CDOT Interregional Connectivity Study PLT Meeting November 10, 2016 CDOT- 2000 S Holly, Denver, CO Summary Notes Attendees: Name
Organization
Email
Becky Karasko
North Front Range MPO
[email protected]
Steve Glueck
City of Golden
[email protected]
Emily Silverman
City and County of Denver
[email protected]
Kent Moorman
City of Thornton
[email protected]
Jim Souby
ColoRail
[email protected]
Brian Welch
RTD
[email protected]
Sharon Terranova
CDOT – DTR
[email protected]
Matthew Helfant
DRCOG
[email protected]
Will Jones - Phone
City of Greeley
[email protected]
Craig Blewitt
Mountain Metro Transit
[email protected]
Jonathan Spencer
ICS Team
[email protected]
Aaron Heumann - Phone
City of Littleton
[email protected]
Flo Raitano
Mountain Corridor
[email protected]
Pete Rickershauser
BNSF Railway
[email protected]
Eliot Sulsky
FHU for E470 PHA
[email protected]
David Krutsinger
CDOT T&R – Project Manager
[email protected]
Don Ulrich
ICS Team
[email protected]
Colleen Kirby Roberts
ICS Team
[email protected]
Shari Moore
ICS Team
[email protected]
ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 1
Agenda Items: 1. Summary of what we heard last meeting 2. Brief history of alternatives evaluated and dismissed during ICS 3. Engineering Evaluation Preliminary Results a. Technology Assessment b. Assumptions/Criteria Used for Assessing Corridors c. Engineering Investigation Results i. Southeast Corridor ii. North Metro iii. East Corridor 4. Content for PLT#3 Introductions
David Krutsinger, CDOT Division of Transit and Rail, welcomed the group and introductions were made around the room. Summary of what we heard last meeting Colleen Kirby Roberts gave a review of the comments heard from PLT#1, as summarized in the PowerPoint presentation. A handout of comments/questions and answers was handed out at the meeting. Comments and Questions by PLT None Brief history of alternatives evaluated and dismissed during ICS Don Ulrich reviewed the alignments looked at in the first phase through and around the Denver Metro area, as summarized in the PowerPoint presentation. Comments and Questions by PLT Q: What alignment was considered for east/west service through Denver metro? A: We looked at 6th Ave, I-70, I-76, and different permutations of these three alignments. Q: Did you model express service on the A line? A: No, we didn’t model express service on the A line, but we did evaluate the impact of a transfer and found we lost 6-8% of ridership. Q: Are the costs shown in 2013 dollars? A: Yes, the costs for the original analysis were in 2013 dollars. To reach current dollars, we would need to add about 10%. C: At the end of ICS, we said this isn’t over and that we should examine some kind of joint use configuration with RTD. What we’ve seen so far doesn’t do that. A: At the time of the study things were different, changes are happening. This is the intent of Task 5 (this task), to investigate the impact of interoperability with RTD’s Commuter Rail and LRT trains. As inferred
ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 2
above, in the original ICS the goal was to maximize ridership for both HSR and RTD transit by having the latter serve as a feeder system to the former. Discussion also included the topic of repurposing interstate lanes to passenger rail. David Krutsinger noted that two interstate lanes would be needed for a single-track system and three to four lanes would be needed for a double track system. The typical cross-section of a completed double track HSR system is ~34 feet. However, as a rule of thumb a 100-foot cross-section would be required for construction utilizing temporary easements. The final ROW would be 40 or 50 feet. Discussion of costs to riders and ridership. The original study conducted an elasticity analysis and found the ridership went up substantially when the cost to ride went down from $0.35 to $0.19 per mile. Technology Evaluation Results Don Ulrich provided a summary of the technology evaluation, as summarized in the PowerPoint presentation. Class 2 and Class 3 vehicles result in the same physical impacts to RTD’s system, but Class 2 vehicles cannot provide high speeds high enough to optimize ridership, yet represent the same geometric challenges (height, width, consist length etc.) of the faster vehicles, and so Class 3 vehicles are recommended. The Talgo 350 is being used as the representative technology because its physical size is closest to the vehicles currently used by RTD. We anticipate a vehicle could be specified to better meet the size criteria required to minimize impacts on RTD’s system. Comments and Questions by PLT – Q: Do we need to test the reasonableness of the technology assumptions shown here? A: We think it is reasonable to assume that a vehicle could be specified because this happens frequently for agencies across the country. It is also reasonable to work with or challenge the private sector to develop a vehicle that would be compatible in an urban environment and high speeds out of town. Engineering Evaluation Preliminary Results Jonathan Spencer provided a summary of the engineering evaluation, including assumptions/criteria for assessing corridors, and the engineering investigation results for the Southeast, North Metro, and East Corridors, as summarized in the PowerPoint presentation. Discussion of catenary pole replacement. With the Talgo 350 vehicle dimensions, the rail vehicles are too wide to leave the existing catenary poles in the center of the double track system. The centerrunning poles would need to be removed and replaced with two poles, one to each side of the tracks. From a cost estimating standpoint, only the catenary wire could be salvaged. That said, 20 to 25 years in the future, the existing catenary wire would probably be amortized and need replacement. Comments and Questions by PLT on Assumptions and Criteria – Q: In the next level of design, will we look at skipping stations for speed considerations, and possibly adding a third track at stations to allow this? A: We looked at this option during the first portion of the study when we considered aligning HSR through the metro area adjacent to existing tracks in new ROW; this required either new ROW from private property or adjacent transportation corridors, resulting in extensive impacts. Right now we’re looking at running on the current system and adding double track in current single track segments, and ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 3
are not able to easily skip stations on a double track system. However, in some cases it may be possible to add cross-overs to allow some passage of RTD commuter rail trains. When we revise our travel time calculations this is something the merits further consideration. The next stage of study for HSR will be a Tier 1 EIS, and adding a third track at some station locations is an option that could be considered at that stage. Further discussion of third track to skip stations in the metro area. The PLT requested CDOT identify places a third track could be added with the least impact to the surrounding area and preserve ROW/ protect that spot for the future. There may be areas now that could be preserved. Q: On the double tracking on North Metro – will entire corridor be double tracked and is it currently ready for double tracking? A: Yes, under current assumptions, the entire corridor will be double tracked, and no the corridor does not have ROW preserved to double track nor bridges constructed wide enough to double track. Further study of ‘train-meets’ may show that there are some short segments that could be single-tracked to save cost. This is likely minimal. C: Note that power company jurisdiction changes from Xcel to United Power at 144th Avenue, requiring negotiations with two different utilities. A: Understood. RTD has had to negotiate with different utilities for their existing system. It does take more work and requires the installation of phase-breaks, something that has caused operational challenges with the A-Line to DIA. C: There is a lot of public resistance to new substations (TPSS). A: New paralleling stations can be used to power the system rather than new a TPSS if needed. Also note that the current Eagle system includes two TPSSs that have been sized to accommodate the entire North Metro corridor. A new TPSS would have to constructed to support service to Fort Collins. C: Running into problems about where to locate substations. Might need to accommodate within the ROW. A: Right now, they say there is enough power to cover the system as is. Wouldn’t just randomly add another substation. A: One 150-mile example had 3 substations, and they boosted the electricity in the catenary through the use of paralleling stations. The parallel substations can be along the ROW of the train. Has less political ramifications because they are smaller, about the size of a LRT TPSS. Q: Are the proposed modifications to RTD’s system reasonable within the magnitude of the project? Are these expenses that will have a significant impact? A: The benefit cost analysis will provide the answer to that question. From an engineering perspective, it can be done but would be expensive. However, reuse of RTD track and guideway would be less cost than an entirely new system. The construction impacts of maintaining RTD’s existing service while constructing the modifications will be significant. The benefit cost analysis will look at whether he benefits are reasonable in light of the costs and vice versa. Need to look at goal for HSR and how will it be financed. Q: Is running HSR on LRT lines being done anywhere else in the world? A: HSR runs on commuter rail lines in Europe. It is also being looked at in California in LA and San Francisco. ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 4
Q: Can RTD run an express system that feeds HSR service around the city? A: This type of feeder system to higher speed rail exists in many cities on the East Coast. RTD could do this, but would still need to construct additional track to do so. This is an idea that can be considered during the Tier 1 EIS. Q: What, if any, is the time savings of a one seat ride versus transferring from HSR to RTD’s system? A: Time savings of a one-seat ride through the metro area would be several minutes at each transfer. This is not a huge penalty but is very unpopular with riders. The cost of avoiding transfers will be a valuable output of this study. Comments and Questions by PLT on Engineering Evaluation of Alignments – Q: On the Southeast Corridor, would there be an HSR station at I-25 and Broadway? A: No there would not be. Q: Can we put the HSR station 800 yards south of DUS on the CML? A: Doing so would make transfers from HSR to the RTD system very inefficient. Q: How would the connection at DUS to the I-70 Mountain Corridor AGS system work? A: The AGS alignment alternatives followed I-76, focused on connecting to DIA, or connected to DUS via a tunnel from US 6, with an underground station platform at DUS. C: Add a note to DUS drawing stating that is the location where transfers to AGS on the I-70 Mountain Corridor could occur. Will also add a discussion to the engineering report that a tunnel could be an option to a flyover in the vicinity of DUS. Discussion of intent of the interoperability analysis. The intent of the current analysis is to identify whether using RTD track provides a feasible initial phasing option for the HSR system before constructing the full system along the E-470 alignment. The question was asked whether the system could start with diesel vehicles/slower speeds and then build up to a true HSR system over several decades. The answer is that the initial ICS study found a 40% loss of ridership resulted with diesel vehicles. Remember that the ICS study was directed at identifying alternatives that would realize a positive OPEX ratio, where revenues were higher than operating costs. When we investigated the slower systems they were unable to produce the positive OPEX ratio. Discussion of abandonment of track in the Burnham Yard. Agreement that it would be ideal for CDOT and RTD to work together to purchase the ROW to preserve it for future use. RTD prepares reports with a list of rail lines they want in the future, and there was discussion of adding Burnham Yard portion to the list. Q: Is it possible to put crossovers in and allow HSR trains to pass RTD trains? A: We plan to replace existing #8 crossovers with #20 crossovers to increase speed. However, adding new crossovers on the SEC is difficult due to vertical and horizontal curves and station locations, and would be operationally challenging because of the limited locations these could be put in. As mentioned above, the addition of cross-overs may be more promising on RTD’s EC and NM corridors.
ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 5
With respect to phasing - Discussion of initial construction and operation versus full system build out and operation. Both the full system and the initial construction segments need to meet FRA criteria. This makes it difficult to propose a ‘starter line’ to FRA, since we found that these more modest projects could not fulfill the OPEX cost-effectiveness metrics. Discussion of BNSF and UP ROW along Southwest Corridor. The railroad ROW is 100 feet wide along this corridor. BNSF noted that “when the public has decided it’s not if, but when, BNSF ROW is needed for passenger rail, BNSF is willing to talk.” Content for PLT#3 (Next Steps) Colleen reviewed the information for the next PLT: Operations Analysis, Ridership Evaluation, Revised Engineering, and Revised Cost Estimates. Comments and Questions by PLT The group agreed that the material discussed at PLT #3 will be presented and discussed for the first time at PLT #3, then representatives will take the information back to their agencies for internal discussion. PLT #4 will focus on recommendations, and the PLT felt a need to have the opportunity between PLT #3 and PLT #4 to reconvene and discuss the material presented at PLT #3, after other agency staff have had the opportunity to provide input. The team will discuss how to best gather ideas between the two meetings. Next Steps PLT Meeting 3: Ridership and Revenue Estimation - January 12, 2017 – Civic Center Plaza, 1560 Broadway, Suite 1940, Denver, CO 80202 – 9-11 am PLT Meeting 4: Recommendations – February 1, 2017 – DRCOG – 1-3 pm
ICS PLT #2 Meeting Notes November 10, 2016| 6
