucks and single occupant vehicles, but causing the problems on weekends (both in summer and winter) is recreational travel. Many times this is SUV's with 6 or more people and rarely less than 2 people. 4 people is a good average. This is also the traffic that would use the trains (though I doubt they would. I agree with the earlier post that families will not load and unload recreational equipment 2 or 3 times before arriving at their destination.) So we are talking about the marginal traffic (that these lanes are constructed for) would be 2300 times 4 times 2 lanes=18400. 2 minute headways is unreasonable because citizens all around the country have been told that it is possible and the best in the country right now is 2.5 minutes. If you go to one rail anywhere on the line, the best you can get is 6 minutes. In an earlier thread, someone said the capacity is infinite. (kinda like the zero cars per hour exaggeration above) This is the mindset I see for rail supporters that just cant comprehend that automobiles might be a better solution.
I have taken busses up several times and enjoy it much more than driving. I don't think there is much stigma against busses. They are much more convenient than trains (especially in this case where the rail rarely actually gets to the destination) My point was that I will not be convinced that you can get people out of their cars until you show me that you can. Busses would be an excellent way of showing me that. Set up a bus system to transport skiers. If they use it, traffic will be immediately reduced and I will be more open to the idea of trains. I don't think this will be done privately (even by the ski corporations) because business people use logic in their thinking (and don't have romantic ideas about trains.) The people with common sense and money know that it is very difficult to get people out of their cars, and if you can't do that, the train won't work.
I also think that bi directional lanes will be the least expensive option because they don't have to follow the exact highway route. They can go around obstacles and towns and don't have to interfere with current highway operations. The same could be said for trains, but not for 6 lanes. For the comparison of pricing between rail and lanes, I simply defer to CDOT, but I will concede that when you look at the margin of error, the costs are about the same.
If you want to know what method is more harmful to the environment, simply look at the cost. I can take 4-6 people 120 miles round trip in my SUV (at $4 per gallon) for $40. No where in the country can you take a 60 mile train trip for under $10 per person. 4 people is $80 and 6 is $120. Ultimately all that money goes to energy. Whether it's manipulating raw materials into products or transporting them or paying labor for energy consuming people. Clearly the SUV is better for the environment in this case. Even if you use trains, you still need the SUV to get to the train station. The reverse is not the case.
I am not against trains in all instances. Trains have their place. They are more efficient at getting commuters (who typically travel alone) to cities (where there is limited parking and high density.) But look realistically at the situation here. We are moving groups of people (not individuals) to vast (not densely populated) recreation sites, and the areas where the density is greater are spread miles away from each other often on other sides of passes. I-70 serves all areas from Winter Park to Vail to Aspen to Steamboat. The train can only service part of Summit County. Lets think logically about this instead on emotionally and the choice will become more clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
