North Metro rail line appears to be a 'go' (Denver: contractor, floor)

[livecontent]

The DT circulator is meant to take the congestion off the Mall Shuttle during rush hour--that is the defined purpose. The Mail Shuttle is still the prime free transit for movement across downtown.

As far a subway under the 16th Street Mall---all nonsense! Never was in any detailed finished plans or DEIS or EIS. Saying that Fastracks took that concept away to satisfy developers--all BS! Remember there were many more projects done before Fastracks was approved in 2004, including a failed voter initiative, Guide the Ride in 1997, which did not include any subway--it is all a fantasy.

The poster, who piped this up from a dream, was in diapers in his stroller at the times of these planning conferences for the 16th Street Mall. I was there as an adult and I cannot remember anything as such for the Transitway--the original name. He is invited to show me these plans. Ah, but I have evolved from a young man to a old man through all these transit meeting over these many years and my memory may have failed. So, satisfy an old man and show me!

I have been to many public meetings on many projects and rail lines and periodically there is a member from the public who says "why do we not built a subway...it is in other great cities, why not here"? You can see these transit engineers with worldwide experience rolling their eyes and snickering. Just because it is mentioned in some meeting and/or discussed, it is recorded as such (as all comments are noted) that does not mean that a subway was planned--meaning a final plan. Of course what really applies is what is actually constructed.

Nor am I am saying that an underground train, subway, done for longer distances, other than for just under a short span is not viable for some purpose in the future--but now it is a ridiculous giving the needs for Denver and the region at this time.

Livecontent

[zenkonami]

I just want to remind everyone that if you commute in and out of downtown around rush hour or major events, the trains are packed...the shuttles are packed...the busses are packed.

A lot of cities design their public transit poorly and no-one rides. Ours has a lot of improving to do, but we have one enviable trait for a city our size...ridership. We have a place to start. The rest involves our willingness to pay for it and it's willingness to take us where we want to go.

Good for those on the proposed North Line! Hope both those up that corridor and those up the Boulder / Longmont corridor get to see their rewards sooner than later...but don't give up...keep pressing, and they will come.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Or it might be because a subway through downtown might cost a pretty penny and RTD figured that suburban voters might not vote for a $1 billion-plus 2-mile line through downtown. Instead we get the DT Circulator and a forced transfer.

I'd like to see the plans that RTD had for a subway through downtown that was designed in the 1970's. It certainly doesn't gel with RTD's focus in the 1970's on a PRT system.

PRT would not have used a subway. PRT was the plan in the early 1970s. The PRT would have been 100% elevated guideway, like the below picture. The PRT would have come from East Colfax Ave., turned north on Broadway to 16th St. (The 16th St. Mall at that time was only a vague future plan for a pedestrian mall). Northwest on 16th St. to the rail yards, and then would have followed the current alinement for the W Line to the Federal Center. Again all elevated guideway.

In the late 1970s when the plan switched to light rail, plans for the 16th St. Transitway Mall were underway. At that point it had been decided that the 16th St Mall would use small battery powered busses traveling between bus stations at Broadway and Larimer St. So they decided that the east-west light rail line would have to be in a subway under the 16th St. Mall. The light rail line coming from East Colfax would have dropped under ground between Sherman and Lincoln Streets with subway stations on a lower level of Civic Center Station under the bus station, at California St. (connecting with the north-south line) , at Market Street Station and then would have emerged in the rail yard and followed the current W Line.

I believe the cost of the subway under the 16th St. Mall would have been well less then a billion dollars. Seattle was able to build a similar length subway for $450 million in 1990. Which compared to RTD spending $200 million just to renovate Union Station would not have been that big a deal. And in 1980 a subway under the 16th St. Mall was actually pretty conservative compared to the earlier plans for 73 miles of elevated guideway for PRT.

PRT elevated guideway.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

One "big dig" is enough.

A subway is not that big a dig. Many cities have successful subways. Short subways are a very effective and cost effective way to move light rail trains (and even busses) quickly under Downtown streets. I believe that at some point RTD will have to have a subway in Downtown Denver. Maybe not soon, but at some point. Otherwise they will never be able to expand the service. I believe they are already claiming that the Downtown central loop is at capacity.

[KaaBoom]

For those interested, here is what RTD's plan for light rail looked like in 1980. If voters had not rejected light rail, and construction had started at that time, you can see how extensive the system could be by now. Boulder and Longmont and other outlying areas would all be connected by now.

[robertgoodman]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

I believe the cost of the subway under the 16th St. Mall would have been well less then a billion dollars. Seattle was able to build a similar length subway for $450 million in 1990. Which compared to RTD spending $200 million just to renovate Union Station would not have been that big a deal. And in 1980 a subway under the 16th St. Mall was actually pretty conservative compared to the earlier plans for 73 miles of elevated guideway for PRT.

As much as I would love something similar to Seattle's transit tunnel 450 million adjusted for inflation from 1987 - when the project started and the contracts were signed - is roughly 926 million (using CPI). By most accounts Seattle got lucky and timed it perfectly from a cost perspective.

Additionally in the 2000's they found out that what they built in the tunnel to support the light rail did not meet modern safety standards so they had to do a retrofit totaling 94 million. Combine the numbers you get over a billion.

Now I am not saying using 20+ year old numbers from Seattle would be accurate, tunneling costs have gone down, construction costs have gone up, and a lot of those costs are dependent on what is underground (utility relocation's, rocks, water tables, etc.). Also Seattle did some things on the cheap that the true costs are not reflected in the total such as the ventilation system required special buses instead of paying for an expensive ventilation system, and they did not include turn around tracks for the light rail.

All in all it's hard to say without someone seriously studying it, but I believe over a billion seems like a realistic outcome to build something similar.

[robertgoodman]

Originally Posted by DenverLawGal

What exactly is this BRT? I read that it's a dedicated bus lane. Is it to be closed off like the I-25 HOV? And how far will it run? Will it really make transit faster to Denver or will it just get clogged up with buses? It sounds archaeic.

A dedicated bus lane is one of the required components of BRT. The bus lane is the one current universally accepted necessary component of BRT. A year or two ago the federal government said for a BRT project to get funding at a minimum had to have a peak dedicated bus lane.

The issue with defining BRT is we have called BRT a lot of things in the US in the past. For example RTD called the 15L BRT at one time which is just a limited stop bus, and other municipalities have called express buses (IE 120x, B) BRT. So it causes a lot of confusion because a true BRT project is much more than that. Which is why an organization called ITDP was founded to standardize BRT. ITDP was started by a former mayor spearheaded an effort that resulted in what is considered the best BRT system in the world known as Transmilenio ITDP defines the basic elements of BRT here ITDP | Institute for Transportation and Development Policy : Microsites : BRT Basics

In contrast with BRT standards RTD is not building a dedicated bus lane. They are building an HOT lane like the one on I25 you mentioned. The current construction on US 36 in phase 1 is only to Interlocken but they have phase 2 closely following it (if it hasn't started already) which will extend it all the way to Table mesa park and ride.

The primary concern is not that the HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lane will get clogged with buses. The bigger concern is that cars in the HOT lane will slow down the buses, and getting from the central HOT lanes to the side slip ramps for boarding will be problematic when 36 is extremely congested. To mitigate the cars in the HOT lane they already upped the free car occupancy requirement from 2 to 3 people on those lanes, and they will also adjust the pricing for tolls to keep the speed at certain levels. To mitigate the side slip ramp access CDOT built the shoulders so they could accommodate the buses so the buses do not have to go back and forth when it is too congested.

[DenverLawGal]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The forced transfer is having to get off the light/commuter rail or regional bus and take the Circulator into downtown. An uber-expensive subway line would allow some trains to go straight through downtown and allow for a 1-seat ride for certain lines. Both ideas do the same thing: provide access through downtown. But one costs a billion or so dollars, the other costs $40-50 million.

I like what the DT circulator does as well as it's an inexpensive solution to the problem that can actually be done. I do wish that it ran longer during the day instead of being primarily a rush-hour service. That's another case of stretching dollars.

I see. But like you said, it's a cheaper solution, and I really like the idea. Did you see the renderings? Three doors to exit/enter on! Yay!

Originally Posted by robertgoodman

To mitigate the side slip ramp access CDOT built the shoulders so they could accommodate the buses so the buses do not have to go back and forth when it is too congested.

So that's what's going on with Highway 36! I cannot stand the shoulders. I think it's silly, regardless of the reasoning. When we were in L.A., they had toll lanes, but you could go back and forth, get in and out when you wanted, and I think that's a much better idea.

Once I was sitting on the HOV/HOT on I-25 and someone wrecked up ahead. OMG - no way out of the thing. Completely ridiculous.

[suzco]

Originally Posted by DenverLawGal

I . . .
So that's what's going on with Highway 36! I cannot stand the shoulders. I think it's silly, regardless of the reasoning. When we were in L.A., they had toll lanes, but you could go back and forth, get in and out when you wanted, and I think that's a much better idea.

Once I was sitting on the HOV/HOT on I-25 and someone wrecked up ahead. OMG - no way out of the thing. Completely ridiculous.

It's the nightmare I'm driving or busing too often. How long is the construction supposed to go on?

[DenverLawGal]

I dunno, but I'm usually on there for a very short time, just to get to Flatirons mall from 104th or 120th. I wonder if that Midway road would get me there easier.