Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-05-2010, 09:00 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,746,347 times
Reputation: 4580

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
Foamer much?
I take it you work in the industry , no i'm not.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2010, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,113,429 times
Reputation: 6920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
I take it you work in the industry , no i'm not.......
I used to but I'm just messin' with you. Your vid posts are great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2010, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 5,245,953 times
Reputation: 1703
I think that economics has to be the primary driver in any decision on high-speed rail on the front range, and I know of no reputable research on the topic that would justify the kind of sky-high cost-benefit ratio. A conventional light rail system is a much different analysis, because the costs involved are probably at least an order of magnitude less.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-06-2010 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 11:15 AM
 
26,111 posts, read 48,696,623 times
Reputation: 31481
Moderator speaking.

Take conversations about personal philosophy, political persuasions, Supreme Court Justices, etc, to the Direct Mail process or start a thread in the Politics forum and go at it there.

We need to keep on topic about the public necessity, merits and value proposition of passenger rail transit in the I-25 corridor.

Let me try and re-focus our thoughts.

I'm in favor of passenger transit in the I-25 corridor, starting with a crash program to get conventional rail on existing rights of way. I favor starting with COLO SPGS to Denver; expanding it as able to Pueblo and Fort Collins; and eventually from El Paso to Cheyenne. We start with conventional rail technology and over the years increase speeds as we can given the limits of terrain, funding and the public need. We need a hundred-year plan to do this. Don't laugh at the thought of a hundred year plan, I'm sure the Chinese have one, as it seems they are following one with all due haste. When I worked in DoD we had plans that went out 10-20 years and some really long term estimates of what our capabilities could be for a variety of threats way down the road. We cannot leave our infrastructure to happenstance and wait for a crisis, it has to be planned and prioritized and funded for the long term and passionately adhered to.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-06-2010 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 11:42 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 29,357,988 times
Reputation: 9305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Moderator speaking.

Take conversations about personal philosophy, political persuasions, Supreme Court Justices, etc, to the Direct Mail process or start a thread in the Politics forum and go at it there.

We need to keep on topic about the public necessity, merits and value proposition of passenger rail transit in the I-25 corridor.

Let me try and re-focus our thoughts.

I'm in favor of passenger transit in the I-25 corridor, starting with a crash program to get conventional rail on existing rights of way. I favor starting with COLO SPGS to Denver; expanding it as able to Pueblo and Fort Collins; and eventually from El Paso to Cheyenne. We start with conventional rail technology and over the years increase speeds as we can given the limits of terrain, funding and the public need. We need a hundred-year plan to do this. Don't laugh at the thought of a hundred year plan, I'm sure the Chinese have one, as it seems they are following one with all due haste. When I worked in DoD we had plans that went out 10-20 years and some really long term estimates of what our capabilities could be for a variety of threats way down the road. We cannot leave our infrastructure to happenstance and wait for a crisis, it has to be planned and prioritized and funded for the long term and passionately adhered to.
Very good points, Mike. Unfortunately, we have a public, and a government representing them, that can't think past next month, much less 10, 25, 50, or 100 years hence. That's why we're in the mess we're in, and digging ourselves deeper every day. If we had the kind of plan you are talking about, we would have an extensive passenger rail network already in deployment clear across the United States.

So, while it's nice to say to we need to concentrate our discussion on the merits of this or that, the fact is it is a meaningless discussion until we Americans pull our heads out of you-know-where and start thinking more than 10 minutes into the future. We have all taken the economist Lord John Maynard Keynes' saying far too much to heart, "In the long run, we're all dead."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 11:52 AM
 
26,111 posts, read 48,696,623 times
Reputation: 31481
Agree. National leadership has let us down, since circa 1925, or about 85 years now. Once governments started public funding of highways, they should've designed a total program of transport infrastructure, rail and highways before jet travel. When we got jet travel and the interstate system in the 1950's, the government should've laid down a hundred year plan that made sure all three things were working in unison for the sake of synergy. Short term pork barrel leadership is no substitute for long term planning in the areas of transport, energy, infrastructure, defense, water, industry, etc.

I've seen that synergy in Germany, where you get off a plane in Frankfurt and have TWO levels of trains below the airport; local transit and inter-city trains. Not to mention buses and taxi's and cars out the front door. Germany's ENTIRE infrastructure is viewed as a WHOLE system. Not until most of our railroads went bankrupt around 1971 and gridlock started to appear did a few lights start to go on in the heads of our so-called leaders. Until that time, our three main modes (rail, air, highway) were all viewed as competitors and we acted accordingly by keeping our plans and funding in separate worlds and guarded jealously by vested interests and competing bureaucrats.

Here we are now trying to figure our way out of this.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-06-2010 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,119 posts, read 23,785,288 times
Reputation: 32519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Moderator speaking.

Take conversations about personal philosophy, political persuasion Supreme Court Justices, etc, to the Direct Mail process or start a thread in the Politics forum and go at it there.

...

I'm all in favor of passenger transit in the I-25 corridor, starting with a crash program to get conventional rail on existing rights of way. I favor starting with COLO SPGS to north Denver; expanding it as able to Pueblo and Fort Collins; and eventually from El Paso to Cheyenne. We can start with conventional rail technology and over the year increase speeds as we can given the limits of terrain and funding and the public need. We need a hundred-year plan to do this. Don't laugh at the thought of a hundred year plan...When I worked in DoD we had plans that went out 10-20 years and some really long term estimates of what our capabilities could be for a variety of threats way down the road. We cannot leave our infrastructure to happenstance and wait for a crisis, it has to be planned and prioritized and funded for the long term and passionately adhered to.
First, my apologies for going off topic. Easy to get frustrated sometimes. I'll be better! Still trying to get the feel of this particular forum (as compared to others that can be quite scatter-shot). You do a great job of moderating.

I think what you've said here about starting with COS to northern Denver seems reasonable. It will have many of the benefits in what should be a fairly sustainable (note I did not say profit-making) mode. This is very much like what has happened with other mass transit systems, where a basic system is laid down, then as time passes additional track has been laid. And, it's often interesting to see how local governments and even businesses will prime the construction of new lines and stops once the basic system is in place.

Not sure about the expense of developing hundred year plans. I can see it for DOD...or maybe not. After all, I know we all remember the importance of Quemoy and Matsu...and that was only 60 years ago! ;-) The pace of development of technology is so rapid today that we can barely imagine changes in transportation 20 years down the road. It's also of questionable value to develop models when long-term funding is so fickle. In my school system, as a principal, I hate to tell you how many committees I was on developing 5 and 10 year plans. Then the recession hit and all that planning simply evaporated, and in the 2-3 years between sufficient funding, new trends in education and new management made our old 5 and 10 year plans out-of-date.

Having said that, coordination of planning is essential. Bangkok's mass transit system is extremely modern...probably as modern or more modern than what exists in most cities in the US today. Unfortunately, their planning has not been coordinated well. Their extremely efficient subway system is wonderful. So is their Skytrain. But already you have two non-connectable services, with other different types of equipment being planned for additional mass transit routes. On the other hand, Washington's subway system is continuing to grow, albeit it slowly, and thus far the various government entities have ultimately resisted the temptation to develop alternative systems. Thus, the whole system works together, as a whole.

So, long-term contingencies are worth looking into, but I believe the focus should be on what is do-able now...within perhaps the next decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,119 posts, read 23,785,288 times
Reputation: 32519
I think what you have to be careful of with long-range planning is that you don't kill the basic plan by increasing opposition to a concept as more and more is added on.

For example, Mike's plan from COS to Denver to Broomfield/Boulder seems logical. Let's say you could get a consensus on that by 60% of Coloradans (just making up a number). Add then you add on another part of the plan that would take the system south to Pueblo (which several here seem to favor). I think you're going to increase opposition markedly as that price tag gets bigger and the sustainability of that addition leg of the route is questioned. Then add on to the long-term plan to extend north to Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins. Bigger price tag, increased opposition, more questions about sustainability. Someone will say let's add another line to the long-term plan from Denver west to Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction. Bigger price tag. More debate about sustainability. More opposition. The overall plan gets mired in hot debate. The whole plan goes nowhere.

So, I think the best plan is what is do-able now. What can be supported by the taxpayers (!)? Get that done now. Get a functional system up and running. Then worry about adding to the initial plan.

There were a number of road projects in the Maryland suburbs of D.C. that were valid, but year after year got mired down in the overall road-building plans of Montgomery and Prince Georges County. Some projects malingered for decades as politicians kept developing transportation plans that were actually too comprehensive to gain sufficient public support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 12:57 PM
 
9,846 posts, read 22,575,838 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Agree. National leadership has let us down, since circa 1925, or about 85 years now. Once governments started public funding of highways, they should've designed a total program of transport infrastructure, rail and highways before jet travel. When we got jet travel and the interstate system in the 1950's, the government should've laid down a hundred year plan that made sure all three things were working in unison for the sake of synergy. Short term pork barrel leadership is no substitute for long term planning in the areas of transport, energy, infrastructure, defense, water, industry, etc.

I've seen that synergy in Germany, where you get off a plane in Frankfurt and have TWO levels of trains below the airport; local transit and inter-city trains. Not to mention buses and taxi's and cars out the front door. Germany's ENTIRE infrastructure is viewed as a WHOLE system. Not until most of our railroads went bankrupt around 1971 and gridlock started to appear did a few lights start to go on in the heads of our so-called leaders. Until that time, our three main modes (rail, air, highway) were all viewed as competitors and we acted accordingly by keeping our plans and funding in separate worlds and guarded jealously by vested interests and competing bureaucrats.

Here we are now trying to figure our way out of this.
Germany and the USA is apples and oranges. Germany is a heavily populated small country with a number of large cities in close proximity, the USA has a huge variance in needs based on populations and topography. What might work in NYC, might be totally unnecessary in Colorado. And having been to Germany, with the exception of better built Autobahns, I didn't find the transportation system anymore "enlightening" than what we do in the USA. Using the subway in Munich was a PITA!

When I get off the plane at DIA and get my bags on Level 5 there is a whole plethora of transport from city buses, taxis, shuttles and rental cars. With Denver's location having inter city trains from DIA would be mostly pointless as Denver is an island in an ocean of not much with other major cities hundreds of miles away. With light rail now available in Denver obviously connecting the airport to that would make sense, if that's not already in the works(have no clue).

Also there is no point in a 100 year plan. Back in 1940, no one had any clue within 20-30 years that jet aviation could connect you quickly across the world, nor would population movements like the movement of people to California or Arizona be known. Technology continues to change and make things obsolete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2010, 01:02 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 29,357,988 times
Reputation: 9305
I agree that too grandiose a plan (like High-Speed rail projects) often get nowhere because they are simply too expensive and too grandiose. Sometimes what is needed is a more modest "proof-of-concept." Here is one that actually could be done and might have a chance for success: A conventional passenger train running from El Paso, TX to, say, Shelby, Montana. This has always been a missing link in the Amtrak network--a north-south train in the Rocky Mountain region connecting with all four major east-west Amtrak routes in the West--the Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and Empire Builder--in addition to serving every major city east of the Continental Divide in the Rocky Mountain region.

What would it take to do it? Simply upgrading existing trackage to 70-90 mph passenger standards. The big bottleneck would be between Denver and Pueblo, but that could be alleviated by re-laying the second main track that was removed years ago (shortsightedly, mainly because of bitching and moaning about it in Colorado Springs) between Palmer Lake and Crews (just south of Colorado Springs), and laying a third track where practical. The other bottleneck is the now poor track configuration leading into Denver's Union Station. That would have to be rebuilt. Obviously, the equipment to operate it would also have to be procured.

For a tiny fraction of the cost of a high-speed rail project, a passenger train running at Interstate Highway speeds or better could be operating in short order between most of the major cities in the Rocky Mountain region. It would also have the benefit of running relatively close to and connecting several major National Parks--Big Bend, Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and Glacier.

It could be a great "proof of concept" of what a well-run conventional passenger train might be able to do in this region. And, it could be running in a couple of years, instead of 20.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top