Directly from downtown Denver to DIA, 23 miles, and it's not light rail. (It's classed as a regular railroad since it can go 79 mph, the same as Amtrak.) There's four light rail lines scheduled to open in the next year.
>>947295
Who is going to use this? Flyover country is cager country, unless you can make it from your home to the downtown terminal without getting arrested for the crime of not getting around town in your single-occupancy vehicle, that thing is going to be exclusively used by business travelers who have reasons to go to denver, which amounts to I imagine about twelve people a week.
>>947311
>shitposting this badly
>>947311
Obviously some half-bright mofo without any real knowledge of Denver.
>>947376
How many at grade road crossings are there?
>>947311
I'm sure there's some more buzzwords you could throw in for maximal shitposting.
>>947400
Proper terminology is "highway crossing" for crossings that will cross roads and "grade crossing" for crossings that cross other railroad tracks.
>>947376
This is honestly really impressive.
>>947400
It just opened yesterday so I haven't been on it yet. There are probably a few road crossings but none across major streets. The airport line is next to a working Union Pacific line East which has many of the highways already bridged. One of the advantages of putting rail transit into Denver is that there's quite a few railroad rights of way from the days when the town was a hub for many smaller lines.Now there's only Union Pacific and Burlington Northern but it saves the trouble of having to tear up neighborhoods..
>>947563
I ask because I take a commuter rail to work every day and it has a ton of at grade street crossings that slow down the average speed of the train significantly.
>>947573
The new "A Train" takes 37 minutes to travel 23 miles so it's not high speed rail. Much better than paying for airport parking though.
>americans coming closer to first world public transport
Breddy gud, keep going la(r)ds
>>947522
I've literally never heard someone say "highway crossing" instead of "grade crossing"
>>947642
Because the people you're talking to don't actually know railroading or work on the railroad.
A grade crossing is used, in the industry, to refer to railroad crossings at grade. A highway or simple road crossing is never referred to as a grade crossing.
It's one of those things where foamers call it one thing, but people who work around it call it another.
>>947631
Perhaps public transportation is not as important in a first world country where everybody owns a car.
>>947644
Spot the fattyfat with no passport
>>947644
Everyone owns a car here, too.
>>947643
You're unspeakably autistic. You and every other person understands what "at grade" is supposed to mean when talking about roads.
>>947694
>Somebody knows more about a subject than me
>Quick! Better call them autistic!
I'm just trying to teach you something. If you want to continue to be a rube, so be it.
>>947376
>that much to be completed in 2016
Sound Transit needs to get its shit together.
>>947726
Literally nobody cares. The colloquially mean the same fucking thing. I have read city, state, and county planning documents that refer to rail/road intersections as "at-grade" crossings.
Try being less of a colossal piece of shit and talk about something that matters and stopped getting bogged down in 100% inconsequential minutia.
>>947771
Not that guy and even I can recognize you're the cunt here.
He's just giving a nice honest bit of information and you respond as though you're insulted or personally affected by him having a paragraph's worth of information that you don't.
Stop shitting up /n/ by being rude.
>>947772
Quit samefagging dude. You've contributed literally nothing of value to the thread. The original question posed about at grade crossings was immediately and precisely understood by OP and answered, even without your preferred terminology being used.
>>947772
Two separate people comprehended the term "at grade crossing", as you can see from the early back and forth between them. There was no reason to give an alternative explanation and then talk down to them because they didn't use one of the multiple totally acceptable synonymous terms.
>>947776
I didn't read it as talking down to the guy, I just read it as offering information. It's just an interesting little factoid, written in a pretty neutral tone.
Then the other dude comes back all pissed off and being rude for really no reason.
What are headways like for Denver's rail lines? Their website is such a pain to navigate.
>>948294
15 minutes on both light rail and commuter rail, some light rail sections have two lines adding to 7.5 minutes in peak times.
http://purple.city/2014/12/29/how-denver-got-it-wrong/
>6 branches
>2-4 TPH each
>FRA-regulated turnaround procedure
>4 stub-end tracks
No, no problems presented at all, fuck through-running. Also lol Colfax Ave "BRT"
>>947763
Pretty easy to slap down rail in the middle of a 6 lane highway. I'm glad ST is doing it right by building a subway in the city.
How many stations are even within the Denver city limits?
>>949848
I know of no parts of the Denver Fastracks project "in the middle of a 6 lane highway." Could you point them out to me? The plan for Fastracks was to support the entire 3 million plus metro area, all of whom pay taxes to the RTD District and are rapidly expanding. Seattle and Denver are not the same geographically or politically. So why do you keep posting stupid shit like this?.
>>947376
I'm moving here in a month specifically for the rails. Gonna be commuting on a goddamned light rail, son. Living the life. They also have an impressive bike trail network, screenshot related. Even the bus network is impressive.
>>947311
pft. Over 100,000 people have moved to Denver every year for like the past five years. It's a huge city in a boom. Not to mention the goddamned california zephyr rail runs right through Denver, goes from shitcago all the way to california.
>>947585
~40 mph is still impressive.
>>949848
Tons. They plan to reach all residential suburbs by rail and have stops pretty damned often. They even extend to the mountains to the west.
>>949848
>>949873
Both cities are doing it pretty wrong, Seattle by not funding the Seattle-Ballard tunnel for 20 years and prioritizing worse projects like Redmond and Federal Way first, and Denver by failing to plan for actual dedicated transit lanes for the one project with the highest ridership potential, Colfax Ave service. It's what happens when transit is managed through regional mechanisms, which is great for dedicated revenue sources but not so much for planning.
>>950286
Colfax is one of the longest streets in America. Before I-70 was built, it was US-40, the main East-West highway. I agree that rapid transit on Colfax would be great, there is no practical way to do it without disrupting neighborhoods and spending a whole lot of money. Sometimes you got to be practical and take what you can get.
>>950286
Ballard is full of hipsters that can just walk or bike.
>>950301
Too bad. They already have a subway running under Broadway in Manhattan and the Bronx and under Yonge Street in Toronto.
>>950281
I like the pic you chose, but they forgot to sy something about the bum towns on the north part of the south platt
>>951672
The latest subway extension in Berlin cost $400 million per mile, the latest in Paris was $368 million, and New York is figuring about $2.7 billion per mile. Colfax Avenue is 50 miles long. Even doing half of it, that would be...a whole lot of money. So perhaps we can crowdsource it and you'll contribute?
>>950286
A high percentage of Ballard residents already use public transit. It might make more sense to complete the spine and bring more suburban riders into the system than simply shorten Ballardites' commutes.
http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/04/23/humanity-transit-politics/
>>952238
Have you ever actually tried to get to Ballard from anywhere else in the city?
>its not lightrail
>its classed as a regular railroad
Now just expand this from a single route to a whole network inside Denver and its suburbia
>>952238
It's pretty easy already to get into the city by transit. Over 60% of downtown commuters already do. Sounder and ST Express do a good job. If you happen to work downtown it doesn't make any sense to drive to work.
The major problem in Seattle isn't getting into the city, it's getting from one spot in the city to another.
>>947295
>amtrak
>79 mph
