Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [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)
View Poll Results: Would you vote for the proposed 0.4% sales tax increase for the completion of FasTracks?
Yes 15 60.00%
No 9 36.00%
Not sure yet 1 4.00%
Who cares? 0 0%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2012, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,627 posts, read 4,202,588 times
Reputation: 1783

Advertisements

Here's a status report:

West Corridor Progress – Testing Begins! « DenverUrbanism Blog

Yes, I know, I know...it says nothing about the line being finished in the next week and a half...</smug>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:21 AM
 
975 posts, read 1,317,569 times
Reputation: 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
If it wasn't mismanagement, then explain why the Utah Transit Authority in the exact same economic climate was able build more rail, for less money, on budget and on time.
One big difference is that UTA already owned a lot of the ROW for the light rail expansion and the commuter rail. This is partially in thanks to transit funding increases gained from the 2002 Winter Olympics preparation, along with having an long-term plan already in place, while the 2006 sales tax increase was for construction. This also distorts the cost of the project since FasTracks includes a lot of land acquisition while Frontlines 2015 (UTA's expansion project) is mainly construction costs with minimal land acquisition. So, the UTA conducted planning and property acquisition starting in the late 1990's thanks in part to increased funding due to the 2002 Winter Olympics. RTD started doing the same thing in 2004-05 and is basically 7-10 years behind UTA when all the factors are looked at. Oh, and then there's TABOR's debt constraints for RTD, but that's a whole other discussion.

Not to say the RTD's management hasn't screwed up, this "compromise" solution for the NW corridor is pure political pandering when the rational thing to do is to state that the area does not have the ridership to support both BRT and rail and one needs to go. Let's also not mention the West Corridor planning and engineering start-up headaches since RTD opted to plan that line themselves rather than go with a design-build contract used on the SE corridor or the design-finance-build-operate contract used for the Eagle P3 project.

Last edited by wong21fr; 03-23-2012 at 10:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,971,829 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
One big difference is that UTA already owned a lot of the ROW for the light rail expansion and the commuter rail.
You are grasping at straws. UTA did not already own the ROW. Most of the commuter rail in Utah is on tracks shared with the Union Pacific. They are still in negotiations for additional ROW for expansion of the system. OTOH, RTD did already own most of the ROW for the light rail lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 03:49 PM
 
975 posts, read 1,317,569 times
Reputation: 1211
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
You are grasping at straws. UTA did not already own the ROW. Most of the commuter rail in Utah is on tracks shared with the Union Pacific. They are still in negotiations for additional ROW for expansion of the system. OTOH, RTD did already own most of the ROW for the light rail lines.
No, I'm not. UTA negotiated and purchased the Union Pacific ROW for the Frontrunner commuter rail in 2002 along with future expansions. This added to existing owned-ROW for the expansion of the Red, Green, and Blue lines, along with the Frontrunner line. Frontlines 2015 did not require funding for ROW negotiation, litigation, and acquisition. RTD owned the ROW for the West Corridor, it has had to negotiate with UP and BNSF for ROW along the Gold (complete), East (complete), Northwest (ongoing), and North corridors (complete). Altogether, RTD has spent roughly $200-300 million on ROW acquisition not including the costs of negotiation and litigation.

As I said, it doesn't excuse the mismanagement and mistakes that RTD has made, but the UTA has actually been working on their system for quite a bit longer, with better planning, than RTD has. RTD thought that they could compress the schedule, which has proven to be unfeasible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Boulder, CO
47 posts, read 94,154 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
You are grasping at straws. UTA did not already own the ROW. Most of the commuter rail in Utah is on tracks shared with the Union Pacific. They are still in negotiations for additional ROW for expansion of the system. OTOH, RTD did already own most of the ROW for the light rail lines.
Pretty sure wong is correct at least as far as the 0.25% tax increase was just meant to expedite a transit plan that had been ongoing for years, not creating a new project. It was expected to be completed by 2030 before the tax increase was approved. Not sure about the ROW agreements, but at the very least, funding for the project must have been figured out for a 2030 timetable at least.

By the way, it's not all rays of sunshine in Utah, either (from January 26, 2012): UTA may not have the money to fund its plans

Besides, every city/metro has its own variables to deal with, what's the point of trying to copy and paste one project onto another? What difference does Utah make for our situation here? The problem at hand is figuring out how to best cope with the budget shortfall.

Quote:
Not to say the RTD's management hasn't screwed up, this "compromise" solution for the NW corridor is pure political pandering when the rational thing to do is to state that the area does not have the ridership to support both BRT and rail and one needs to go. Let's also not mention the West Corridor planning and engineering start-up headaches since RTD opted to plan that line themselves rather than go with a design-build contract used on the SE corridor or the design-finance-build-operate contract used for the Eagle P3 project.
I agree completely. I'm not a fan of the hybrid option (although to be fair, US36 was always supposed to have BRT as a part of the original 2004 FasTracks plan), and would honestly much prefer to see an awesome BRT system with its own lanes (not sharing with HOV lanes) and off-board fare collection, actual stations, etc. But since voters already approved the rail and want the rail, it's hard to take that to the ballot. And at that point, we'd be stuck with the 2042 completion date for the entire project. If RTD made any mistakes, I'd say the big one was back in 2004 when they didn't really consider full BRT as an option for the NW corridor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,971,829 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
No, I'm not. UTA negotiated and purchased the Union Pacific ROW for the Frontrunner commuter rail in 2002 along with future expansions. This added to existing owned-ROW for the expansion of the Red, Green, and Blue lines, along with the Frontrunner line. Frontlines 2015 did not require funding for ROW negotiation, litigation, and acquisition. RTD owned the ROW for the West Corridor, it has had to negotiate with UP and BNSF for ROW along the Gold (complete), East (complete), Northwest (ongoing), and North corridors (complete). Altogether, RTD has spent roughly $200-300 million on ROW acquisition not including the costs of negotiation and litigation.

As I said, it doesn't excuse the mismanagement and mistakes that RTD has made, but the UTA has actually been working on their system for quite a bit longer, with better planning, than RTD has. RTD thought that they could compress the schedule, which has proven to be unfeasible.
I'll concede the point on UTA ROW ownership. Regardless, RTD has been buying ROW and planing for rapid transit since 1972 (for light rail since 1980). RTD was buying ROW decades before UTA started to buy theirs. UTA did not have a jump on RTD, but that have been far more successful then RTD.

Light rail for Denver - finally - column | Railway Age | Find Articles
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 10,971,829 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickfatrick View Post
By the way, it's not all rays of sunshine in Utah, either (from January 26, 2012): UTA may not have the money to fund its plans
Interesting article. But there is a big difference between that and RTDs current predicament. The article is questioning if UTA will have money to build wanted future projects and operate projects that are currently under construction. There is no debate that the UTA current projects will get finished on time and on budget. Just what will happen after that, and here is the UTA response.

UTA General Manager Mike Allegra said the agency has a business plan and though it has tightened its belt, is well-positioned for the future.

"Our estimates are conservative. We are not out there projecting a future that will not happen," he said. "We are not looking for additional resources to manage and run the business we have now."


State lawmakers question UTA response to financial audit | Deseret News

Contrast that to RTDs begging for more money just to finish what they have already promised the voters, in exchange for the last tax increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2012, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,627 posts, read 4,202,588 times
Reputation: 1783
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
You are grasping at straws. UTA did not already own the ROW. Most of the commuter rail in Utah is on tracks shared with the Union Pacific. They are still in negotiations for additional ROW for expansion of the system. OTOH, RTD did already own most of the ROW for the light rail lines.
I seem to recall that this was NOT the case with the West Corridor, and hence the topic of much debate and discussion (and haggling) among those along the route. I have a friend that owned a house pretty much on the proposed right-of-way who received some kind of "fair market offer."

I will, of course, confess that my evidence is purely anecdotal and I will gladly accede to evidence to the contrary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2012, 11:34 PM
 
245 posts, read 705,324 times
Reputation: 81
Okay - Back to RTD, here is the link I saw today:

Hybrid transit plan wins RTD nod in northwest corridor - The Denver Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2012, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Boulder, CO
47 posts, read 94,154 times
Reputation: 40
Yea, KaaBoom posted the same link in another thread. Not much of a surprise, and I figure DRCOG will approve it. The big question is of course the vote. If the comments on that article are any indicator, the outlook looks fairly bleak, or at least incredibly difficult. Maybe that's just Denver Post commenters though.
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 > Denver

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