Citation
Colfax streetcar feasibility study

Material Information

Title:
Colfax streetcar feasibility study
Creator:
Department of Public Works, City and County of Denver
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
City and County of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Colfax Avenue (Colo.) ( LCSH )
Public transit
Streetcars

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
DENVER
COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
City and County of Denver, Colorado
Department of Public Works
Final -July2010
Submitted by:
Fehr & Peers
621 17th Street, Suite 2301
Denver, CO 80293
In Association With:
URS Corporation
P.U.M.A
Leland Consulting Group


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Acknowledgments
Project Management Team
Terry Ruiter, City and County of Denver
Jennifer Hillhouse, City and County of Denver
David Weaver, City and County of Denver
Jeremy Klop, Fehr & Peers
Carlos Hernandez, Fehr & Peers
Brad Segal, PUMA
Anna Jones, PUMA
Tim Baldwin, URS
Chris Zahas, Leland Consulting Group
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce
Jeanne Robb, City Council
Marcia Johnson, City Council
Carla Madison, City Council
Bo Martinez, Denver Office of Economic Development
Tim Martinez, Denver Office of Economic Development
Chad Fuller, Denver Department of Finance
Ellen Ittelson, Denver Community Planning and Development
Gideon Berger, Denver Community Planning and Development
Brian Mitchell, Denver Public Works
Crissy Fanganello, Denver Public Works
George Gause, Denver Historic Preservation
David Hollis, RTD
Jessie Carter, RTD
Stephanie Salazar, Colfax Business Improvement District
Cmdr. Deborah Dilley, Denver Police
Sophie Bloom, East High Student
Shawne Ahlenius, The FAX
Andy Baldyga, Colfax on the Hill
Roger Armstrong, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods
Leonard Austin, Colfax Business Improvement District
Bill James, RTD Board member
Bill Elfenbein, former RTD Board member
Aylene McCallum, Downtown Denver Partnership
Steve Hersey, Colorado Department of Transportation
David Singer, Colorado Department of Transportation
Jill Jennings, Auraria Higher Education Campus
Dan Dahlberg, community representative
Katherine Cornwell, community representative
1*
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................V
RESULTS...............................................................VII
SECTION 1: PURPOSE, NEED, AND OBJECTIVES................................1
PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................1
SECTION 2: PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND...............................3
CONTEXT.................................................................3
PREVIOUS PLANS AND POLICY CONTEXT.......................................5
PUBLIC PROCESS..........................................................8
SECTION 3: SURVEY OF STREETCAR SYSTEMS.................................11
SECTION 4: OVERVIEW OF VEHICLE OPTIONS.................................28
STREETCAR SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.................................35
SECTION 5: EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS..............................47
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT..............................................47
LAND USE KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS........................................53
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT...................................................56
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS AND
ELEMENTS...............................................................59
PARKING AVAILABILITY (ON- AND OFF-STREET)..............................62
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................63
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES.........................64
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ON ROADWAYS AND AT INTERSECTIONS.67
PERSON TRIP ANALYSIS...................................................68
TRANSIT RII )l RSI IIP AND SERVICE.....................................70
PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS.......................79
SECTION 6: PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS......................................83
PROCESS................................................................83
ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER......................................83
ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER......................................90
SECTION 7: PRELIMINARY SCREENING......................................100
EVALUATION CRITERIA...................................................100
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES..............................................102
SECTION 8: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................113
KEY FINDINGS..........................................................113
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES................................................114
PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES.................................114
SECTION 9: FUTURE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR STREETCAR ROUTES............118
APPENDIX A: ASKFORCE MEETING NOTES......................................A
APPENDIX B: COLFAX STREECAR MODELING....................................B
i' 5
w

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PORTLAND STREETCAR SUMMARY...............................................13
TABLE 2: SEATTLE SOUTH LAKE UNION STREETCAR SUMMARY...............................16
TABLE 3: TACOMA LINK STREETCAR SUMMARY............................................19
TABLE 4: LITTLE ROCK RIVER RAIL STREETCAR SUMMARY.................................22
TABLE 5: TAMPA TECO STREETCAR SUMMARY.............................................25
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF STREETCAR DATA................................................27
TABLE 7 : STREETCAR, BUSES, LIGHT RAIL COMPARISON.................................31
TABLE 8: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VINTAGE RESTORED PCC CARS.....................32
TABLE 9: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VINTAGE REPLICA STREETCARS....................33
TABLE 10: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN STREETCARS.........................34
TABLE 11: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES.......................35
TABLE 12: EXISTING & FUTURE STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISHCS..............53
TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF STREETCAR ISSUES.......................................58
TABLE 14: GENERAL STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS: COLFAX AVENUE.....59
TABLE 15: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA................60
TABLE 16: COLFAX AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ACTIVITY...........................66
TABLE 17: EXISTING CONGESTED COLFAX AVENUE INTERSECTIONS.......................67
TABLE 18: EXISTING DAILY I AS I AVI ST TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLINE)...70
TABLE 19: 2035 DAILY I AS I AVI S I TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLINE)......70
TABLE 20: 2009 TOTAL DAILY ROUTE BOARDINGS.....................................74
TABLE 21: 2035 ADJUSTED MODEL RIDI RSIIIP FORECASTS............................77
TABLE 22: ROUTE 15 MODE ANALYSIS...............................................81
TABLE 23: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE MOBILITY..102
TABLE 24: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE AND PROMOTE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT..........................................................103
TABLE 25: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS........................................................104
TABLE 26: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER AFFORDABILITY AND
IMPLEMENT ABILITY.............................................................105
TABLE 27: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER OVERALL SUMMARY TALLY.106
TABLE 28: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE MOBILITY..107
TABLE 29: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE AND PROMOTE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT..........................................................108
TABLE 30: EVALUATION OF ALTERNAHVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER EVALUATION IMPROVE
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS............................................109
TABLE 31: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER EVALUATION AFFORDABILITY
AND IMPLEMENT ABILITY.........................................................110
TABLE 32: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER EVALUATION OVERALL SUMMARY
TALLY.........................................................................Ill
i' 5
w

CO 1 MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY AREA................................4
FIGURE 2: PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM MAP..........................................14
FIGURE 3: SEATTLE SOUTH LAKE UNION STREETCAR MAP.................................17
FIGURE 4: TACOMA LINK STREETCAR MAP..............................................20
FIGURE 5: LITTLE ROCK RIVER RAIL STREETCAR MAP...................................23
FIGURE 6: TAMPA TECO STREETCAR MAP...............................................26
FIGURE 7: SIZE COMPARISON OF TYPICAL TRANSIT VEHICLES............................35
FIGURE 8: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: FAR SIDE OF AN INTERSECTION PLATFORM...........38
FIGURE 9: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: NEAR SIDE OF AN INTERSECTION PLATFORM..........38
FIGURE 10: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: MID-BLOCK PLATFORM............................39
FIGURE 11: STREETCAR INTEGRATION INTO TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.....................40
FIGURE 12: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETCAR #1........................41
FIGURE 13: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETCAR #2........................42
FIGURE 14: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETCAR #3........................43
FIGURE 15: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETCAR #4........................44
FIGURE 16: STUDY AREA POPULATION.................................................48
FIGURE 17: STUDY AREA POPULATION GROWTH..........................................49
FIGURE 18: STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT.................................................51
FIGURE 19: STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT GROWTH..........................................52
FIGURE 20: EXISTING & FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS..................................69
FIGURE 21: WESTBOUND EXISTING TRANSIT BOARDINGS..................................72
FIGURE 22: EASTBOUND EXISTING TRANSIT BOARDINGS..................................73
FIGURE 23: TRANSIT MARKET PROFILES...............................................76
FIGURE 24: 2035 STUDY AREA DRCOG MODEL RIDERSHIP FORECASTS.......................78
FIGURE 25: ALTERNAHVE #1.....................................................83
FIGURE 26: ALTERNATIVE #2....................................................84
FIGURE 27: ALTERNATIVE #3....................................................85
FIGURE 28: ALTERNATIVE #4....................................................86
FIGURE 29: ALTERNATIVE #5....................................................87
FIGURE 30: ALTERNATIVE #6....................................................88
FIGURE 31: ALTERNATIVE A.....................................................90
FIGURE 32: ALTERNATIVE B.....................................................91
FIGURE 33: ALTERNATIVE C.....................................................92
FIGURE 34: ALTERNATIVE D.....................................................93
FIGURE 35: ALTERNATIVE E.....................................................94
FIGURE 36: ALTERNATIVE F.....................................................95
FIGURE 37: ALTERNATIVE G.....................................................96
FIGURE 38: ALTERNATIVE H.....................................................97
FIGURE 39: ALTERNATIVE 1.....................................................98
FIGURE 40: CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES OF PEER STREETCAR SYSTEMS.....................114
FIGURE 41: RESULTS OF INFORMAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES, 18 MARCH 2010.115
FIGURE 42: FEDERAL FUNDING PROCESS...............................................116
DENVER

tOI MX
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Executive Summary
The City and County of Denver (CCD) Department of Public Works assessed the technical
and economic feasibility for development of a modern streetcar line on the Colfax Avenue
Corridor. Stakeholders in the Colfax corridor have suggested a modern streetcar would have
mobility and economic investment benefits. If these outcomes could be achieved, they would
also support the broader CCD policy objectives for transportation and land use described in
the East Colfax Corridor Plan (2004), the Strategic Transportation Plan (2008), Greenprint
Denver (2006), and Blueprint Denver (2002). Community goals for the Colfax corridor
include enhancing mobility, improving sustainable transportation options, and promoting and
enhancing economic development.
The primary purpose of this study is to identify how a
modern streetcar in the Colfax corridor would influence
transit ridership, reliance on private automobile trips, traffic
operations, adjacent property values, and new economic
development. A secondary purpose of this study is to
develop criteria that can be used to evaluate the potential
for streetcar implementation in Denvers other
transportation corridors. The study was not intended to
weigh the merits of other transit technologies or locations.
The study area for the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
(CSFS) was bounded on the west by Interstate 25 (1-25),
on the east by Syracuse Street, on the south by 12th
Avenue, and on the north by 19th Avenue.
Recent CCD land use and transportation plans have focused attention on the need to
increase the person trip capacity of its transportation network in order to increase the
overall efficiency of the network, improve air quality, reduce energy consumption, and
encourage sustainable land development patterns in Denver.
The public involvement strategy for the CSFS included a multi-layered approach to reach a
broad range of interests along the corridor. The primary objective was to engage the public,
Colfax corridor stakeholders, appropriate elected officials, and other interested individuals
throughout the study area. The outreach process gathered information about how the public
thinks a modern streetcar would affect the corridor, and shared information when claims
about feasibility were reviewed and tested. Specific steps of the outreach process included
the formation and participation of a Streetcar Taskforce, individual outreach, small group
outreach, and community-wide outreach.
The experiences and characteristics of streetcar systems throughout the U.S. were
evaluated in order to understand best practices and lessons learned. While there are 15 to
20 cities with some form of streetcar service in this country, the majority of those systems are
either heritage systems with long histories of service (including San Francisco, New Orleans,
DENVER
V


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
and Philadelphia) or tourist-oriented systems that do not
serve a traditional day-to-day market (such as Denvers
Platte Valley Trolley and systems in Kenosha, Wisconsin,
and Lowell, Massachusetts). Only five cities have recent
experience in streetcar construction and operations that
are comparable models for potential new systems -
Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Tacoma,
Washington; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Tampa, Florida.
The report describes these five systems.
The choice of a streetcar vehicle for a Denver system
represents one of the most important decisions the
community can make. The vehicles used in the system
are the most important element in the overall image of
the project, as they are the most visible element of the
system that the public will see and use. The vehicles
used in this system will serve not only as a mode of
transportation for residents and visitors of the area, but
also as a community amenity and asset that could attract
development and redevelopment and serve as an
attraction in its own right. Therefore, the performance of
the chosen vehicle will be vital to the overall success of
the project.
Existing data and projections of future conditions were
analyzed for a variety of characteristics in the study area
including population and employment, land use and
activity centers, economic development, roadway
characteristics and parking, utility infrastructure, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, traffic volumes and person trips,
transit ridership, and preliminary cost estimates. These
data, along with input from the public, were used to
create potential alternative alignments for streetcar in the
study area. Alternatives were generated for segments
both east and west of Civic Center. The alignments east
of Civic Center serve a variety of destinations in the study
area including schools, shopping areas, and hospitals.
The alignments west of Civic Center serve downtown
destinations such as Denver Union Station and the
Auraria Higher Education Campus.
The alignments were evaluated to understand their relative capacity to enhance mobility,
promote and enhance economic development, and provide sustainable transportation
options. The alternatives were evaluated on their relative implementation and affordability.
This evaluation resulted in several of the alternatives being recommended for further study.
b
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Results
The Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study has produced the following findings:
Streetcar service in the Colfax corridor is feasible.
Long range forecasts anticipate 30% growth in person trips by 2035 and no roadway
widening is planned in the corridor.
Existing and growing transit demand exceed current and planned transit capacity.
Smaller trolleys would provide inefficient, expensive, and inadequate response to the
transit demand.
Enhancement of the existing bus service will require substantial fleet investment, stop
improvements, and increased frequency.
Modern streetcar becomes cost effective relative to buses in the long term
(approximately 30 years).
Cost estimates for recent streetcar projects indicated capital costs in the $15-20
million range per track mile (single track laid over 1 mile), with double-track systems
estimated at twice that cost per mile.
Initial route screening suggests that to serve transit demand effectively, a minimum
initial segment should connect from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard (3 miles, 6 track
miles).
o Four Colfax routes are recommended for further study.
o Two downtown routes providing connection to Auraria Campus are
recommended for further study.
Maintenance facility location(s) will need to be identified.
Informal survey results from the March 18, 2010 community meeting indicate a
majority of attendees would be willing to contribute financially to the project.
Funding has not been identified or programmed for further study or project definition.
The Colfax corridor is projected to have much higher ridership than streetcar systems
in other cities that have received federal funding.
In addition, the study identifies criteria for CCD and the community to weigh other proposed
streetcar alignments in the City.
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 1: Purpose, Need, and Objectives
Purpose and Need
The City and County of Denver (CCD) assessed the technical and economic feasibility for
development of a modern streetcar line on the Colfax Avenue Corridor. The Colfax corridor
currently functions as a productive transit corridor and has experienced redevelopment and
reinvestment in recent years. Stakeholders in the Colfax corridor have suggested a modern
streetcar would have mobility and economic investment benefits. If these benefits could be
achieved, they would also support broader CCD policy objectives for transportation and land
use described in the East Colfax Corridor Plan (2004), the Strategic Transportation Plan
(2008), Greenprint Denver (2006), and Blueprint Denver (2002). The goals for the study
area include enhancing mobility, improving sustainable transportation options, and promoting
and enhancing economic development.
The primary purpose of this study is to identify how a modern streetcar in the Colfax corridor
would affect transit ridership, types of transit riders, reliance on private automobile trips,
traffic operations, adjacent property values, and new economic interest. A secondary
purpose of this study is to develop criteria that can be used to evaluate the potential for
streetcar implementation in Denvers other transportation corridors. The study does not
weight the merits of other transit technologies or locations.
Providing additional transportation capacity to accommodate the projected 20%
increase in person trips in the corridor by 2030
Providing additional multi-modal transportation capacity above and beyond the need
projected by 2030
Encouraging an increase in choice transit riders while continuing to serve the needs
of transit-dependent riders
Providing increased linkages to other transportation modes and corridors both
Downtown and along the corridor
GOAL: Improve sustainable transportation options by:
Providing a competitive alternative to single occupant auto use
Reducing overall vehicle miles traveled in the corridor and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions per person trip while increasing overall transportation capacity
Encouraging and incorporating increased bicycle and pedestrian options and activity
GOAL: Promote and enhance economic development in the corridor by:
Providing an incentive for new development along a transit-friendly mixed-use
Goals and Objectives
GOAL: Enhance mobility in the corridor by:
corridor
1
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Promoting increased intra-corridor economic activity through the focus of mixed-use
employment, residential, and commercial development in the corridor
Promoting neighborhood reinvestment and preservation to stabilize residential areas
in the corridor
Developing an attractive streetscape with people-friendly amenities and mixed uses
to transform the auto-dominated street into a lively, active place that supports the
needs of transit users and encourages people to walk
Promoting historic preservation and good urban design to establish a sense of place
and community in the Colfax corridor and adjacent neighborhoods
i't
w
2

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 2: Project History and Background
Context
Colfax Avenue is a U.S. highway under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). The study area for the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study (CSFS) is
bounded on the west by Interstate 25 (1-25), on the east by Syracuse Street, on the south by
12th Avenue, and on the north by 19th Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. In
addition to exploration of the feasibility of a modern streetcar in the study area, the CSFS
process identified criteria to evaluate candidate corridors for a potential broader streetcar
network.
Background and History
Colfax Avenue (US Highway 40 (US 40)), is reportedly the
longest continuous east-west street in the United States. It
serves as a "Gateway to the Rockies, traveling from the
Eastern Plains to the mountains. Colfax stretches 26 miles
from the City of Aurora in Adams and Arapahoe Counties,
through Denver, to the suburbs of Lakewood and Golden in
Jefferson County. In Denver, Colfax Avenue is a diverse
multi-modal, commercial, and residential "main street"
serving residents, commuters, and tourists. It provides
connections to and between Downtown Denver, universities,
hospitals, cultural facilities, neighborhoods, other job
centers, and major transit and highway facilities.
Colfax was first called Golden Road as well as Grand
Avenue. The street was later named after Schuyler Colfax, a
powerful Indiana Congressman, Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and Vice President of the United States
under Ulysses S. Grant. At first, much of central Colfax
Avenue included residences of the wealthy and elite of
Denver. The neighborhoods lining Colfax were filled with
mansions. After the Silver Panic of 1893, the cost and
demand for the homes decreased. Denver Tramway built
the first rail lines on Colfax in 1886. Soon after, a massive
relocation to Denver's suburbs began. In 1900, Denver
Tramway and Denver City Railway built a trolley system
that allowed commuters to move between Aurora and
Denver. Many of the large homes built along Colfax were
transformed into group homes or apartments. Others were
converted to commercial use.
DENVER
3


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 1: colfax streetcar feasibility study area
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
| study area boundary
2
I-
0
+
2
+
3
+
4
+
5
4 miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
The car culture of the 1950s led to an increase in auto travel throughout the nation
and the subsequent removal of the trolley from Colfax and the entire system.
Colfax's status as a major thoroughfare led to more tourist traffic along the street.
The motels that currently line Colfax are remnants of the US 40 era. When Interstate
Highway 70 (I-70) was completed, the through travel and highway function
decreased and adjacent businesses and neighborhoods suffered. Over the course of
130 years, Colfax has evolved from a dusty, dirt road to a bustling trolley route and
now an urban arterial and bus transit corridor, serving more as a main street
throughout the metropolitan area than a US highway.
Previous Plans and Policy Context
Recent CCD land use and transportation plans have focused attention on the need
to increase the person trip capacity of its transportation network in order to
increase the overall efficiency of the network, improve air quality, reduce energy
consumption, and encourage sustainable land development patterns in Denver. The
plans that provide the policy context for the CSFS include:
Denver Strategic Parking Plan (2010)
Civic Center Design Guidelines (2009)
Bluebird Neighborhood Market Initiative (2009)
Strategic Transportation Plan (2008)
Downtown Area Plan (2007)
Greenprint Denver City of Denver Climate Action Plan (2007)
Auraria Center Master Plan (2007)
Greenprint Denver Plan (2006)
Justice Center Framework Plan (2006)
Denvers Civic Center Park Master Plan (2005)
Downtown Multimodal Access Plan (DMAP) (2005)
Civic Center District Plan (2005)
East Colfax Corridor Plan (2004)
Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (2002)
Comprehensive Plan (2000)
Other plans that provide for the utility infrastructure needs within the study area include the
Denvers Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria (2006), Denver Storm Drainage
Master Plan (2009), and the Denver Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (2009).
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
In addition to the Citys goals to increase the person trip capacity of transportation corridors
such as Colfax Avenue, attracting commercial and residential infill development in the city
core is an important land use and economic development goal for CCD.
Overall Corridor
In the CCDs land use and transportation plan, Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2002, the Colfax
Avenue Corridor is considered an Area of Change. One of the main principles of Blueprint
Denver is to direct future growth to Areas of Change, while maintaining and improving
neighborhoods designated as Areas of Stability. As stated in the Plan:
Areas of Change provide Denver with the opportunity to focus growth in a
way that benefits the city as a whole. Future residents and workers in these
areas will have excellent access to efficient forms of transportation that
include walking, biking, buses and light rail. However, redevelopment in
these areas does more than just reduce the potential traffic congestion in
the City. New development can improve the economic base, provide jobs,
and enhance the visual quality of buildings, streets and neighborhoods,
thereby positively affecting the quality of life in both the Areas of Change
and in the surrounding neighborhoods.
For the past several years, various revitalization efforts have been underway to improve the
land use and transportation elements on Colfax. Denver staff members in the Department of
Community Planning and Development, the Public Works Department, and the Office of
Economic Development have worked with the City Council members and special
improvement districts to complete plans and infrastructure projects. In addition, specific
funding for streetscape improvements along various segments of the Colfax corridor was
approved by the voters through the 2007 Better Denver bond program.
Four bond funds were approved for portions of Colfax Avenue to provide streetscape and
pedestrian improvements. Colfax and 14th Avenues between Speer Boulevard and Bannock
Street are one of the projects receiving bond funds and will provide improved streetscape
between the Civic Center and Speer Boulevard (construction to begin in 2010). Two bond
funds for East Colfax are to be used for streetscaping (including pedestrian lighting and
street trees) to improve pedestrian access and bus ridership between Grant Street and
Columbine Street (Colfax Business Improvement District
(BID)) and Columbine Street to St. Paul Street (Greektown)
(construction to begin in 2010). West Colfax (between
Federal and Sheridan) also received bond funds to provide
pedestrian improvements to enhance safety and mobility
(construction to begin 2010).
East of Broadway
A core group of East Colfax stakeholders has been working
with City Council members and City planning staff on plans
such as the East Colfax Corridor Plan (2004) to outline a
01 FAX
T?
DENVER
6


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
vision for the street's future as redevelopment occurs. Streetscape improvements funded by
the bond program on East Colfax will be coordinated with a Colfax Ave Transit Operations
Enhancement or transit priority project, which is a joint project with CCD and the Regional
Transportation District (RTD). This pilot program will utilize innovative technology and other
capital improvements to enhance RTD Route 15L. The pilot project will provide
improvements such as priority signalization, street improvements, and safety and security
measures at RTD bus stops along east Colfax designed to encourage more transit usage in
the corridor.
The Main Street zoning district was created in 2005 as an outgrowth of the East Colfax
Plan to promote the revitalization of Denvers commercial main streets. This new zoning has
been applied in differing intensities along Colfax Avenue with the intention of encouraging
redevelopment and revitalizing the Colfax Corridor. The new zone district was applied to East
Colfax Avenue in 2006, and was applied on West Colfax from Irving Street to Lakewood in
2007. Main Street zoning was applied to the entire length of Colfax Avenue in Denver
between Aurora and Lakewood, with the exception of Downtown, and largely carried forward
in Denvers zoning code completed in 2010.
Major activity along Colfax Avenue west of Broadway and the RTD Civic Center Station
revolves around the implementation of the Civic Center District Plan and the construction of
the new Justice Center, which includes a courthouse and jail.
At the Auraria Higher Education Complex between Speer Boulevard and I-25, major RTD
light rail transit lines currently intersect. These include the lines that serve Denver Union
Station from the Southwest and Southeast light rail transit corridors and the lines that serve
central Downtown via California and Stout Streets, with a Welton Street spur to the Five
Points area at 30th and Downing. In 2013, the West Corridor light rail line (12.1-mile light rail
transit corridor between the Denver Union Station in downtown Denver and the Jefferson
County Government Center in Golden) will be operational and will also provide service to the
Auraria campus. Several RTD bus lines currently serve the Auraria Campus as well
Greenprint Denver Action Agenda
Greenprint Denver was approved in 2006 and represents the Citys action agenda for
sustainable development. Its aim was to support and further integrate sustainable practices
into the citys programs and policies. Its key policies related to transportation, which are
applicable to the Colfax corridor, include:
Reduction of Denver per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 10% below 1990 levels
by 2011 to develop and implement effective strategies for adaptation to and
amelioration of global climate change
Decrease reliance on automobiles through public transit use and access, and
promote transit-oriented development, as well as bicycle and pedestrian
enhancements
Main Street Zoning
West of Broadway
7
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Strategic Transportation Plan
moving people.
The 2008 Strategic Transportation Plan is a multimodal
transportation plan aimed at understanding the current and
future transportation needs of the city. It is an innovative
approach to identifying future system needs and provides
_______________________________ a method to incorporate those needs and values into future
transportation decisions and solutions. Its major themes
are applicable to a potential streetcar system.
- ft-xr. . .>-
Denver Strategic Transportation Plan i 2008
Innovation
o Move people, not just vehicles
o Do not grow Denvers road footprint
Connected
o Link land use and transportation
o Enhance connections between modes
o Offer transportation choices
Green and Sustainable
o Limitation of the roadway footprint
o Align with Greenprint Denver
o Promote alternative public transit modes
o Provide alternatives to fossil fuel use
Healthy, Livable Community
o Mixed-use streets support great neighborhoods
o Provide transportation choices that improve the communitys health and well-
being
o Promote pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development
o Integrate land use and transportation choices
Public Process
The public involvement strategy for the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study included a multi-
layered approach to reach a broad range of interests along the corridor. The primary
objective was to engage the public, Colfax corridor stakeholders, appropriate elected
officials, and other interested individuals throughout the study area. The outreach process
gathered information about how the public thinks a modern streetcar would affect the
corridor, and shared information as claims about feasibility were reviewed and tested.
Specific steps of the outreach process included the formation and participation of a Streetcar
Taskforce, individual outreach, small group outreach, and community-wide outreach.
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
8


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Streetcar Taskforce
The Streetcar Taskforce included representatives from a wide range of interests along the
Colfax Corridor. The Streetcar Taskforce met three times as a group during the feasibility
study.
The role of the Streetcar Taskforce was to:
Provide information about unique aspects of the study
area
Speak on behalf of the groups or interests they
represent
Think critically about how streetcar may or may not be a
feasible transit alternative for the Colfax corridor
Test ideas and recommendations that emerged during
the process
A series of discussions were held with interested individuals and key stakeholders to get a
sense of the overall context of the corridor as well as challenges and opportunities to be
considered.
Small Group Outreach
A series of small group meetings were held during the process. The meetings were held to
educate stakeholders about the framework, goals and objectives of the feasibility study and
to gain insight and feedback from individuals with knowledge and interest in the corridor.
Group discussions were held with the following groups:
Colfax Business Improvement District (CBID) board of directors
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Citizen advocates those individuals who have particular technical insights into
streetcar and its potential feasibility along the corridor
Representatives from the Bluebird District (along Colfax between York and Colorado)
Representatives from Greektown
Downtown Denver Partnership
Capitol Hill United Neighbors
Senator Chris Romer
City and County of Denver Staff
S' - Y \ .
Individual Outreach: One-on-One Interviews
DENVER
9


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Community Workshops
The first Community Workshop was held at the beginning of the feasibility process to provide
context, education about the overall streetcar concept, and streetcar options available.
Feedback was sought from the community both on the concepts and potential routes. A
second workshop was held toward the end of the process to gain additional feedback on the
refined alignment options, assess the communitys willingness to pay, and to outline
preliminary findings and recommendations.
In addition to the formal meetings and presentations,
there were many informal telephone, e-mail, and in-
person discussions between project team members and
interested members of the public that helped inform the
process. Additionally, a website dedicated to the
feasibility study was active throughout the process and
included access to all presentations, notes from
meetings, contact information and information pertinent
to the study. Summaries of the taskforce, small group,
and community workshop meetings were prepared and
are included in Appendix A.
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
10


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 3: Survey of Streetcar Systems
The experiences and characteristics of streetcar systems throughout the U.S. were
evaluated in order to understand best practices and lessons learned. While there are at least
15 or 20 cities with some form of streetcar service in this country, the majority of those
systems are either heritage systems with long histories of service (including San Francisco,
New Orleans, and Philadelphia) or tourist-oriented systems that do not serve a traditional
day-to-day market (such as Denvers Platte Valley Trolley and systems in Kenosha, Wl, and
Lowell, MA). Only five cities have recent experience in streetcar construction and operations
that are comparable models for potential new systems:
Portland, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
Tacoma, Washington
Little Rock, Arkansas
Tampa, Florida
The next sections describe these five systems, followed by a table that summarizes key
construction and operating characteristics of those systems.
Portland Streetcar
The Portland streetcar opened its initial segment in July
2001 as a single-track counterclockwise loop from the
Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital in Northwest Portland to
Portland State University. This 4.8-track-mile system was
constructed for approximately $55 million (or $11.5 million
per track mile). The streetcar was seen as an option to
help redevelop downtown Portland and its surrounding
neighborhoods, and a way to connect the north and south
sides of town, which were previously bisected by a freeway
ramp. Working with a property owner/developer, the area
known as the Pearl District was rezoned from 15 units per
acre to 125 units per acre and was to include parks,
affordable housing, and demolition of the elevated freeway ramp (according to Value Capture
and Tax-Increment Financing Options for Streetcar Construction, The Brookings Institute, et
al., 2009.)
The original Portland Streetcar was a locally funded project with the capital funding coming
from the following sources:
Creation of a parking benefit district
A local improvement district
Tax increment financing
3'
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
11


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Additional extensions to the south waterfront redevelopment area added 4 track miles to the
system. Total construction cost for the system stands at $103 million, or $11.7 million per
mile. Total daily ridership is approximately 11,000. Its current annual operating cost is
approximately $5.5 million. The operating characteristics of the Portland Streetcar are
summarized in Table 1.
The ongoing operating expenses are funded through the local transit agency and the City of
Portland. The local transit agency (Tri-Met) pays for two-thirds and the City pays a third
raised out of sponsorships and other funding.
The Portland Streetcar Loop project will add another 3.3 miles to the system (6.7 track miles)
at a cost of $147 million (or $21.9 million per track mile). This extension will cross the
Willamette River and serve the Lloyd District to the east of downtown. Additional expansions
are proposed as part of the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan developed by the City
of Portland in 2009.
Portland uses a modern streetcar for its system. The system has 8.8 miles of track that loop
through downtown Portland connecting the South Waterfront District to the Pearl District and
Northwest Portland. There are 46 stops with connections to the MAX light rail system,
Portland Aerial Tram, and Tri-Met buses. The route is shown in Figure 2. The streetcar runs
with 12- to 15-minute headways from 5:30 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. Monday through Thursday,
5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday, 7:15 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. Saturday, and from 7:15 a.m. to
10:30 p.m. Sunday.
f t-
w
12

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 1: PORTLANDS STREETCAR SUMMARY
System length (track miles) 8.8 miles
System Cost $103 million
Cost per track mile $11.7 million
Annual O&M cost $5.5 million
Vehicle Skoda (Modern)
Size 66 long x 8 wide
Vehicle capacity** 170 (30 seats)
Ridership -11,000 per day
Right-of-way Mixed-flow
Operating rationale Local/limited stop
Station/stop spacing 3-4 blocks
Fare collection On-board (free in Fareless Square)
Owner/Operator Portland Streetcar Inc./Tri-Met
** "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of .5 square meters per person
c?
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
13


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 2: Portland Streetcar System Map
Source: www.portlandstreetcar.org
14

DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Seattle Streetcar
The Seattle South Lake Union streetcar was proposed for
the South Lake Union District by local developers after
seeing the successful development around the Portland
streetcar line. Property owners in the neighborhood
south of Lake Union wanted a way to increase the
potential for redevelopment of the industrial area into a
biosciences hub. Planning for the streetcar system
began in 2003, with financing approved in 2005 and
construction initiated in 2006. The streetcar system
began operation in December 2007. The streetcar line
connects downtown Seattle with the South Lake Union
District and the Denny Triangle area. The initial 1.3-mile
system (2.6 track miles) cost $52.1 million, or $20 million
per track mile. The system currently serves approximately 1,000 riders per day. Its current
annual operating cost is approximately $2.5 million. The operating characteristics of the
Seattle South Lake Union streetcar are summarized in Table 2.
In November 2008, voters in the Seattle area approved a second streetcar line (to the First
Hill and Capitol Hill neighborhoods) as part of a regional transportation measure. In
December 2008, the Seattle city council voted to create a multi-line streetcar network with
three additional extensions, although no specific funding was identified for those additional
lines.
The Seattle South Lake Union streetcar is funded through several sources. A local
improvement district (LID) was created to finance half of the capital costs. A surplus property
tax and federal and state grants were used to finance the other half of the capital costs.
Seattle uses a modern streetcar for its system from Westlake and 7th north to Fairview and
Campus Drive. There are 11 stops on the 2.6 track-mile route. At the southern end, the
streetcar connects with the monorail to Seattle Center and Link Light Rail. The system route
is shown in Figure 3. The streetcar operates with 15-minute headways from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Monday through Thursday, 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday, and Sunday from 10 a.m.
to 7 p.m.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 2: SEATTLE SOUTH LAI System length (track miles) 2.6 miles
System Cost $52.1 million
Cost per track mile $20 million
Annual O&M cost $2.5 million
Vehicle Skoda (Modern)
Size 66 long x 8 wide
Vehicle capacity** 170 (27 seats)
Ridership -1,000 per day
Right-of-way Mixed-flow
Operating rationale Local/limited stop
Station/stop spacing 2-3 blocks
Fare collection Honor system
Owner/Operator City of Seattle/King County Metro
** "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of .5 square meters per person
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 3: Seattle South Lake Union Streetcar Map
SOUTH LAKE UNION LINE
Source: www.seattlestreetcar.org
DENVER
17


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Tacoma Link
The Tacoma Link is a fare-free system that is called light
rail by its owner/operator (Sound Transit) but is actually a
modern streetcar system. The system was designed as a
downtown circulator to connect major activity and transit
centers in downtown Tacoma starting at the Tacoma
Dome (including the Sounder commuter rail system) and
ending at the Theatre District to the north. In addition to
being a connector, the system was designed to facilitate
economic development in the downtown and surrounding
area as well as reduce street and parking congestion.
The Tacoma system began operation in August 2003.
The 1.6-route-mile (2.4 track miles) system was constructed at a cost of $78.2 million, or
$32.6 million per track mile (primarily because the trackwork and related construction were
built to light rail standards), and currently carries approximately 3,000 riders per day. Its
annual operations cost is approximately $3 million. The operating characteristics of the
Tacoma Link are summarized in Table 3.
Sound Transit is considering a number of extensions of the system, including to SeaTac
Airport, as a result of the passage of a regional funding referendum in 2008.
The funding for the Tacoma Link was primarily from 1996 Sound Moves regional bus and rail
plan. This funded both capital and operations costs. The voters approved $3.9 billion,
included a 0.4% local sales tax and a 0.3% vehicle license tax.
Tacomas system operates from the Tacoma Dome Station to the Theatre District/South 9th
Street. There are five stations on the route. The southern end connects with Sounder
Commuter Rail at the Tacoma Dome Station, as well as with local and regional buses. The
route is shown in Figure 4. The streetcar runs with 10-minute headways from 5:20 a.m. to
10:10 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 10:10 p.m. Saturday, and Sunday from 10:10
a.m. to 6 p.m.
I
w
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
18


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 3: TACOMA LINK STREETCAR SUMMARY
System length (track miles) 2.4 miles
System Cost $78.2 million
Cost per track mile $32.6 million
Annual O&M cost $3 million
Vehicle Skoda (Modern)
Size 66 long x 8 wide
Vehicle capacity** 170 (30 seats)
Ridership -3,000 per day
Right-of-way Mixed-flow and dedicated
Operating rationale Local/limited stop
Station/stop spacing 1/4 mile
Fare collection Free
Owner/Operator Sound Transit
** "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of .5 square meters per person
y
c?
DENVER
ml MU* >* cm
19


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 4: Tacoma Link Streetcar Map
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Little Rock River Rail
The Little Rock River Rail streetcar system is a vintage
replica system that started with an initial 2.5-track-mile
system in November 2004, built at a cost of $20.5 million (or
$8.2 million per track mile). The system, built and operated
by the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA), provides
a link between the rapidly redeveloping River Market area in
downtown Little Rock, a new arena, and a redeveloping
residential and commercial area across the Arkansas River
in North Little Rock. A 1-mile, $7.5 million extension was
opened in 2007 to connect the River Market area with the
Clinton Presidential Library and the headquarters of Heifer
International. Total system cost is $28 million, or $8 million
per track mile. The system carries approximately 3,000 riders per day, and its annual
operating cost is approximately $800,000. The operating characteristics of the system are
summarized in Table 4. CATA is considering additional extensions for the system, including
one to Little Rock National Airport.
The Little Rock River Rail streetcar system was 80% funded by federal grants. This included
flex grants such as those provided for Livable Communities. Local funds were provided by
Pulaski County, Little Rock, and North Little Rock.
Little Rock system is 3.5 track miles with 14 stations. One loop in North Little Rock has five
stops, a loop in Little Rock has six stops, and an extension to Clinton Presidential Library and
Heifer International, which operates until 5:30 p.m., has three stops. Connections to the
CATA bus service can be made along the route. The route is shown in Figure 5. The
streetcar runs with 25-minute headways from 8:30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. Monday through
Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Thursday through Saturday, and Sunday from 11:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 4: LITTLE ROCK RIVEF RAIL STREETCAR SUMMARY
System length (track miles) 3.5 miles
System Cost $27.1 million
Cost per track mile $7.8 million
Annual O&M cost $708,000
Vehicle Gomaco replica Birney Trolley (Vintage Replica)
Size 49 long x 8 6 wide
Vehicle capacity 88 (44 seats)
Ridership -3,000 per day
Right-of-way Mixed-flow
Operating rationale Local/limited stop
Station/stop spacing 2-4 blocks
Fare collection On-board
Owner/Operator Central Arkansas Transit Authority
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 5: Little Rock River Rail Streetcar Map
n n 1 1 F Ob.Sl
i i > 1 E Sth Qt h-£j
lock 1 ' 1 C-ti
c Ath St
ii r ( j ft- tf>' {£ \
<0 0) c '£ OT c S- iiLj Hazel
z ArKai z >as Av i 2 M 2.
r~ mjii u < , II
Source: www.cat.org
DENVER
23


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
ft
Tampa Streetcar
The Tampa TECO Streetcar is a vintage replica streetcar
system that was initially promoted as a tourist and
residential connection to various destinations from south
of downtown Tampa to Channelside District and to the
historic Ybor City. It was not viewed as a transportation
investment. The 2.4-track-mile system was constructed
for $48.3 million ($20.1 million per mile) and began
operation in 2002. It connects to the Purple and Green
Lines of the HART In-Town Trolley to reach downtown
Tampa. The system carries approximately 1,000 riders
per day, and its annual operation cost is approximately
$2.4 million. It is managed by Tampa Historic Streetcar,
Inc., a nonprofit corporation created by an interlocal agreement between the City of Tampa
and HART to manage day-to-day operations and maintenance, though HART operates the
service. The operating characteristics of the TECO Streetcar are summarized in Table 5.

HART plans a 1/3-mile northern extension to the system in
2010 that will connect the more than 35,000 people who work
in the downtown area to almost every major downtown parking
structure with an anticipated operating date of December 2010
(http://www.tecolinestreetcar.org/about/history/index.htm).
The TECO Streetcar had 30 funding sources, which included
Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality [CMAQ] and New
Starts money, Tampa gas taxes, urbanized area funds, land
sales, State Intermodal funds, and various other resources.
Naming rights and station advertising were used to build an
endowment for operations. In addition, a tax district assesses
33 cents for every $1,000 in value for operations.
The Tampa vintage replica streetcar system is 2.4 track miles
long with 12 stations. The TECO line connects with the HART
Purple and Green Trolley lines at the Dick Greco Plaza
Transportation Center. The route map is shown in Figure 6.
The streetcar runs with 15-minute headways from 11:00 a.m.
to 10.00 p.m. Monday through Wednesday, 11:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Friday, 9:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Saturday, and Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m.
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
24


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLES: TAMPATECO STREETCAR SUMMARY
System length (track miles) 2.4 miles
System Cost $48.3 million
Cost per track mile $20.1 million
Annual O&M cost $2.4 million
Vehicle Gomaco replica Birney Trolley (Vintage Replica)
Size 46 long x 8 6 wide
Vehicle capacity 84 (44 seats)
Ridership -1,000 per day
Right-of-way Mixed-flow
Operating rationale Local/limited stop
Station/stop spacing 1/4 Mile
Fare collection On-board
Owner/Operator City of Tampa & Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART)
i' f
w
25

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 6: Tampa TECO Streetcar Map
In-Town Trolleys &
TECO Line Streetcar System
\
HIRibcroLftv Area R*gCr*l.Tran*fr Airthorrcy \
wwwgoHARXorg \
Fuvi for In-Town TVplloy and TECO Lkn Sbwltlr
In-Town Trolley TECO Lin* itmaecar
C*sFt Fare $25 SZ.SQ
Dfccoortt each Fir*1 $125
l-Day Local unlimited Rida Far*1 S175 SMO
t-Oiy Discount unlimited Hide Fare1,1 $LS5 $150
1 I 1 kWt JmMMi: SOrlw arfMfc) cutnr 4 anew itM ***} 1 2 t-Qpr IWiOrfm Uncuffl w wczwpmd en 11 M^tui rt SmuiL
Source: www.tecolinestreetcar.org
26

DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
KEY FINDING

V
Cost estimates for recent streetcar projects
indicated capital cost in the $15-20M range
per track mile.
J
Existing Streetcars Summary
Table 6 summarizes the major cost and operating
data of five peer city streetcar systems.
TABLE 6: SUf /IMARYOFSTREE .TCAR DATA
Portland Seattle Tacoma Little Rock Tampa
Year open/ext open 2001/2005 2007 2003 2004/2007 2003
Length (track miles) 8 miles 2.6 miles 2.4 miles 3.5 miles 2.4 miles
Capital cost $103 million $52.1 million $78.2 million $27.1 million $48.3 million
Cost per track mile $11.5/$14.83 million $20.1 million $32.6 million* $7.8 million $20.1 million
Annual O&M cost $5.5 million $2.5 million $3 million $708,000 $2.4 million
Annual fare revenue $200,000 $275,185 $0 $66,349 $607,423
Recovery ratio 3.6% 11.2% 0% 9.4% 25.3%
Annual passenger mile NA 378,200 871,778 249,052 862,224
Annual unlinked trips 4,000,000 413,300 860,349 154,644 562,320
Passenger trips/mile NA 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7
O&M cost/rider $1.38 $5.95 $3.46 $4.58 $4.27
Annual vehicle revenue mile 200,000 56,600 97,115 52,256 87,147
Trips/vehicle revenue mile 20.0 7.3 8.9 3.0 6.5
O&M cost/vehicle revenue mile $27.50 $43.46 $30.68 $13.56 $27.57
Annual vehicle revenue hours 36,000 11,500 10,060 11,866 17,985
Trips/vehicle revenue hour 111.1 35.9 85.5 13.0 31.3
O&M cost/vehicle revenue hour $152.78 $213.78 $296.21 $59.72 $133.58
Ridership ~11,000/day ~1,000/day ~3,000/day ~3,000/day ~1,000/day
"The Tacoma streetcar was constructed to light rail specifications, resulting in higher capital cost. Source: Street Smart, 2009 (Reconnecting America), Portland Streetcar, Inc., 2007 & 2008 National Transit Data Base (NTDB) data.
i't
w
27

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 4: Overview of Vehicle Options
The choice of a streetcar vehicle for a Denver system
represents one of the most important decisions the
community can make. The vehicles used in the system are
the most important element in the overall image of the
project, as they are the most visible element of the system
that the public will see and use. The vehicles used in this
system will serve not only as a mode of transportation for
residents and visitors of the area, but also as a community
amenity and asset that could conceivably attract
development and redevelopment and serve as an attraction
in its own right. Therefore, the performance of the chosen
vehicle will be vital to the overall success of the project.
Vehicle Criteria
Several characteristics and requirements affect the selection of a streetcar vehicle for a
potential Colfax system.
The vehicles must be able to adapt to the nature of the service desired by the
community. In other words, the local community should decide if it wants to focus on
commuter transportation, special events and weekend transit, connections to activity
centers, peak hour vs. off-peak service, and other sometimes competing operational
characteristics.
The vehicles must have the capacity to accommodate the needs of all potential
passengers, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, rider
comfort, and serve the needs of public transit service and special events.
The vehicles must be able to operate in the local environment of Denver, including
weather conditions, topography, and street geometry.
Performance criteria should include frequency of service, acceleration and
deceleration rates, operating speeds, and track geometry, while operating within a
given level of safety, comfort, and service reliability.
Other key issues to consider in the selection of a streetcar vehicle include:
The use of single-end vs. double-end equipment Single-end vehicles can only be
operated in one direction. Double-end vehicles can move in both directions but could
result in lower passenger capacity because an operators area will be on both ends.
The use of single-side vs. double-side vehicles Single-side vehicles (similar to most
buses, which open on the right side for curbside pickup) provide slightly higher
passenger capacity but are more limited in operational flexibility than double-side
vehicles, which can load and unload passengers from either side or center platforms.
DENVER
28


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
The use of single-unit vs. multiple-unit equipment As with light rail, most modern
streetcars could be operated in consists of two or more vehicles, providing more
passenger carrying capacity and limiting operational costs with one operator able to
control more than one vehicle at a time. Vintage restored or replica vehicles are
generally operated in single-unit configurations.
Turning radius and other geometric considerations Most vintage restored or replica
cars can negotiate a turning radius of approximately 50 feet, allowing right-lane-to-
right-lane turns around corners in most downtown areas. Modern streetcar vehicles
have a larger turning radius (usually 62 feet), which generally requires curb cuts or
other special designs to negotiate tight turns. Light rail vehicles typically have a
larger turning radius (usually >85 feet)
ADA compliance Compliance with ADA accessibility regulations is a requirement
regardless of the funding source of vehicles. Vintage restored or replica vehicles may
have construction and cost issues related to retrofitting to allow ADA accessibility.
High blocks (ramps or lifts on passenger platforms) can be used, although they could
affect passenger circulation and could result in high costs given the typical close
spacing of streetcar stops. Low-floor vehicles, such as most modern streetcars,
provide the greatest flexibility for ADA accessibility, although passenger platforms
must be built to accommodate low-floor boarding that is typically higher than a
standard curb height.
Fare collection systems Streetcars can include on-board equipment, such as that
found on many vintage restored or replica vehicles. However, on-board equipment
can cause maintenance issues and costs and can limit passenger capacity. Point-of-
purchase or honor systems (such as that used on many light rail systems) can
improve passenger flow and capacity on vehicles but are expensive items for many
systems.
Propulsion This is not normally an issue, although there are options. Most vehicles
used in urban streetcar systems today are powered by overhead electric lines,
typically at 600 to 750 volts DC. At least three systems in the nation are powered by
non-electric propulsion systems. Tourist streetcar operations in Denver (Platte Valley
Trolley) and Galveston, Texas use vehicles that are powered by diesel engines. A
recently restored tourist system in Savannah, Georgia, uses biodiesel fuel. Diesel-
powered vehicles do not require the construction of an overhead wire system,
resulting in some capital cost savings. However, diesel propulsion systems release
more pollutants (though biodiesel can mitigate pollutants, and diesel fuel and engines
have strict pollution standards), are noisier than electric-powered vehicles, have
relatively poor acceleration when compared to electric-powered vehicles, and diesel
fuel costs are more variable than electricity. Some companies worldwide are
experimenting with battery power, such as a new Kawasaki light rail vehicle that
combines on-board regenerative battery propulsion that can reportedly travel 6 miles
without connection to overhead catenary systems. This system is being tested in
Paris, although those cars do not include power-hungry air conditioning. Bordeaux,
France, uses an in-ground power system manufactured by Alstom. This system has
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
been reported to have substantial maintenance issues and costs and does not have
resistance to the weather extremes of Colorado. Bombardier is testing a magnetic
induction propulsion system in Europe as well, which would only power the segment
of track occupied by the vehicle. These technologies, while unproven and likely more
expensive than traditional electric power (at least in the near term), nevertheless
provide options to consider for new systems.
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Comparison of Streetcar to Buses and Light Rail
Table 7 lists the differences between streetcar, buses, and light rail.
TABLE 7 : STREETCAR, 3USES, LIGHT RAIL COMPAR ISON
Streetcar (Modern) Buses (Standard) Light Rail
Size 66 long x 8 wide 40 long x 8.5 wide 95 long x 8.5 wide
Power Overhead electric 650-750 Vdc Diesel Overhead electric 650-750 Vdc
Capacity (vehicle) 170 (30-40 seats)** 65 (40 seats) 166 (64 seats)
Typical capacity/hour (7.5 minute headways) 880 520 3,984 (3-car consists)
Lifespan 30 years 10-15 years 30-35 years
Cost per vehicle $2.9 million $400,000-$500,000 $3.8 million
Right-of-way Mixed-flow but can be semi- exclusive; standard gauge track Mixed-flow Semi-exclusive, exclusive, and mixed flow; standard gauge track
Geometry/curves 50 City streets >85
Operating rationale Local/limited stop Local/limited stop Limited stop/regional
Station/stop spacing 2-3 blocks to 1X mile 2-3 blocks 1X mile to 1 mile+ (can be less in an urban environment)
Speed City street speeds in an urban environment City street speed in an urban environment up to highway speeds City street speed in an urban environment up to 55 mph
Fare collection On board or honor system On board Honor system
** "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of .5 square meters per person
Streetcar Vehicle Options
There are generally three types of streetcar vehicles available for use in new systems in the
United States: vintage restored, vintage replica, and modern. In addition, light rail vehicles
similar to those already in use in the Denver area are included as an option for the Colfax
project. Each vehicle has several variations and options, which are described in this section.
Vintage Restored Vehicles
To maintain historical accuracy, some cities have chosen to
rebuild existing vehicles. Many streetcar systems have
acquired and restored trolleys that have been abandoned for
several years or that have been in storage by other systems.
Some cities have acquired several vintage Presidents
Conference Committee (PCC) cars. These types of vehicles
were developed in the 1930s through a joint effort of the
electric railway industry, whose leaders developed a
modern design that could compete with buses and autos
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
for public support. Approximately 5,000 PCC cars were
manufactured in the US between the 1930s and 1950s. PCC
cars typically are 50 feet long and have a distinctive
streamlined design. Most PCC cars were single-sided and
single-ended, requiring loops to reverse direction. PCC cars
were used in more than 20 cities around the country and
continue to be used in San Francisco, Boston, Kenosha, and
Philadelphia. Table 8 summarizes the basic characteristics of
vintage restored PCC vehicles.
TABLE 8: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTIC S OF VINTAGE RESTORED PCC CARS
Configuration Single-ended/single-sided
Boarding characteristics High-floor
Size 50 long x 8 5 wide
Vehicle capacity 60 (46 seats)
Cost per vehicle $500,000-$700,000 for restoration
Geometry/curve minimum radius 36
Speed Max 30 mph
Air-conditioned Yes (retrofitted)
ADA Accessible Yes (Retrofitted with onboard lift generally rear door)
Vintage Replica Vehicles
Vintage replica vehicles generally consist of new bodies
with an historic look mounted on rehabilitated running
gear. The replica cars are easily customized to meet
specific operating and aesthetic criteria, including ADA
access, heating, and air conditioning. The most common
replica vehicles have been manufactured by Gomaco for
Little Rock and Tampa. These cars can be air-conditioned
and are generally high-level cars, requiring on-board or
wayside lifts for ADA compliance. Table 9 summarizes
the major characteristics of vintage replica Gomaco
vehicles.
c?
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
32


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 9: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VINTAGE REPLICA STREETCARS
Configuration Double-ended/double-sided
Boarding characteristics High-floor
Size 46 1 long x 8 6 wide
Vehicle capacity 60 (48 seats)
Cost per vehicle $750,000-$1 Million
Geometry/curve minimum radius 50
Speed Max 30 mph
Air-conditioned Yes
ADA Accessible Yes (mini-high platform or on-board lifts)
Modern Streetcar Vehicles
Recent streetcar systems in Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma use modern streetcar vehicles
that are larger and longer than vintage restored or replica vehicles but are smaller than light
rail vehicles, although their appearance more closely resembles light rail vehicles. Generally,
they are approximately 65 feet long and are double-articulated to allow urban street
operations. Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma are using cars manufactured by Skoda in the
Czech Republic. The Skoda design is now being manufactured in the US by Oregon Iron
Works.
A recent addition to the modern streetcar fleet is a larger modern vehicle being manufactured
by Siemens, the S-70 ultrashort vehicle. It is approximately 80 feet long and is double-
articulated to accommodate urban street running, and can handle a passenger crush load of
approximately 160. This vehicle is planned for use in San Diego and Salt Lake City in the
near future. Table 10 summarizes the major characteristics of modern streetcar vehicles.
DENVER
33


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 10: TYPK DAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN STREETCARS
Inekon Skoda Siemens S70 Ultra Short
Configuration Double-ended/double-sided Double-ended/double-sided
Boarding characteristics Low-floor center section for wheelchairs, carriages, bikes and standees Low-floor center section for wheelchairs, carriages, bikes and standees
Size 66 long x 8 1 wide 79 long x 8.7 wide
Vehicle capacity 120 (30 seats) 160 (60 seats)
Cost per vehicle ~$3 Million ~$3.6 Million
Geometry/curve minimum radius 60 minimum turning radius 65 minimum turning radius
Speed Max 43 mph Max 66 mph
Air-conditioned Yes Yes
ADA Accessible Yes (level boarding, center doors) Yes (level boarding, center doors)
Light Rail Vehicles
One other potential vehicle for the Colfax Corridor is light rail, similar to the vehicles now
being used by the RTD system in the Denver metropolitan area. Light rail has the potential
for use in the corridor.
Light rail has a long history in the Denver metro area,
with the first line starting operations in 1994 between I-
25/Broadway and downtown. Subsequent extensions
were added to the Central Platte Valley and southwest
and southeast corridors. RTD has operations and
maintenance experience with light rail vehicles, and light
rail vehicles used in the Colfax corridor could be stored
and maintained at existing RTD facilities, eliminating the
need for a separate facility to serve vehicles operating in
the Colfax corridor.
Although light rail vehicles usually operate in exclusive or semi-exclusive guideways, some
systems operate light rail in limited mixed-traffic flow. For example, the Portland Interstate
MAX light rail line has limited mixed-traffic operations in the center of the roadway and
interactions with traffic, primarily at left-turn lanes. In addition, RTD is proposing to use
single light rail vehicles in mixed traffic in the Central Corridor Extension project. This project
would connect the existing light rail station at 30th and Downing with the new East Corridor
station at 38th and Blake.
DENVER
34


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 11: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES
Configuration Double-ended/double-sided
Boarding characteristics High-floor
Size 95 long x 8 5 wide
Vehicle capacity 166 (64 seats)
Cost per vehicle $3.8 Million
Geometry/curve minimum radius >85
Speed Up to 55 mph
Air-conditioned Yes
ADA Accessible Yes (high blocks or ramps)
Figure 7: Size Comparison of Typical Transit Vehicles
Standard Bus
(40 x 8.5)
Vintage Restored Streetcar
(50x 8.5)
II
Light Rail (95 x 8.5)
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Streetcar System Design Considerations
Stations and Stops
A streetcar systems stations or passenger loading areas are
the most-visible components of the system after the vehicles.
These facilities are the entrance or gateway to the system for
the rider, and will be an essential part of the urban fabric and
street environment through which the streetcar guideways and
vehicles pass. Therefore, they should be designed to fit the
character, scale, and style of the surrounding neighborhood.
Several issues are important when considering streetcar stop
locations and designs.
In a developed urban area, streetcar stops generally are
provided every two to three blocks in urban
environments, but can be farther apart in less
developed areas, much like traditional bus stops.
Where possible, stations should be located near or
adjacent to major cross-streets or major activity centers
and signalized intersections to facilitate streetcar
movements through those intersections after passenger
loading.
The passenger loading areas should always be on
tangent or straight tracks to facilitate ADA accessibility
and passenger safety when loading. Stops work best
when they are along traditional curb lines to avoid the
need for the guideway to curve to line up with a loading
area. As a result, passenger loading traditionally takes
place in an active travel lane, and is located on curb
extensions where parking may be on the street,
resulting in the loss of 2 to 3 parking spaces, depending
on the length of the platform. On-street parking at bus
stops in the Colfax corridor has been removed. If a
streetcar were to use existing stops, the impact on
parking may be less.
CCD relies on streets to carry a significant amount of
stormwater. Additional concrete for curb extensions
displaces some storm water capacity and may redirect
water undesireably.
The selection of
the vehicle influences the design of the station, both in
architectural style and size. At approximately 45 feet
long, a vintage restored or replica vehicle would have a
DENVER
36


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
smaller passenger platform than a modern vehicle that
is 65 feet or longer. Light rail vehicles would require
longer platforms.
ADA accessibility of the vehicle also influences station
design. Low-floor modern vehicles require a raised curb
for loading. Higher-floor vintage vehicles require
wayside ramps or lifts or on-board lifts for accessibility.
CCD curbs are generally 6. Low-floor modern vehicles
require minimum 8 curb. This change in curb height
can be accommodated with the stop curb extension
sloping to meet the existing sidewalk height.
Passenger loading areas should be designed to work
well with surrounding pedestrian traffic. Stations should
not interfere with normal pedestrian activity on the
adjacent sidewalk.
The design of the station can be as simple or complex
as budgetary resources and local preferences allow.
Passenger amenities can also and include items such
as:
o Shelter or canopies for passenger protection from
the elements
o Seating (if local bus stops provide seating,
streetcar stops would as well)
o Customer information, either printed schedule or
system information or electronic schedule
information, and information on the local
neighborhood
o Amenities such as trash cans, lighting, and bike
racks can be provided
o Other amenities, including advertising panels,
concessions, newspaper racks, pay telephones,
public art
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
As stated previously, stations should generally be located near major cross-street
intersections, preferably a signalized intersection to facilitate streetcar movement through the
intersection. Figures 8 through 10 show some of the possible
configurations for streetcar stops at intersections. Figure 8 shows a
stop example located at the far side of an intersection and Figure 9
shows a stop example located at a near side of an intersection. Both
of these examples show a bump-out in a parking lane to
accommodate the passenger loading area. The passenger loading
area or platform is scaled for a modern streetcar (approximately 65
feet long). This dimension would vary depending on the exact size of
the vehicle.
Figure 8: Streetcar Stop Example: Far Side of an Intersection Platform
70' VEHICLE^BERTHING ARE7L
Figure 9: Streetcar Stop Example: Near Side of an Intersection Platform
-BERTHING .AREA
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 10 shows a mid-block passenger stop. This type of station would serve a major mid-
block activity center or minimize conflicts at a nearby intersection. This example shows a
continuous curb line. This type of design could be integrated with a bulbout and parking as
well.
Figure 10: Streetcar Stop Example: Mid-block Platform

Center platforms could be used if a streetcar guideway was in
the center of a street. This configuration is used in some
instances, although it presents other issues that should be
considered. Center platforms generally require either the
removal of a center turn lane or other significant change to
existing traffic configurations, or additional right-of-way to
accommodate existing traffic lanes, which could result in
narrowing of lanes, sidewalks, curb lanes, or other radical
redesign of the street. Center platforms would work best in
lower-traffic areas such as the Portland South Waterfront area
as shown in the accompanying photos.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Integration with the Local Transportation Network
A streetcar system falls within a broad range of transportation options for a community to
consider. Figure 11 is a matrix that shows how streetcars fit into a variety of transportation
scenarios, ranging from local service at slow speeds to regional service at higher speeds.
£ is
= CO
o CO
(0 Li.
TJ


a.
V)
Figure 11: Streetcar Integration into Transportation Network
Figure 11 shows that
local buses and shuttles
provide slow operating
speeds focused almost
entirely on local service,
with some ability to
receive priority treatment
in mixed traffic. Bus rapid
transit (BRT) is a step up
in the realm of bus
service, able to operate
more of a regional service
with priority treatment
transitioning into semi-
exclusive or exclusive guideways as speeds increase. Light rail can operate at relatively
slow speeds in a localized urban environment in a semi-exclusive guideway, although its
speeds (and regional service ability) increase as it moves into a fully dedicated guideway.
Commuter rail (and in some cities, heavy rail) is focused almost entirely on regional service
in a fully dedicated guideway, usually in a railroad corridor.
Fully dedicated guideway 's Light rail Commuter rail
Partially dedicated guideway/priority treatment in mixed traffic Stre A i bus itcars ; tra rapid nsit
Priority treatment in mixed traffic
Mixed traffic
Local------------------------- Regional
Streetcars are able to span several service scenarios. They can provide relatively localized
service at slow speeds in mixed traffic, but they can also receive priority treatment for slightly
higher speeds and can operate in semi-exclusive or exclusive guideways in some areas to
provide even higher speeds, depending on station spacing. This flexibility is one of the
attractions of streetcar systems to many urban areas.
The flexibility of streetcar design and operations allow it to function within existing travel
lanes so that the streetcar vehicles share the right-of-way with autos, buses, and other
vehicles. This minimizes costs (since a separate guideway is usually not required) while
allowing maximum access to the system for the local community through frequent stops.
Figures 12 through 15 illustrate how streetcars operate in a mixed-flow environment using
streetcar guideways (and stops) in several street lane and parking configurations.
DENVER
40


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 12 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with three
travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center turn lane. This cross section does not
include parking.
DENVER
41

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 13 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel
lanes in each direction and parking on both sides of the street.
f t-
w
42

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 14 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel
lanes in each direction and parking on one side of the street.
DENVER
43

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Figure 15: Conceptual Cross Section with Streetcar #4
Fane
Figure 15 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel
lanes in each direction and no on-street parking.
f t-
w
44

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Systems
Most modern streetcar systems are powered by overhead electric
wires. Overhead electric power has a number of key characteristics
and issues that should be considered in the planning and design of a
streetcar system. Electric power for streetcars is generally 600 to 750
volts DC provided through overhead wires. Vehicles draw power from
the overhead contact wire with either a spring-loaded trolley pole that
straddles the wire, or a pantograph with a wide contact surface that
slides along the wire. Vintage restored or vintage replica cars
traditionally use a trolley pole; modern vehicles use pantographs.
Overhead wires are either single trolley wires hung from pole to pole
or a catenary that is a double wire that allows longer spans and more
efficient electrical power distribution. It may be possible to tie into
existing building facades or light poles.
Small substations for electrical power distribution will be needed at
intervals along the route, usually at half-mile or mile intervals.
Electrical grounding is required to complete the DC circuit and allow a
return current to a substation.
Signaling and communications systems are required to coordinate
vehicle movements. These can include train-to-wayside
communications (radios, in-street detection loops, or other means) that
are integrated with local traffic signalization systems and intelligent
transportation systems (ITS), and vehicle location systems, including
geographic positioning systems (GPS) that allow tracking of vehicle
movements and potentially a rider information system.
Fare collection systems can be on-board, which requires fareboxes
near the front doors. This is the usual practice for vintage cars.
Locating the fareboxes near the door of the vehicle can limit
passenger capacity and slow the boarding process.
Fare collection can also be conducted with advanced ticketing. This is
a proof-of-payment system with wayside ticketing similar to Denvers
light rail system. Under this system, riders purchase tickets before
boarding the vehicle. This allows them to enter through any door.
Roving fare inspectors can request tickets to ensure compliance.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Future Transit Service & Ridership
RTD used the 2035 DRCOG regional travel demand model
to forecast future transit ridership within the CSFS study
area both with and without a streetcar. The modeling results
include ridership forecasts for the four existing bus lines that
travel east/west through the study area (10, 15, 15L, 20) as
well as forecasts for two possible streetcar alignments.
Travel time comparison between bus and streetcar was not
included in this analysis. Figure 24 shows the modeled
routes and results for three scenarios.
The results shown in Figure 24 are unadjusted model
forecasts. The model is currently under predicting bus
ridership in the Colfax corridor. Table 21 provides observed and modeled boardings for the
2007 base year. The percent change between the 2007 and 2035 model results were used
to develop adjusted 2035 ridership forecasts for the four primary routes in the study area.
The results shown in Table 21 reflect a scenario without any streetcar service in the corridor.
The 2035 model includes planned bus service improvements as well as the FasTracks plan.
TABLE 21: 2035 t ADJUSTED M( DDEL RIDERSHIP F< DRECASTS
Route 2007 Observed Boardings 2007 Model Boardings 2035 Model Boardings (No Streetcar) Forecast Percent Change 2035 Adjusted Model Boardings (No Streetcar)
15 East Colfax 10,020 5,160 7,640 48% 14,840
15L East Colfax Limited 10,810 4,930 3,480 -29% 7,630
10 East 12th Avenue 3,360 2,700 5,780 114% 7,190
20-20th Avenue 3,250 2,450 7,020 187% 9,310
Total Bus Boardings 27,440 15,240 23,920 57% 38,970
Source: DRCOG Regional Model, RTD, Fehr& Peers Note: The percent change between the 2007 and 2035 model results were used to develop adjusted 2035 ridership forecasts for the four primary routes in the study area.

KEY FINDING
Existing and growing transit demand exceed
current and planned transit capacity.


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 5: Existing and Future Conditions
Population and Employment
Population and Household Characteristics
The CCD currently has approximately 587,900 residents in
254,900 households. By 2035, the CCD is expected to have
765,400 residents (an increase of 30%) in approximately
359,600 households. The study area currently has
approximately 35,500 residents in 22,300 households, with an
average of 1.6 persons per household. By 2035, the study area
is expected to have a population of 45,300 (an increase of 28%)
in 29,700 households. This yields an average household size of
1.5. The average household size in the study area is less than
two, indicating the presence of many single-person households.
In general, the household size in the study area is smaller than the average household size
of the region (2.5 in 2010 and 2.4 in 2035). Figure 16 shows population by block in and
around the study area.
Population in the study area is currently concentrated in the area south of Colfax Avenue
between Lincoln Street and Colorado Boulevard. The most intense new residential
development is expected in Downtown Denver, the 19th Avenue corridor between Broadway
and Downing Street, and the southeast quadrant of the Colfax Avenue and I-25 interchange,
as shown in Figure 17. Both today and in the future, the study area includes about 6% of the
CCD population.
People who live in low-income households and those households with no vehicles are more
likely to take transit. Low-income households are defined by the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) as those households in the lowest 11% income bracket of
households in the region. There are approximately 6,100 low-income households in the
Colfax study area, and this number is expected to rise to 8,600 by 2035. The study area
includes 12% of the CCD low income households in 6% of the overall population. The study
area currently has approximately 5,600 zero-car households, which is expected to increase
to 7,400 in 2035.
DENVER
47


Colfax streetcar feasibility study
JULY 2010
figure 16: study area population, 2000
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
0-25 people
26-50 people
51-100 people
101-500 people
_o
O
u
501- 1000 people
I
J study area boundary
2
1
\
0
1
+
+
2
3
+
4 5
H------------------------------1 miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2000 Census, feild survey
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 17: study area population growth 2000-2035
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
I 1-33-0% growth
l 11 -50% growth
l l 50-100% growth
1101-500% growth
1+501% growth
O
u
J study area boundary
2
h
0
+
2
+
3
+
4
+
5
4 miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2035 DRCOG TransCAD model
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Employment
Overall the Colfax study area has approximately 69,200 jobs,
increasing to 105,300 in 2035 (an increase of over 50%).
Figure 18 illustrates that employment in the study area is
largely concentrated on the west side of York Street, with the
highest concentrations in Downtown Denver. As shown in
Figure 19, between now and 2035 additional development is
expected in the Central Platte Valley, in Downtown Denver,
and in various locations in the study area east of Colorado
Boulevard. In general, the study area includes about 16% of
the City and County of Denver employment.
Population and Employment Densities
While the absolute number of population, households, and
employment is important, the density of development plays a
huge role in determining if an area can be a successful transit
corridor. The study area is approximately 4.63 square miles.
This yields a current study area population density of 7,667
people per square mile, which is forecast to increase to 9,784
people per square mile by 2035. Similarly, employment
density is expected to increase from its current value of
14,946 jobs per square mile to 22,743 jobs per square mile in
2035.
A summary of the population and employment characteristics within the study area is
provided in Table 12. In general, the study area population is twice as dense as the entire
City of Denver and contains a larger proportion of low income households than other areas.
The employment density within the study area is five times that of the City of Denver as a
whole.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 18: study area employment, 2004
o
u
0-50 employees
51-100 employees
0
101-500 employees
501-1500 employees
1
h
+
+
+
1501-3000 employees
2
-----1----------------
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
I 19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
J studyarea boundary
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
^ miles
Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2004 ES202 data from DRCOG and RTD
DENVER


Colfax streetcar feasibility study
JULY 2010
figure 19: study area employment growth 2004-2035
23rd avenue.
20th avenue
co I fax avenue,
13 th avenue
8th avenue-
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
-67-0% growth
I 11-50% growth
I 151-100% growth
1101-500% growth
f501% growth
O
u
J study area boundary
0
+
2
+
3
+
4
+
5
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2035 DRCOG TransCAD model
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 12: EXISTING & FUTURE STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHIC C HARACTERISTICS
Characteristic Existing (2010) Future (2035)
Study Area City of Denver Study Area City of Denver
Population 35,500 587,900 45,300 (28% increase) 765,400 (30% increase)
Population Density (per square mile) 7,667 3,803 9,784 (28% increase) 4,952 (30% increase)
Low Income Households 6,100 49,700 8,600 (41% increase) 69,500 (40% increase)
Low Income Household Density (per square mile) 1,317 322 1,857 (41% increase) 450 (40% increase)
Employment 69,200 424,600 105,300 (52% increase) 629,600 (48% increase)
Employment Density (per square mile) 14,946 2,747 22,743 (52% increase) 4,073 (48% increase)
Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), 2009
Land Use Key Activity Centers
Several significant activity centers generate travel along the Colfax Corridor and the greater
study area. They include schools, civic destinations, recreation, and entertainment
opportunities. These types of activities can be well served by access to streetcar to
accommodate commuters, students, tourists, shoppers, and visitors. The following summary
outlines key clusters of activities within these categories.
Education
Five educational campuses are in the corridor:
Auraria Higher Education Campus (at Colfax Avenue and Speer Boulevard) is home
to three institutions of higher education (University of Colorado at Denver, Community
College of Denver and Metropolitan State College) that collectively enroll
approximately 45,000 students. Faculty and other school workers increase the
overall number of people using the campus.
Emily Griffith Opportunity School (north of Colfax Avenue at Speer Boulevard) is part
of Denver Public Schools. Emily Griffith encompasses a high school and post-
secondary vocational institution and enrolls approximately 11,000 students.
East High School (at Colfax Avenue and York Street) is a four-year high school that
enrolls approximately 2,200 students.
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Johnson and Wales University (at Montview Boulevard and Quebec Street) is a
private university and enrolls approximately 1,500 students.
Denver School of the Arts (at Montview Boulevard and Quebec Street) is a middle
and high school and enrolls approximately 800 students.
Employment
The study area encompasses a significant portion of Downtown Denver. Overall employment
in Downtown Denver is approximately 110,000 workers.
Other significant employers in the study area include four hospitals:
Presbyterian/St. Lukes (at 19th Avenue between Franklin Street and High Street)
Exempla Saint Joseph and Kaiser (at 18th Avenue between Downing Street and
Franklin Street)
National Jewish Hospital (at Colfax Avenue and Colorado Boulevard)
Rose Hospital and the VA Hospital are adjacent to the study area (at 9th Avenue and
Colorado Boulevard)
Civic Destinations
Several civic destinations generate significant visitation that could be well served by
streetcar, including:
A.
ll*'
All of these destinations are located near
City and County of Denver Building
Webb Municipal Building
Denver Justice Center
State Capitol
State Justice Center
State Office Complex
Denver Art Museum
Denver Public Library
Colorado History Museum
Civic Center Park at Colfax Avenue and Broadway.
>
DENVER
54


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Parks and Recreational Amenities
Several of Denvers most prominent parks and amenities are in the study area.
Civic Center Park (at Broadway and Colfax) is home to numerous festivals, concerts,
and gatherings throughout the year.
Cheesman Park in the Capitol Hill Neighborhood (at 12th Avenue between Franklin
Street and High Street) provides open space for the dense residential neighborhoods
surrounding the park.
Congress Park, just outside of the study area (at 8th Avenue and York Street) is home
to recreational soccer and baseball leagues and a well-used outdoor swimming pool
in the summer months.
City Park (at 17th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard) holds a free summer concert
series and recently built an interactive fountain that attracts many people to cool off in
the water.
The Denver Zoo (in City Park) has 1.6 million visitors annually.
The Denver Museum of Nature and Science (in City Park) has 1.2 million visitors
annually.
Denver Botanic Gardens, immediately outside the study area (at 9th Avenue and York
Street), is one of the top-ranked botanical gardens in the US offering a variety of
classes and a popular summer concert series.
Entertainment
Several entertainment venues are in the corridor, including the
Fillmore, Ogden, and Bluebird Theaters which all host live music
events.
Shopping
Neighborhood shopping districts in the study area include
Capitol Hill, Uptown, Cheesman Park, Congress Park, and
Mayfair.
DENVER
r MUt >* tn
55


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Economic Development
Streetcar systems around the country have been built with several purposes in mind.
Systems have been built to serve the typical transit objectives of moving people and
improving transportation access. Systems have also been built with significant goals for
economic development, new housing, and downtown revitalization. Since a new streetcar
system along Colfax Avenue would represent a significant public investment for the Denver
region, an approach to measuring economic development potential is needed in order to
weigh the costs and benefits of implementing a system.
Definitively measuring the economic development potential from a streetcar is more easily
said than done, however. While evidence from other cities suggests that streetcars and
development go hand-in-hand, it is difficult to separate the impact from the streetcar on
development from other influences such as market conditions, locational strengths, public
subsidies, and other factors. A streetcar is usually one of several projects, actions, and
incentives that combine to make a corridor revitalization effort successful.
To evaluate the likelihood that a streetcar will catalyze development along Colfax, it is helpful
to explore the conditions for success that have led to successful revitalization elsewhere
and to study those factors along Colfax. If many or most of those conditions are already
present or could be applied to Colfax, then it is likely that a streetcar would be reinforced by
the desired land use investments if built. Conversely, if many of these conditions are missing
from Colfax, it can be expected that a streetcar alone would not achieve the desired
revitalization. The success factors seen in other cities generally fall into the following
categories:
Real estate opportunity: Development can be expected if real estate
conditions are positive. This can include factors such as the number of
recent projects (the market is there), population and employment growth,
positive demographics in surrounding neighborhoods (rising incomes, small
household sizes), and available land (development opportunity).
Public tools: The presence of public policies and tools can encourage
development alongside streetcars. These can include mixed-use zoning,
minimal parking requirements, public financing tools (such as tax increment
financing, tax credits), and an accelerated permitting process that speeds
up projects that meet policy goals.
Leadership: Strong leadership can help projects break through unforeseen
barriers that impede implementation. Champions should come from both
the public sector (city council) and the private sector (business
associations, media, and community groups).
Development opportunities: Significant new investment cannot occur
unless there are physical sites for new investments or redevelopment. This
can be measured by the presence of large, vacant sites under single
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
ownership, expressions of developer interest in the area, significant
underutilized sites (such as surface parking lots, single-story buildings),
and a track record of local developers experienced in building mixed-use
development.
Urban amenities: Finally, revitalization does not occur in a vacuum. Great
communities also require strong pedestrian environments (good sidewalks,
street trees, connectivity), a diverse range of retail and service uses, and
civic, cultural, and employment destinations.
In order to evaluate the opportunity for economic development, the conditions for success
along Colfax were compared to those in two other cities where streetcars have been planned
or built: Portland and Albuquerque. These cities were selected because they have both key
similarities and differences to Colfax and the availability of data makes for an easy
comparison. Portland is a similarly-sized city to Denver and has a streetcar system that is
already built. Albuquerque, while smaller than Denver, is planning a streetcar system on
Central Avenue, an urban corridor very similar to Colfax. Albuquerque voters recently
passed a sales tax that will partially fund the streetcar.
The analysis revealed that Colfax ranked relatively highly compared to Portland in several
areas such as a track record of recent development, leadership, and a good mix of origins
and destinations. Compared to Albuquerque, Colfax is the same or better in many areas
such as development opportunity sites, origins and destinations, developer interest, and
supportive demographics. However, compared to both cities, Colfax ranked moderately in
areas such as the size of development sites, parking regulations that encourage denser
development, and housing and employment growth. A summary of the comparison findings
is on the following pages.
Compared to the two other cities where significant planning for streetcars has already taken
place, the conditions for success along Colfax are relatively strong. This strength indicates
that the likelihood for economic development is high, since the preexisting conditions for
success are already present.
i't
w
57

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF STREETCAR ISSUES
Real Estate Findings
Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland
Household growth o
Employment growth
Prices/rents O
Demographics
Recent developments Q ft
Public Tools Findings
Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland
Zoning 0 ft
Parking regulations 0
Public finance ft
Leadership Findings
Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland
Champions ? ft
Neighborhood Support ?
Business Support ? ft
Identified in plans ft
Media Support ? 0 ft
Development Opportunities Findings
Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland
Property owner interest ? ft
Large, single ownerships o ft
Underutilized land ft
Knowledgeable, local developers ft
Urban Amenities Findings
Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland
Quality public realm 0
Walkable street grid ft
Local serving retail ft
Major destinations ft ft
Q =Weak0 = Moderate | ) = Strong ? = Additional Study Required
Note: Based on Leland Consulting Groups assesment of existing conditions
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Public Right-of-Way and Roadway Cross Sections and Elements
The study area for the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study extends roughly from 1-25 and
Colfax Avenue southwest of the Auraria campus to Syracuse Street, a distance of
approximately 6 miles. The northern boundary of the study area is 19th Avenue and the
southern boundary is 12th Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1.
Tables 14 and 15 summarize the cross-sections of the major roadways in the study area.
TABLE 4: GENERAL STRE ET CROSS SECTIONS A MD CHARACTERISTICS: COI .FAX AVENUE
From To Approximate width Lane configuration Comments
I-25 Speer Blvd. 80 3 travel lanes in each direction Median barrier on viaduct; left turn lanes in center added at Osage and east; no parking
Speer Blvd. 14th St. 80 3 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections No parking
14th St. Broadway 80 2 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Curves around Civic Center Plaza; no parking
Broadway Grant St. 65 3 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections No parking
Grant St. Logan St. 60 2 lanes each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Parking south side only
Logan St. Pearl St. 60 2 lanes each direction Parking both sides
Pearl St. Clarkson St. 60 2 lanes each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Parking north side
Clarkson St. Ogden St. 65 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking generally one side only (usually north)
Ogden St. Colorado Blvd. 65 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking both sides
Colorado Blvd. Syracuse St. 75 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking both sides
Source: Visual inspection and Google Earth
f t-
w
59

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TAB LE 15: GENERAL CHARA CTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IK THE STUDY AREA
Street From To Comments/Characteristics
19th Ave. Broadway Park/Ogden One-way eastbound; generally 50 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides; truncated at hospital at Ogden
18th Ave. Broadway York/Josephine (City Park) One-way westbound; generally 40 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on one side
17th Ave. Broadway York/Josephine (City Park) One-way eastbound; generally 50 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides
16th Ave. Broadway City Park Esplanade (East High School) Two-way, generally 35-40' ROW with 1 travel lane in each direction and parking and/or bicycle lane on both sides
14th Ave. Broadway Colorado Blvd. One-way eastbound; generally 35-40 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on one or both sides
14th Ave. Colorado Blvd. Syracuse St. One-way eastbound; generally 30 ROW with 2 travel lanes and parking on one side (generally the south side)
13th Ave. Broadway Grant St. One-way westbound; generally 55 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides
13th Ave. Grant St. Marion St. One-way westbound; generally 40-45 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking one side (usually north side)
13th Ave. Marion St. Syracuse St. One-way westbound; generally 30-40 ROW with 2 travel lanes and parking one side (usually north side)
12th Ave. Broadway Franklin (Cheesman Park) Generally 35-40ROW, two-way with 2 travel lanes, parking both sides
Source: Project team from visual inspection and Google Earth
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Major east/west streets through the study area are described below.
Colfax Avenue is the major east/west arterial through
central Denver. Colfax Avenue is designated as US
Highway 40 and, from Aurora through Lakewood, is the
longest continuous arterial street in the country. In the
study area the cross section includes two travel lanes in
each direction, parking generally on both sides, and either
a center two-way left turn lane or median.
13th Avenue is a one-way westbound arterial. The one-
way travel begins at the eastern edge of Denver at
Yosemite Street and ends at Kalamath Street. The street
has two travel lanes and on-street parking on the north
side of the roadway. The cross section changes to three
travel lanes and on-street parking on the north side just west of Marion Street.
14th Avenue is a one-way eastbound arterial from Kalamath Street to the eastern
edge of the City of Denver at Yosemite Street. The street has three travel lanes and
on-street parking on the south side. The cross section changes to two travel lanes
and on-street parking on the south side just east of Colorado Boulevard.
17th Avenue provides east/west connectivity from the Anschutz Medical Campus in
Aurora to downtown Denver. The cross section varies throughout the study area as
described below.
Broadway to York Street the roadway becomes a one-way eastbound street
with three travel lanes and parking on both sides. Westbound travel for this
section is provided by 18th Avenue with three travel lanes and on-street parking
on the north side of the street.
York Street to Colorado Boulevard the roadway is along the southern edge of
City Park with two travel lanes in each direction, parking on the south side of
the street, and a center left turn lane.
Colorado Boulevard to Monaco Parkway the road is typically referred to as
17th Avenue Parkway because the roadway has two travel lanes in each
direction separated by a 100-wide tree-lined median. A striped parking lane is
on each side of the roadway.
East of Monaco Parkway 17th Avenue has one lane in each direction and on-
street parking on both sides of the street.
DENVER
61


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Parking Availability (On- and Off-Street)
CCD is in the process of developing a Strategic Parking Plan.
The first phase of the project has been completed with a report.
The report shows that a section of the CSFS area was included
in the parking study as the Colfax Main Street district. The
Colfax Main Street district is bound on the north by 17th Avenue,
on the south by 13th Avenue, on the east by Jackson Street, and
on the west by York Street. The key findings about the Colfax
Main Street district from the Denver Strategic Parking Plan
Phase 1 Report are summarized below.
The Colfax Main Street district has 4,800 parking spaces 2,843 on-street and 1,957
off-street.
Approximately 20% of the on-street spaces in the district are time restricted or
metered, including those spaces on Colfax Avenue.
The blocks around the Bluebird Theater are in the Denver Residential Parking Permit
program.
Approximately 160 on-street spaces are reserved for East High School. Many of the
off-street spaces in the study area are related to the school.
Peak parking occupancy, as observed during the Phase 1 evaluation, occurred
around 9:00 PM on Friday during a concert at the Bluebird Theater. Parking was
49% occupied with 63% of on-street parking spaces occupied and 29% of off-street
parking spaces occupied.
Several of the residential blocks were fully occupied (>85%) during the Phase 1
survey.
It is noted that the residential rates generated for the Colfax Main Street district are higher
than those in the Cherry Creek North and University of Denver neighborhoods. This is
related to higher residential density in the Colfax Main Street area.
Other parking trends within the CSFS study area include:
Parking on Colfax Avenue is metered with 2 hour limits west of Elizabeth Street.
Parking is typically time restricted on segments of Colfax Avenue that are not
metered.
The CSFS study area includes several residential parking permit areas with streets
with parking permit restrictions including Capitol Hill, North Capitol Hill, City Park
West, Botanic Gardens, City Park, Hospital West, Hospital, and North East
neighborhoods.
DENVER
62


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
On streets with on-street parking, streetcar construction typically requires removal of
2-3 parking spaces for stop access. If existing bus stops in the CSFS study area
could be used for streetcar stops, the number of spaces removed would be reduced
as parking has already been removed for bus access. Parking impacts will need to
be studied in more detail during future study.
Utility Infrastructure
The location, redesign, service level, maintenance access, and modernization of utilities are
a significant cost of constructing a modern streetcar. In many settings utilities are a critical
opportunity and constraint. Typically, the construction of a streetcar requires an exhaustive
review of existing utilities during a preliminary design phase of the project. During this phase
utility designs are explored to identity several economic, land use, and sustainability
objectives. In many situations the exploration and preliminary
design of utilities presents a unique opportunity to improve
service delivery and modernize utility systems. Likewise, the
reconstruction or relocation of utilities can adequately size
utilities for adjacent redevelopment projects that need
modern infrastructure. Utilities also can constrain the
feasibility of a modern streetcar project if utility relocation
challenges are not cost effective. This is typically the case
when major structures, such as bridges, underpasses, and
retaining walls are required. There can also be unacceptable
lack of cost effectiveness if utilities in a particular alignment
have recently been constructed or upsized.
This study investigated a preliminary level of utility detail
within the right-of-way of Colfax Avenue and the major east
west streets in the study corridor. This preliminary utility
analysis provided the project team with a general
understanding of the presence of utilities. This investigation
is the first step in identifying opportunities and constraints
associated with reconstructing or relocating utilities during a
modern streetcar project.
The existing City and County of Denver GIS database was
used to determine general characteristics about traffic signal
equipment, lighting, natural gas lines, sanitation sewer lines,
storm sewer inlets, water lines, telecommunications chases,
electric conduits, utility upgrades and relocation master plans.
Based on this general assessment of the GIS database, it
appears that sewer lines and storm sewer lines are present
below segments of all of the east/west roadways in the CSFS
study area. The length of segments with sewer lines varies
as they do not run east/west on a continuous path through the
DENVER
63


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
length of the study area. Storm sewer inlets are typically located near the street
intersections.
A detailed evaluation of utilities and locations in specific street segments was not deemed
necessary at this feasibility study level and given the alignments identified by stakeholders,
workshop participants, and the project team.
If the project moves into the next level of evaluation or design, further investigation to
determine utility locations will be required. CCD staff, property owners, and previous
planning efforts in Colfax Avenue suggest utilities in the right-of-way have a wide range of
service life and some need reconsideration in the immediate future. The following are
specific issues to research if the project reaches a preliminary design or alternatives analysis
stage:
Do specific corridors have more utility impacts than others?
Are there opportunities to share costs of future improvements?
Are there opportunities to modernize and enlarge utilities?
Are there joint federal funding opportunities to modernize infrastructure?
Are there opportunities for innovative or demonstration utilities?
How do utility improvements interconnect with nonimproved sections?
Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity and Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
The 2007 American Community Survey suggested that approximately 1.6% of Denvers
population bicycles to work. CCD has a goal to increase commuter trips on bicycle to 10%
by 2018.
The primary bicycle route through the CSFS area is D-10 which runs along 12th Avenue and
through Cheesman Park. The bicycle route on 12th Avenue has signs throughout the study
area and includes sharrow pavement markings near Broadway and bike lanes between
Madison and Elizabeth. CCD Public Works Department has a commitment to assess bike
improvements with routine street maintenance so additional segments of 12th Avenue may be
striped as maintenance occurs.
Bicycle lanes are present on 16th Avenue from Broadway east to City Park Esplanade and
will be part of bike route D-8. This provides a route from East High School to downtown with
dedicated bicycle lanes. There are also numerous bicycle paths through City Park that
connect to bicycle route D-8 (east-west route along Montview Boulevard).
CCD conducted bicycle counts in 2001 during the morning peak hour on both 12th Avenue
and 16th Avenue. The counts on 12th Avenue (route D-10) were conducted at Sherman
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Street and Madison Street. There were approximately 30 peak-hour cyclists on 12th Avenue
at each location. The count from the 16th Avenue bicycle lanes was conducted at Emerson
Street. There were approximately 40 peak-hour cyclists on 16th Avenue.
Connections to north/south bicycle routes from the east/west bicycle routes described above
can be made at the following locations:
D-9 at Sherman/Logan (sharrows)
D-10 at Mariposa
D-11 through Cheesman Park at Franklin Street
D-13 at Adams Street
D-15 at Cherry Street
D-17 at Kearney Street
D-19 at Syracuse Street
Bicycle racks are provided in front of some of the businesses along Colfax Avenue, at East
High School, and in numerous locations downtown.
Pedestrian Facilities
The city completed a Pedestrian Master Plan in 2004. The Pedestrian Master Plan shows
that there is extensive sidewalk coverage within the CSFS area. Most of the study area
includes a mixture of attached and detached sidewalks while Colfax Avenue has attached
sidewalks. A few isolated blocks do not have sidewalks within the study area, including
much of the area east of Monaco Parkway.
The 2006 Colfax Avenue signal retiming traffic model included pedestrian crossing volumes
for all of the signalized intersections along Colfax Avenue from Broadway to Monaco
Parkway. The maximum number of pedestrians crossing Colfax Avenue in one crosswalk
was used to classify the intersections by level of pedestrian activity. The intersections with
20 or more peak-hour pedestrians crossing Colfax Avenue are shown in Table 16.
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 16: C OLFAX AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSI MG ACTIVITY
100+ Peak Flour 50-100 Peak Flour 20-50 Peak Flour
Pedestrian Crossings Pedestrian Crossings Pedestrian Crossings
Broadway Sherman Street Washington Street
Lincoln Street Grant Street Clarkson Street
Pennsylvania Street Logan Street Lafayette Street
Pearl Street Franklin Street/Park Avenue
Ogden Street High Street
Downing Street Race Street
Williams Street York Street Josephine Street Columbine Street Fillmore Street Adams Street Colorado Boulevard Glencoe Street Monaco Parkway
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service on Roadways and at Intersections
Existing Traffic Operations
CCD conducted a signal retiming project on Colfax Avenue in 2006. For that project a 2005
model was built with Synchro traffic analysis software. This model was used to determine
which intersections along Colfax Avenue are currently congested. The operations of
intersections are measured by Level of Service (LOS) A through F, with A representing free
flow conditions and F representing failure of an intersection due to high levels of congestion.
Table 17 summarizes the intersections along Colfax Avenue that are currently congested at
some point during the day (LOS E or F). In general, the congested intersections are at major
roadways and are shown on Figure 20.
TABLE 17: EXISTIN G CONGESTED COLFAX AVENUE INTE ersections
Intersection AM Peak Flour PM Peak Flour
LOS Delay (seconds/vehicle) LOS Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Colfax Ave / Broadway F > 100 B 16
Colfax Ave / Franklin St / Park Ave D 50 F > 100
Colfax Ave / Colorado Blvd D 45 E 65
Colfax Ave / Monaco Pkwy (SB) E 55 E 65
Colfax Ave / Monaco Pkwy (NB) F 90 F 80
Notes 1. Intersection LOS & Delay (seconds/vehicle) values represent the overall intersection average. Source: 2005 data from City & County of Denver, Fehr & Peers
In addition to looking at congested intersections, congested east/west roadway segments
were determined from the 2005 DRCOG regional travel demand model. Figure 18 shows
segments that are currently operating under congested conditions for three or more hours
during the day. A segment is considered congested if the hourly volume to capacity ratio is
greater than 0.95.
Future Traffic Operations
The 2035 DRCOG regional travel demand model was used to determine which additional
roadway segments would be congested in 2035. Figure 20 shows that in 2035 many
segments of Colfax Avenue, 17th Avenue, 13th Avenue, and 14th Avenue will operate with
congestion for three or more hours during the day. Further analysis of streetcar impacts on
traffic operations will need to be conducted during future study of specific alignments.
f t-
w
67

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Person Trip Analysis
Existing traffic and transit passenger counts were used to determine the number of people
currently traveling across a representative location in the study area. The person trip
analysis is based on the screenline concept. Automobile trips are typically counted at a
specific location with a tube laid across the street. Transit trips are typically counted with the
total boardings on a route. Using a screenline allows transit trips to be counted at a specific
location in a corridor rather than the entire route. This method compares automobile and
transit trips crossing a specific location instead of comparing transit ridership for the entire
corridor to automobile trips crossing a single location in the corridor.

KEY FINDING
Long range forecasts anticipate
30% growth in person trips by 2035
and no roadway widening is
planned in the corridor.
The daily east/west automobile and transit volumes in
the study area are summarized in Table 18. The
volumes shown are maximum volume in the study area
crossing a point just east of York Street.
DENVER

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 20: existing and future traffic conditions
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
O
u
28,000
2005 existing ADT
2035 projected ADT
congested intersection (2005)
2005 east/west congested routes
(+3 hours congested)
2035 east/west congested routes
(+3 hours congested)
0
+
1
+
2
+
4
+
5
^ miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 18: EXISTING DAILY EAST/WEST TRAVEL IN THE STL DY AREA (SCREE NLINE)
Corridor Automobiles Transit Load Total Person Volume Percent of Volume on Transit
Vehicles Persons Persons
Colfax Avenue 32,000 44,160 10,850 55,010 20%
13th/14th Avenue 29,000 40,020 2,370 42,390 6%
17th/18th Avenue 32,000 44,160 1,870 46,030 4%
Total 92,000 128,340 15,090 143,430 11%
Notes: 1. Colfax Avenue traffic volumes from 2008 CDOT counts 2. 13th/14th Avenue and 17th/18th Avenue traffic volumes from the City and County of Denver 3. Transit volumes represent the maximum daily load within the study area from RTD 2009 runboard reports 4. Analysis by Fehr & Peers
TABI _E 19: 2035 DAILY EAST/WEST TR AVEL IN THE STUD'i ( AREA (SCREENl JNE)
Corridor Automobiles Transit Total Person Volume Percent of Volume on Transit
Vehicles Persons Persons
Colfax Avenue 36,260 50,030 10,720 60,750 18%
13th/14th Avenue 36,640 50,560 4,250 54,810 8%
17th/18th Avenue 48,370 66,750 4,150 70,900 6%
Total 121,270 167,340 19,120 186,460 10%
Source: 2035 DRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model, RTD, Fehr & Peers
The DRCOG 2035 regional travel demand model was used to determine the future person
trips expected to occur in the study area. The results in Table 19 provide a baseline of the
anticipated travel as the model used for the analysis was a scenario without a streetcar in the
study area. The model includes the existing bus routes and the new transit corridors planned
as part of the FasTracks program.
The person trip analysis suggests that there is expected to be a 30% increase in east/west
automobile and transit travel in the study area by 2035. Colfax Avenue currently operates
near automobile and transit capacity. As a result, much of the forecasted growth is expected
to occur along the parallel streets.
f t-
w
70

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Transit Ridership and Service
Existing Transit Service
Although its status as a through highway has declined over time, Colfax Avenue is still a
major transportation route. The RTD bus routes on East Colfax Avenue (east of
Broadway/Lincoln) have the highest bus ridership for any revenue-generating, fixed-route
bus corridor in the RTD system. Route 15 Limited (15L) currently provides limited-stop
service weekdays between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., with 10-minute peak and
15-minute off-peak headways. Route 15 local (15) operates more frequently. Based on
RTDs ridership counts for 2009, the existing average daily ridership on the 15L bus route is
12,373 riders. The Route 15 has an average daily ridership of 10,225 riders for a total of
22,598 daily bus riders on Colfax Avenue. A peak of 18 buses serve the corridor daily on the
15L and 15 buses are used daily on the Route 15.
RTD routes 20 and 10 offer parallel east/west service
through the study area. Route 20 currently provides service
between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. between
Aurora and Denver West. Service continues from 7:00 p.m.
to midnight between Aurora and downtown Denver. The 20
maintains 20- to 30-minute headways throughout the day.
Route 10 provides service between Aurora and downtown
Denver from 5:15 a.m. to midnight. The 10 operates with 7-
minute headways during the peak periods and 15-minute
off-peak headways. Each of these routes carries
approximately 4,000 riders per day and requires a peak of
13 buses per day.
Existing Transit Ridership
The total daily ridership on routes that serve the study area is approximately 30,000 riders.
Figures 21 and 22 show the existing boarding patterns for the four major east/west transit
routes through the study area.
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 21: westbound existing transit boardings
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
route 20
route 15
route 15L
route 10
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
^blfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
>0-50 boardings
1
+
051-100
boardings o 101-200 boardings O 201-500 boardings ^ ^ 501+boardings
To serve transit demand effectively, a
minimum initial segment should connect
from Broadway to Colorado (3 miles, 6
track miles).
0
+
1
+
4
+
6th avenue
5
^ miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS, RTD
DENVER
3^


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 22: eastbound existing transit boardings
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
route 20
route 15
route 15L
route 10
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
>0-50 boardings
0 51-100 boardings Q 101-200 boardings 201-500 boardings O 501+ boardings
To serve transit demand effectively, a
minimum initial segment should connect
from Broadway to Colorado (3 miles, 6
track miles).
3
+
4
+
5
4 miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Source: Qty and County ofDenver 6/S/ RTD
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
DENVER
TMt M>4H (>1


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Existing transit boardings in the corridor are distributed along the routes. Passengers are
getting on and off the bus throughout the corridor. The routes do not exhibit a dumbbell
effect where the majority of passengers get on at one end of the route and off at the other
end. Rather, the routes are well utilized throughout the corridors. Table 20 summarizes the
daily transit boarding for these four routes.
TABLE 20: 2009 TOTAL D AILY ROUTE BOARDINGS
Route Eastbound Westbound Total
15 East Colfax 5,232 4,993 10,225
15L East Colfax Limited 6,409 5,964 12,373
10 East 12th Avenue 2,123 2,075 4,198
20-20th Avenue 2,017 1,991 4,008
Total 15,781 15,023 30,804
Source: RTD Service Planning
Ridership Characteristics
Characteristics of the population within the Colfax corridor were studied to determine what
types of transit riders reside in the study area. Detailed demographic data from the Metro
Denver Economic Development Corporation were used to classify the residents into five
types of transit riders. Each transit market segment is described below.
Transit Trippers Transit dependent, low-income households without vehicles
available, lower travel time sensitivity
Mellow Movers Low-income households (less than $25,000 annual income) with
access to a vehicle, lower travel time sensitivity
Blazers Over 65 years of age, medium travel time sensitivity
Young & Restless Students or employed with a middle income job, higher travel
time sensitivity
Movers & Shakers Households above the average median income (greater than
$50,000 annual income), higher travel time sensitivity
Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation defines the 2008 median household
income in the Metro Denver area as $60,344, which is higher than the national median
income of $51,233. For the CSFS study area, households with incomes higher than the
national median income were classified as Movers & Shakers because the median income in
the corridor is $38,125.
f t-
w
74

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
The breakdown of study area residents by transit market segment is shown in Figure 23. In
general, about 40% are Movers & Shakers, 20% are Transit Trippers, 20% are Young &
Restless, 10% are Mellow Movers, and 10% are Blazers.
Based on discussions with RTD service planning personnel, the transit dependent population
is currently being well served by the transit service provided along Colfax Avenue and
surrounding corridors. The demographic profiles provide information that can guide
decisions about additional transit service that should be considered in the study area. For
example, many of the residents within the study area are Movers & Shakers and Young &
Restless. These types of riders are typically very sensitive to travel time competitiveness.
The current RTD route 15 service provides minimal travel time competitiveness compared to
driving a motor vehicle. This is partly due to the current fare collection methods, bus pullouts,
and high floor vehicles. Each of these decreases the routes schedule adherence and overall
time competiveness. A modern streetcar could retain the same the schedule, but improve
schedule adherence through the use of off-board fare collection, curb extensions at stops,
and low floor vehicles.
f t-
w
75

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 23: transit market profiles
23rd avenue =
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
0
+
2
+
4
+
5
4 miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS, Metro Denver Economic Develompent Corporation Detailed Demographic Data (2009)
Demographic profiles based on research conducted by Cambridge Systematics and applied by Fehr & Peers in California markets


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Future Transit Service & Ridership
RTD used the 2035 DRCOG regional travel demand model
to forecast future transit ridership within the CSFS study
area both with and without a streetcar. The modeling results
include ridership forecasts for the four existing bus lines that
travel east/west through the study area (10, 15, 15L, 20) as
well as forecasts for two possible streetcar alignments.
Travel time comparison between bus and streetcar was not
included in this analysis. Figure 24 shows the modeled
routes and results for three scenarios.
The results shown in Figure 24 are unadjusted model
forecasts. The model is currently under predicting bus
ridership in the Colfax corridor. Table 21 provides observed and modeled boardings for the
2007 base year. The percent change between the 2007 and 2035 model results were used
to develop adjusted 2035 ridership forecasts for the four primary routes in the study area.
The results shown in Table 21 reflect a scenario without any streetcar service in the corridor.
The 2035 model includes planned bus service improvements as well as the FasTracks plan.
TABLE 21: 2035 t ADJUSTED M( DDEL RIDERSHIP F< DRECASTS
Route 2007 Observed Boardings 2007 Model Boardings 2035 Model Boardings (No Streetcar) Forecast Percent Change 2035 Adjusted Model Boardings (No Streetcar)
15 East Colfax 10,020 5,160 7,640 48% 14,840
15L East Colfax Limited 10,810 4,930 3,480 -29% 7,630
10 East 12th Avenue 3,360 2,700 5,780 114% 7,190
20-20th Avenue 3,250 2,450 7,020 187% 9,310
Total Bus Boardings 27,440 15,240 23,920 57% 38,970
Source: DRCOG Regional Model, RTD, Fehr& Peers Note: The percent change between the 2007 and 2035 model results were used to develop adjusted 2035 ridership forecasts for the four primary routes in the study area.

KEY FINDING
Existing and growing transit demand exceed
current and planned transit capacity.



FIGURE 24:2035 STUDY AREA DRCOG MODEL RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
Current Route 10,15,15L, & 20 Ridership
Streetcar Replaces Route 15 from Quebec to Auraria Campus
Streetcar Replaces Route 15 from Colorado to Broadway
DENVER
NOTE: Ridership forecasts are unadjusted 2035 DRCOG model results provided by RTD
toAXw; URS §9
u LXLXND CCftJSLLn.NCGlM.tr


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
The first scenario shown in Figure 24 provides a modeled forecast for ridership that would be
expected with the same level of transit service that exists today. The model predicts that the
four bus routes would carry approximately 23,900 riders per day. As shown in Table 21, this
appears to be under predicting the future transit ridership on these routes because current
ridership exceeds the forecast.
In the second scenario shown in Figure 24, route 15 is replaced by a streetcar from Auraria
Campus to Syracuse Street. Routes 10, 15L, and 20 are not changed. The results are
based on 7.5-minute headways for the streetcar which is consistent with the level of service
provided by route 15. The model predicts that the streetcar will carry approximately 38,500
passengers per day and about a third of those passengers would be existing bus riders. In
addition, the model was used to determine the difference between 7.5-minute and 15-minute
headways on the streetcar. The model predicts that reducing service to 15 minutes on the
streetcar would reduce the boardings by about half. Currently the Portland streetcar
operates at a peak frequency of 13 minutes. It is not known at this time if the frequency of
service (7.5 or 15 minute headways) or the transit mode (bus or streetcar) has a stronger
correlation to ridership. It is also unknown if improvements to the Colfax corridor through
transit signal priority would increase the demand for transit.
The third scenario shown in Figure 24 provides results for an alternative where streetcar
service is provided from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard on Colfax Avenue. For this
scenario, the 15 is replaced by a streetcar on that segment but still runs between Auraria
Campus and Civic Center and east of Colorado Boulevard. Routes 10, 15L, and 20 are not
changed. The model predicts that a streetcar from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard would
draw approximately 16,400 riders per day with approximately 50% of those being existing
bus riders.
Each of these scenarios projects ridership that would be much higher than current ridership
on peer streetcar systems (Table 6). A technical memorandum including the full modeling
results from RTD is provided in Appendix B.
r
-\
KEY FINDING
V.
Smaller trolleys are inefficient and costly
responses to the transit demand in the
study area.
J
79
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Preliminary Operations and Capital Cost Analysis
A preliminary operations and capital cost analysis was completed to determine how a
modern streetcar on Colfax Avenue, between Broadway and Syracuse, could compare to
current RTD route 15 operations, expanded RTD route 15 service using larger buses, and
Class 2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. The analysis utilizes data from RTD, the National
Transit Database, and peer streetcar systems.
Analysis Facts
The total one-way length of the RTD route 15 is approximately 13 miles. The
segment analyzed for this operations and capital analysis is approximately five miles
or 40% of the current RTD route 15 (Broadway to Syracuse).
The current RTD route 15 service between Broadway and Syracuse requires 11
vehicles (plus spares) to maintain an average peak frequency of 7.5 minutes and an
average off peak frequency of 15 minutes.
The current buses used on the RTD Route 15 are 40 Gillig buses that have a 10-year
service life. The buses are approximately 3-5 years into their service life.
Capital & Operations Cost Findings
The initial capital costs of a modern streetcar for the RTD route 15 between
Broadway and Syracuse could be approximately $175 million, $43 million for BRT,
and $12 million for higher frequency bus service with stop upgrades.
Service Level & Operations Costs Findings
The information provided below is for preliminary planning purposes. It is not
definitive in the role of transit signal priority and the change in travel time
competitiveness due to increased motor vehicle travel in the study area.
Enhancement of the existing bus
service on Colfax will require
substantial fleet investments, stop
improvements, and increased
frequency.
80
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
TABLE 22: R DUTE 15 MODE ANAL YSIS
Existing System6 Platoon 40 Foot Buses7 "Mixed Flow" BRT 8 Streetcar9
Total Vehicle Capacity1 50 100 120 170
Vehicle Cost $300,000 $300,000 $750,000 $3,000,000
Average Speed 10 10 10 10
Cost/Revenue Hour2 $95 $190 $95 $87
Weekdays/Year 254 254 254 254
Saturdays/Year 52 52 52 52
Sundays and Holidays/Year 59 59 59 59
Track Cost/Mile (no vehicles or maintenance facility) n/a n/a $5,000,000 $17,500,000
Maintenance Facility3 n/a n/a n/a
Stop Costs 4 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $500,000
Number of Stops 44 44 44 44
Max Service Vehicles 8 16 8 8
Daily Passenger Capacity 10,500 21,000 25,200 35,700
Total Capital Cost5 $150,000 $6,600,000 $36,000,000 $175,000,000
Annual O&M Cost $3,347,515 $6,695,030 $3,347,515 $3,066,035
Vehicle Recapitalization $2,700,000 $5,400,000 $6,750,000 $27,000,000
Recapitalization Schedule 10 10 10 30
$2,850,000 $12,000,000 $42,750,000 $175,000,000
Source: Fehr & Peers
(1) "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of 0.5 square meters/person
(2) Based on National transit data base 2009 RTD estimates for LRT and Bus operations
(3) Included in cost per track mile. Seattle maintenance facility was $4,000,000 for three vehicles on a parcel 60x300 foot with development rights
available above the facility.
(4) Planning cost based on estimates from peer systems. Stop costs include basic passenger amenities and required facilities for each mode. BRT
and Streetcar costs both assume off fare payment collection equipment.
(5) Includes all new costs such as stops, maintenance facility, and vehicles if required.
(6) Use existing 15 buses (50 crush) and buy similar type for platoon
(7) Replace 15 with Gillig 40 foot bus and 15L with Articulated
(8) Mixed Flow Bus Rapid Transit that operates in a travel lane with motor vehicles and has transit signal priority.
(9) Replace with United Streetcar T4
ir t
W
81

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Section 6: Preliminary Alignments
Process
To assess the feasibility of a streetcar in the study area, several alignments were considered.
Routing alignments were prepared with the assistance of the project management team,
stakeholders, City and County of Denver staff, and the public during open houses. The
routing alternatives respond to a wide range of transportation, economic, social, cultural and
historic conditions. The alignments are divided into two sections based on the unique
ridership patterns of existing RTD bus service, travel shed mobility plans from the Strategic
Transportation Plan, existing land use patterns, and future economic development
opportunities. There are 6 alignments that travel east of Civic Center Station toward the
eastern city of Denver limit and there are 9 alignments that travel west of Civic Center Station
into the Auraria campus, downtown Denver, and Denver Union Station. The east and west
alignments could interconnect at Civic Center
Station or be implemented in phases.
Alternatives East of Civic Center
The alignments east of Civic Center are
numbered 1-6 in this document. They are
described briefly below and shown in Figures
25-30 in the following pages.
Alternative #1 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard
with bi-directional service on Colfax.
Alternative #2 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Syracuse Avenue with
bi-directional service on Colfax.
Alternative #3 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard
with eastbound travel on Colfax and westbound service on 12th or 18th Avenue.
Alternative #4 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard
with eastbound travel on 17th Avenue and westbound travel on 18th Avenue.
Alternative #5 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard
with eastbound travel on 14th Avenue and westbound travel on 13th Avenue.
Alternative #6 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard
with bi-directional service on 16th Avenue between Civic Center and Franklin Street
and bi-directional service on Colfax between Franklin Street and Colorado Boulevard.

KEY FINDING
Alignments 1,2, 4, 5 are recommended for
continued study.
J,
i't
w
82

CO I MS
Is I R t t I C A *
DENVER


Colfax streetcar feasibility study
JULY 2010
figure 25: alternative 1
length: 6 track miles
cost estimate: $105 million
o
u
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
# recommended for continued study
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
D t NV_ER


Colfax streetcar Feasibility study
July 2010
figure 26: alternative 2
23rd avenue.
20th avenue
colfax avenue:
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue =
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12 th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
length: 10 track miles
cost estimate: $175 million
o
u
# recommended for continued study
^ miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Source: City and County of Denver GIS
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy


Colfax streetcar feasibility study
JULY 2010
figure 27: alternative 3
length: 10 track miles
cost estimate: $175 million
o
u
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
0
+
miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
de Nm


Colfax streetcar feasibility study
JULY 2010
figure 28: alternative 4
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
length: 6 track miles
cost estimate: $105 million
O
u
v recommended for continued study
0
+
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 29: alternative 5
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
length: 6.5 track miles
cost estimate: $113.75 million
O
u
recommended for continued study
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
DENVER


Colfax streetcar Feasibility study
July 2010
figure 30: alternative 6
23rd avenue -
20th avenue -
colfax avenue;
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue!
length: 6 track miles
cost estimate: $105 million
O
u
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Source: City and County of Denver GIS
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy

DENVER
TH .< MtH *it


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
Alternatives West of Civic Center
Alignments west of Civic Center are designated A-l in this document. They are described
briefly below and shown in Figures 31-39 in the following pages.
Alternative A Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and downtown Denver with
a loop along 15th and 17th Street.
Alternative B Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria following the
current 15 bus route through downtown.
Alternative C Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along 15th and
17th Streets.
Alternative D Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along with bi-
directional service along 15th Street.
Alternative E Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria with bi-
directional service along Colfax.
Alternative F Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along 18th and
19th Streets, following the proposed route for the circulator shuttle.
Alternative G Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS with bi-directional
service along the 16th Street mall.
Alternative H Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria along Colfax
and Speer.
Alternative I Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and the Pepsi Center along
Colfax and Speer.
r

KEY FINDING
V
Alignments B & E are recommended for
continued study.
89
DENVER


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 31: alternative A
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
length: 2.5 track miles
cost estimate: $43.75 million
o
u
H miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 32: alternative B
23rd avenue
20th avenue
colfax avenue
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
LO
rsi
CD
4-*
03
4-*
to
4*
c
%
£ =
11
ll
TO

Dc
o 8
_q=

a
V
o
03
c
c
o
73
c
03
(D ai
to to
o.E
Q_
a
at
O
c
o
73
03
E
>
_a;
o
_Q
O
"O
03
c
o
_oj
u
03
73
a;
x
,
_>N
o
>\
03
03
Q_
O
U
03
C
o
E
cu
cu
L_
+-
co
u
cu
-Q
a;
d
O"
a>
i/)
o
u
05

length: 4 track miles
cost estimate: $70 million
o
u
# recommended for continued study
-\ miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
Source: City and County of Denver GIS
D £ N VJE R


COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDY
JULY 2010
figure 33: alternative C
23rd avenue-
20th avenue -
colfax avenue;
13th avenue
8th avenue
6th avenue5
23rd avenue
montview boulevard
19th avenue
17th avenue
16th avenue
colfax avenue
14th avenue
13th avenue
12th avenue
11th avenue
6th avenue
length: 3 track miles
cost estimate: $52.5 million
O
u
\ miles
Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Source: City and County of Denver GIS
www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudy
*


Full Text

PAGE 1

Submitted by: Fehr & Peers 621 17th Street, Suite 2301 Denver, CO 80293 In Association With: URS Corporation P.U.M.A Leland Consulting Group COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY STUDYCity and County of Denver, Colorado Department of Public Works Final July 2010

PAGE 2

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 Acknowledgments Project Management Team Terry Ruiter, City and County of Denver Jennifer Hillhouse, City and County of Denver David Weaver, City and County of Denver Jeremy Klop, Fehr & Peers Carlos Hernandez, Fehr & Peers Brad Segal, PUMA Anna Jones, PUMA Tim Baldwin, URS Chris Zahas, Leland Consulting Group Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce Jeanne Robb, City Council Marcia Johnson, City Council Carla Madison, City Council Bo Martinez, Denver Office of Economic Development Tim Martinez, Denver Office of Economic Development Chad Fuller, Denver Department of Finance Ellen Ittelson, Denver Community Planning and Development Gideon Berger, Denver Community Planning and Development Brian Mitchell, Denver Public Works Crissy Fanganello, Denver Public Works George Gause, Denver Historic Preservation David Hollis, RTD Jessie Carter, RTD Stephanie Salazar, Colfax Business Improvement District Cmdr. Deborah Dilley, Denver Police Sophie Bloom, East High Student Shawne Ahlenius, The FAX Andy Baldyga, Colfax on the Hill Roger Armstrong, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods Leonard Austin, Colfax Business Improvement District Bill James, RTD Board member Bill Elfenbein, former RTD Board member Aylene McCallum, Downtown Denver Partnership Steve Hersey, Colorado Department of Transportation David Singer, Colorado Department of Transportation Jill Jennings, Auraria Higher Education Campus Dan Dahlberg, community representative Katherine Cornwell, community representative

PAGE 3

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY ........................................................................................................................... VRESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ................................................. VIISECTION 1: PURPOSE, NEED, AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... 1PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. ....................................... 1 GOALS AND OBJE CTIVES .......................................................................................................... ................................... 1 SECTION 2: PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 3CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 3 PREVIOUS PLANS AND POLICY CONTEXT ............................................................................................. .................. 5 PUBLIC PROCESS ................................................................................................................ ............................................ 8 SECTION 3: SURVEY OF STREETCAR SY STEMS ............................................................................. 11SECTION 4: OVERVIEW OF VEHICLE OPTIONS .............................................................................. 28STREETCAR SYSTEM DESI GN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ ........ 35SECTION 5: EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 47POPULATION AND EMPLOYME NT ..................................................................................................... ...................... 47 LAND USE KEY ACTI VITY CE NTERS ............................................................................................... ..................... 53 ECONOMIC DEV ELOPMEN T........................................................................................................... ............................ 56 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND R OADWAY CROSS SECTIONS AND ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... ............................................... 59 PARKING AVAILABILITY (ONAND OFFSTREET) ..................................................................................... .......... 62 UTILITY INFRAS TRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ .............................. 63 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTI VITY AND FACI LITIES ................................................................................ ... 64 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ON ROADWAYS AND AT IN TERSECTIONS ....................... 67 PERSON TRIP ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... ................................... 68 TRANSIT RIDERSHI P AND SERVICE ................................................................................................. ........................ 70 PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS AND CA PITAL COST ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 79 SECTION 6: PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS ........................................................................................ 83PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 83 ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER ............................................................................................. .................. 83 ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER ............................................................................................. ................. 90SECTION 7: PRELIMINARY SCREENING ......................................................................................... 100EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... ................................ 100 ANALYSIS OF A LTERNATIV ES ...................................................................................................... .......................... 102SECTION 8: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 113KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. .......................................... 113 PREFERRED A LTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ ........................... 114 PRELIMINARY IMPLEMEN TATION STRATEGIES ......................................................................................... ....... 114 SECTION 9: FUTURE EVALUATION CRI TERIA FOR STREETCAR ROUTES .......................... 118APPENDIX A: ASKFORCE MEETING NOTES ...................................................................................... AAPPENDIX B: COLFAX STREECAR MODELING ................................................................................ B

PAGE 4

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: PORTLAND STREET CAR SUMMA RY .................................................................................................. ........... 13 TABLE 2: SEATTLE SOUTH LAKE UNION STREETCAR SUMMARY .......................................................................... 16 TABLE 3: TACOMA LINK STREETCAR SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ........ 19 TABLE 4: LITTLE ROCK RIVER RAIL STREETCAR SUMMARY .................................................................................. 22 TABLE 5: TAMPA TECO STREETCAR SUMMARY ................................................................................................ ......... 25 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF STREETCAR DATA ................................................................................................................. 27 TABLE 7 : STREETCAR, BUSES, LI GHT RAIL COMPARISON .................................................................................... ... 31 TABLE 8: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VI NTAGE RESTORED PCC CARS ........................................................ 32 TABLE 9: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VINTAGE REPLICA STREETCARS ...................................................... 33 TABLE 10: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN STREETCARS ...................................................................... 34 TABLE 11: TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES ....................................................................... 35 TABLE 12: EXISTING & FUTURE STUDY AREA DE MOGRAPHIC CHARAC TERISTICS .......................................... 53 TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF STREETCAR ISSUES .............................................................................................. .......... 58 TABLE 14: GENERAL STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS: COLFAX AV ENUE......................... 59 TABLE 15: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF R OADWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................... 60 TABLE 16: COLFAX AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AC TIVITY ........................................................................... 66 TABLE 17: EXISTING CONGESTED COLFAX AVENUE INTERSE CTIONS ................................................................. 67 TABLE 18: EXISTING DAILY EAST/WEST TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLI NE) ................................... 70 TABLE 19: 2035 DAILY EAST/WEST TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLI NE).............................................. 70 TABLE 20: 2009 TOTAL DAILY ROUTE BOARDINGS ............................................................................................ ........ 74 TABLE 21: 2035 ADJUSTED MODEL RI DERSHIP FORECASTS ..................................................................................... 77 TABLE 22: ROUTE 15 MODE ANALYS IS ...................................................................................................... .................... 81 TABLE 23: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER E NHANCE MOBILI TY .................... 102 TABLE 24: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEV ELOPMEN T........................................................................................................... .................................. 103 TABLE 25: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPO RTA TION OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 104 TABLE 26: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER AFFORDABILITY AND IMPLEMENTA BILITY .............................................................................................................. ........................................... 105 TABLE 27: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER OVERALL SUMMARY TALLY ..... 106 TABLE 28: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER E NHANCE MOBILI TY ................... 107 TABLE 29: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER ENHANCE AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEV ELOPMEN T........................................................................................................... .................................. 108 TABLE 30: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER EVALUATION IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ............................................................................................ ................... 109 TABLE 31: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CI VIC CENTER EVALUATION AFFORDABILITY AND IMPLEMENTA BILITY .......................................................................................................... ..................................... 110 TABLE 32: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CI VIC CENTER EVALUATION OVERALL SUMMARY TALLY ......................................................................................................................... .......................................................... 111

PAGE 5

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 iv LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: COLFAX STREETCAR FEASIBILITY ST UDY AREA ..................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2: PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM MAP ............................................................................................... ........ 14 FIGURE 3: SEATTLE SOUTH LAKE UNION STREETCAR MAP .................................................................................... 1 7 FIGURE 4: TACOMA LINK STREETCAR MAP ................................................................................................... .............. 20 FIGURE 5: LITTLE ROCK RIVER RAIL STREETCAR MAP ........................................................................................ .... 23 FIGURE 6: TAMPA TECO STREETCAR MAP .................................................................................................... ............... 26 FIGURE 7: SIZE COMPARISON OF TYPI CAL TRANSIT VEHICLES ............................................................................. 35 FIGURE 8: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: FAR SIDE OF AN INTERSECTION PLATFORM ..................................... 38 FIGURE 9: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: NEAR SI DE OF AN INTERSECTION PLATFORM ................................. 38 FIGURE 10: STREETCAR STOP EXAMPLE: MID-BLOCK PLATFORM ....................................................................... 39 FIGURE 11: STREETCAR INTEGRATION INTO TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ...................................................... 40 FIGURE 12: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETC AR #1 .......................................................................... 41 FIGURE 13: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETC AR #2 .......................................................................... 42 FIGURE 14: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETC AR #3 .......................................................................... 43 FIGURE 15: CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION WITH STREETC AR #4 .......................................................................... 44 FIGURE 16: STUDY AREA PO PULATI ON ......................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 17: STUDY AREA POPU LATION GR OWTH ................................................................................................ ...... 49 FIGURE 18: STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT ....................................................................................................... ............... 51 FIGURE 19: STUDY AREA EMPL OYMENT GR OWTH ................................................................................................ .... 52 FIGURE 20: EXISTING & FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITION S ........................................................................................ .. 69 FIGURE 21: WESTBOUND EXISTING TR ANSIT BOAR DINGS ...................................................................................... 7 2 FIGURE 22: EASTBOUND EXISTING TRANSIT BOARDINGS ....................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 23: TRANSIT MARKET PROFILES ..................................................................................................... ................. 76 FIGURE 24: 2035 STUDY AREA DRCOG MOD EL RIDERSHIP FO RECAST S ............................................................... 78 FIGURE 25: ALTERNATIVE #1 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 83 FIGURE 26: ALTERNA TIVE #2 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 84 FIGURE 27: ALTERNATIVE #3 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 85 FIGURE 28: ALTERNATIVE #4 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 86 FIGURE 29: ALTERNATIVE #5 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 87 FIGURE 30: ALTERNATIVE #6 .............................................................................................................. ............................. 88 FIGURE 31: ALTERNATIVE A ............................................................................................................... ............................. 90 FIGURE 32: ALTERNATIVE B ............................................................................................................... ............................. 91 FIGURE 33: ALTERNATIVE C ............................................................................................................... ............................. 92 FIGURE 34: ALTERNATIVE D ............................................................................................................... ............................. 93 FIGURE 35: ALTERNATIVE E ............................................................................................................... .............................. 94 FIGURE 36: ALTERNATIVE F ............................................................................................................... .............................. 95 FIGURE 37: ALTERNATIVE G ............................................................................................................... ............................. 96 FIGURE 38: ALTERNATIVE H ............................................................................................................... ............................. 97 FIGURE 39: ALTERNATIVE I ............................................................................................................... ............................... 98 FIGURE 40: CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES OF PEER STREETCAR SYSTEM S ........................................................ 114 FIGURE 41: RESULTS OF INFORMAL SU RVEY OF PUBLIC MEETING A TTENDEES, 18 MA RCH 2010 .............. 115 FIGURE 42: FEDERAL FUNDI NG PROC ESS ..................................................................................................... .............. 116

PAGE 6

C E C olfax St r E xecutive T h a n C o m o al s th e D e in c e n R e in c o v e n T h b r C o th r th a b th e o u T h e v 2 0 ei t r eetcar Fe a Summar y h e City and n d economi c o rridor. Sta k o bility and e s o support t e East Colf a e nve r (200 6 c lude enha n n hancing ec o e cent CCD c rease the v erall effici e n courage su s h e public in v r oad range o o lfax corrid o r oughout th e inks a mod b out feasibil i e formation u treach, and h e experie n v aluated in o 0 cities with s t her heritag e a sibility S t y County of D c feasibility f k eholders in e conomic in v t he broader a x Corridor 6 ), and Blu e n cing mobili t o nomic dev e land use a person tri p e ncy of the s tainable la n v olvement s t o f interests a o r stakehol d e study are a ern streetc a i ty were rev and partici community n ces and c o rder to und s ome form o e systems w t udy D enver (CC D f or develop m the Colfax c v estment be n CCD policy Plan (2004 e print Den v t y, improvin g e lopment. Th e m o tra n op e de v de v for tra n we Th e (C S on A v e a nd transp o p capacity network, i m n d develop m t rategy for t a long the co d ers, appro p a The outr e a r would af f iewed and t pation of a wide outre a c haracteristi c erstand be s o f streetcar s w ith long hist v D ) Departm e m ent of a m c orridor ha v n efits. If th e objectives f ), the Strat e v e r (2002). g sustainabl e e primary p o dern street c n sit ridershi p e rations, ad j v elopment. v elop criteri a streetca r n sportation igh the meri e study are a S FS) was b o the east b e nue, and o o rtation pla n of its trans p m prove air m ent pattern s he CSFS i n rridor. The p riate elect e e ach proces s f ect the cor t ested. Spe c Streetcar T a ch. c s of stre e s t practices a s ervice in th ories of ser v e nt of Publi c m odern stre e v e suggeste d e se outcom e f or transpor t e gic Transp o Communit y e transport a p urpose of c ar in the C p reliance o j acent prop e A second a a that can b r impleme corridors. ts of other t r a for the C o o unded on t b y Syracus e n the north b n s have fo c p ortation n e quality, re d s in Denver. n cluded a m u primary obj e e d officials, a s gathered i ridor, and s c ific steps o T askforce, i n e tcar syste m a nd lesson s is country, t h v ice (includi n c Works as s e tca r line o n d a modern s e s could be a t ation and l a o rtation Pla n y goals for a tion option s this study i C olfax corri o n private a u e rty values, a ry purpos e b e used to e ntation in The study w r ansit techn o o lfax Street c t he west b y e Street, o n b y 19th A ve n c used atten t e twork in o r d uce energ y u lti-layered e ctive was t a nd other i n nformation a s hared infor f the outre a n dividual o u m s through s learned. W h e majority o n g San Fra n J u s essed the n the Colfa x s treetcar w o a chieved, th a nd use de s n (2008), G the Colfax s and prom o s to identif y dor would u tomobile tri p and new e e of this st u valuate the Denver s w as not int e o logies or lo c ar Feasibil y Interstate 2 n the sout h n ue. t ion on the r der to incr e y consump t approach t o t o engage t h n terested in a bout how t h mation wh e a ch process u treach, sm a out the U W hile there a o f those sy s n cisco, New u ly 2010 technical x Avenue o uld have ey would s cribed in reenprint corridor o ting and y how a influence p s, traffic e conomic u dy is to potential s other e nded to cations. ity Study 2 5 (I-25), h by 12th need to e ase the t ion, and o reach a h e public, dividuals h e public e n claims included a ll group S. were a re 15 to s tems are Orleans,

PAGE 7

C C olfax St r T h p r o p T h r eetcar Fe a h e alignme n r omote and p tions. The h is evaluati o a sibility S t n ts were ev a enhance alternative s o n resulted i n t udy a n s e Pl a n e x a r P o W T h T h r e c o a r th s y u s tr a al s d e at th th E x a n in c a c c h a n tr a d a c r st b o o f a r T h d e Au a luated to u economic d s were eval u n several of vi n d Philadel p e rve a tradi t atte Valley T n d Lowell, M x perience i n r e compara o rtland, O W ashington; h e report de h e choice o e presents o o mmunity c a r e the most e project, a y stem that t s ed in this a nsportatio n s o as a co m e velopment traction in i t e chosen v e e project. x isting data n alyzed for a c luding po p c tivity cen t h aracteristic s n d pedestri a a nsit riders h a ta, along w r eate potent i udy area. o th east an d f Civic Cent e r ea includin g h e alignme n e stinations u raria High e u nderstand d evelopmen u ated on th e the alternati p hia) or tou r t ional day-t o T rolley and s M assachuse t n streetcar c ble model s regon; S e Little Rock, scribes the s o f a streetc a ne of the a n make. T important e a s they are t he public w system will n for reside n m munity am e and rede v t s own right e hicle will b and proje c a variety of p ulation an d t ers, econ s and parki a n facilities, t h ip, and pre w ith input f i al alternati v Alternative s d west of Ci v e r serve a v a g schools, n ts west of such as D e r Education their relativ e t, and pro v e ir relative i ves being r e r ist-oriented o -day mark e s ystems in K t ts). Only fi v c onstruction s for poten t e attle, Wa s Arkansas; a s e five syste m a r vehicle f o most imp o T he vehicle s e lement in t h the most vi w ill see and serve not n ts and visi t e nity and as v elopment Therefore e vital to th c tions of fu t characterist d employ m omic dev e ng, utility i n t raffic volu m liminary co s f rom the p u v e alignmen t s were gen e v ic Center. a riety of des shopping a Civic Cen t D enver Uni o Campus. e capacity t v ide sustai n mplementat e commende J u systems th a e t (such as K enosha, W v e cities ha v and operat t ial new s y s hington; a nd Tampa m s. o r a Denve o rtant decis s used in th e h e overall i m sible eleme use. The only as a t ors of the a set that cou and serve the perfor m e overall s u t ure conditi o ics in the st m ent, land u e lopment, n frastructur e m es and per s s t estimates u blic, were t s for street c e rated for s The alignm e tinations in t reas, and h t er serve d o n Station t o enhance n able tran s ion and aff o d for furthe r u ly 2010 a t do not Denvers W isconsin, v e recent ions that y stems Tacoma, Florida. r system ions the e system m age of nt of the vehicles mode of a rea, but ld attract as an m ance of u ccess of o ns were udy area u se and roadway e bicycle s on trips, These used to c ar in the s egments e nts east t he study h ospitals. owntown and the mobility, s portation o rdability. r study.

PAGE 8

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 vii RESULTS The Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study has produced the following findings: Streetcar service in the Colfax corridor is feasible. Long range forecasts anticipate 30% growth in person trips by 2035 and no roadway widening is planned in the corridor. Existing and growing transit demand exceed current and planned transit capacity. Smaller trolleys would provide inefficient, expensive, and inadequate response to the transit demand. Enhancement of the existing bus service will require substantial fleet investment, stop improvements, and increased frequency. Modern streetcar becomes cost effective relative to buses in the long term (approximately 30 years). Cost estimates for recent streetcar projects indicated capital costs in the $15-20 million range per track mile (single track laid over 1 mile), with double-track systems estimated at twice that cost per mile. Initial route screening suggests that to serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment should connect from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard (3 miles, 6 track miles). o Four Colfax routes are recommended for further study. o Two downtown routes providing connection to Auraria Campus are recommended for further study. Maintenance facility location(s) will need to be identified. Informal survey results from the Ma rch 18, 2010 community meeting indicate a majority of attendees would be willing to contribute financially to the project. Funding has not been identified or programmed for further study or project definition. The Colfax corridor is projected to have much higher ridership than streetcar systems in other cities that have received federal funding. In addition, the study identifies criteria for CCD and the community to weigh other proposed streetcar alignments in the City.

PAGE 9

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 1 Section 1: Purpose, Need, and Objectives PURPOSE AND NEED The City and County of Denver (CCD) assessed the technical and economic feasibility for development of a modern streetcar line on the Colfax Avenue Corridor. The Colfax corridor currently functions as a productive transit corridor and has experienced redevelopment and reinvestment in recent years. Stakeholders in the Colfax corridor have suggested a modern streetcar would have mobility and economic investment benefits. If these benefits could be achieved, they would also support broader CCD policy objectives for transportation and land use described in the East Colfax Corridor Plan (2004), the Strategic Transportation Plan (2008), Greenprint Denver (2006), and Blueprint Denver (2002). The goals for the study area include enhancing mobility, improving sustainable transportation options, and promoting and enhancing economic development. The primary purpose of this study is to identify how a modern streetcar in the Colfax corridor would affect transit ridership, types of transit riders, reliance on private automobile trips, traffic operations, adjacent property values, and new economic interest. A secondary purpose of this study is to develop criteria that can be used to evaluate the potential for streetcar implementation in Denvers other transportation corridors. The study does not weight the merits of other transit technologies or locations. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL: Enhance mobility in the corridor by: Providing additional transportation capacity to accommodate the projected 20% increase in person trips in the corridor by 2030 Providing additional multi-modal transportation capacity above and beyond the need projected by 2030 Encouraging an increase in choice transit riders while continuing to serve the needs of transit-dependent riders Providing increased linkages to other transportation modes and corridors both Downtown and along the corridor GOAL: Improve sustainable transportation options by: Providing a competitive alternative to single occupant auto use Reducing overall vehicle miles traveled in the corridor and reducing greenhouse gas emissions per person trip while increasing overall transportation capacity Encouraging and incorporating increased bicycle and pedestrian options and activity GOAL: Promote and enhance economic development in the corridor by: Providing an incentive for new developm ent along a transit-friendly mixed-use corridor

PAGE 10

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 2 Promoting increased intra-corridor economic activity through the focus of mixed-use employment, residential, and commercial development in the corridor Promoting neighborhood reinvestment and preservation to stabilize residential areas in the corridor Developing an attractive streetscape with people-friendly amenities and mixed uses to transform the auto-dominated street into a lively, active place that supports the needs of transit users and encourages people to walk Promoting historic preservation and good urban design to establish a sense of place and community in the Colfax corridor and adjacent neighborhoods

PAGE 11

C S C C olfax St r S ection 2: C ONTEXT C o T r b o 1 2 a d p r n e r eetcar Fe a Pro j ect H o lfax Aven u r ansportatio n o unded on t h 2 th Avenue, d dition to e x r ocess iden t e twork. a sibility S t H istor y a n u e is a U. S n (CDOT). T h e west by I and on the x ploration o f t ified criteri a t udy n d Back g r o S highway u T he study a nterstate 2 5 north by 1 9 f the feasibi l a to evaluat e Bac k Colf a long serv Eas t fro m thro u Jeff e mult servi con n hos p cent e Colf a A ve n pow e Rep r und e A ve n Den v ma n de m the f relo c Tra m that Den tran s con v 3 o und u nder the j a rea for the C 5 (I-25), on t h 9 th A venue. l ity of a mo d e candidat e kg round and a x Avenue ( est continu o es as a "G t ern Plains t m the City o f u gh Denver e rson Coun t i-modal, c o ng residen t n ections to a p itals, cult u e rs, and ma j a x was firs t n ue. The str e e rful Indian a r esentatives e r Ulysses S n ue include d v er. The n e n sions. Afte r m and for th e f irst rail line s c ation to D m way and D allowed c o ver. Many s formed int o v erted to co m urisdiction o C olfax Stre e h e east by S The stud y d ern street c e corridors f o Histor y ( US Highw a o us east-we ateway to t t o the mou n f Aurora in A to the sub u t y. In Denv e o mmercial, t s, commut e a nd between u ral faciliti e j or transit a n t called G o e et was late a Congress m and Vice S Grant. A d residenc e e ighborhood s r the Silve r e homes de c s on Colfax D enver's su b D enver Cit y o mmuters t of the larg e o group ho m m mercial u s o f the Colo e tcar Feasi b S yracuse St r y area is sh o c ar in the st o r a potent i a y 40 (US 4 0 st street in he Rockies n tains. Colfa A dams and u rbs of Lak e e r, Colfax A and resid e e rs, and t o Downtown e s, neighb o n d highway f o lden Road r named aft e m an, Spea k President o A t first, mu c e s of the w s lining Co r Panic of c reased. D e in 1886. S o b u r bs bega n y Railway b t o move b e e homes bui m es or apar t s e. J u rado Depa r b ility Study ( C r eet, on the o wn in Fig u udy area, t h i al broader 0 )), is repo r the United S traveling x stretches Arapahoe C e wood and G A venue is a e ntial "mai n o urists. It Denver, uni o rhoods, o t f acilities. as well a e r Schuyler k er of the H o f the Unit e c h of centr a w ealthy and lfax were f i 1893, the c e nver Tram w o on after, a n In 1900 uilt a trolle y e tween Au r lt along Col t ments. Oth u ly 2010 r tment of C SFS) is south by u re 1. In h e CSFS streetcar r tedly the S tates. It from the 26 miles C ounties, G olden in a diverse n street" provides versities, t her job s Grand Colfax, a H ouse of e d States a l Colfax elite of i lled with c ost and w ay built massive Denver y system r ora and fax were ers were

PAGE 12

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 1: colfax street car feasibility study areaSource: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevardstudy area boundary

PAGE 13

C C olfax St r O t D e M a r eetcar Fe a The c and t Colfa x The m High w decr e 130 y now throu g PRE V Rece n to in c incre a cons u plans Denv e Civic C Bluebi Strate g Downt Green A urari a Green Justic e Denv e Downt Civic C East C Bluep r Comp r t her plans t h e nvers Sto r a ster Plan ( 2 a sibility S t c ar culture o t he subseq u x 's status a s m otels that c w ay 70 (I7 e ased and a d y ears, Colfa x an urban a g hout the m e V IOUS PLAN S n t CCD lan d c rease the a se the ov e u mption, an d that provid e e r Strategic P C enter Desi g rd Neighbor g ic Transpo r own Area P print Denve r a Center M a print Denve r e Center Fr a e rs Civic Ce n own Multim o C enter Distri C olfax Corri d r int Denver: A r ehensive P l h at provide r m Drainag e 2 009), and t t udy o f the 1950s u ent remov a s a major t h c urrently lin e 7 0) was c o d jacent busi x has evolv e a rterial and e tropolitan a S AND POLI C d use and t r person tri p e rall efficien c d encourag e e the policy c P arking Pla n g n Guidelin e hood Mark e r tation Plan lan (2007) r City of D e a ster Plan (2 r Plan (200 6 a mework Pl a n ter Park M o dal Acces s ct Plan (20 0 d or Plan (20 0 A n Integrat e l an (2000) for the utilit y e Design a n he Denver S 5 led to an i n a l of the t r h oroughfare e Colfax are o mpleted, t nesses and e d from a d u bus transi t a rea than a U C Y CONTEX T r ansportatio n p capacity c y of the n e e sustainabl e c ontext for t h n (2010) e s (2009) e t Initiative ( 2 (2008) e nver Clim a 007) 6 ) a n (2006) M aster Plan s Plan (DMA 0 5) 0 4) e d Land Us e y infrastruct u n d Technic a S anitary Se w n crease in a r olley from led to mor e remnants o f he through neighborho u sty, dirt ro a t corridor, s U S highway T n plans hav e of its tran e twork, im p e land deve l h e CSFS in c 2 009) a te Action Pl a (2005) P) (2005) e and Trans p u re needs w a l Criteria ( w er Master P a uto travel t h Colfax and e tourist tra f the US 40 travel an d ods suffere d a d to a bust s erving mor e focused a sportation n p rove air qu l opment pat t c lude: a n (2007) p ortation Pl a w ithin the st u 2006), Den P lan (2009). J u h roughout t h the entire ffic along t h era. When I d highway d Over the c ling trolley r e as a m a a ttention on t n etwork in ality, reduc e t erns in De n a n (2002) u dy area in c ver Storm D u ly 2010 h e nation system. h e street. nterstate function c ourse of r oute and a in street t he need order to e energy n ver. The c lude the D rainage

PAGE 14

C O C olfax St r In s u c o O verall Corri d In Av D e n e F o la n C o E c i m fu a p F o p e S t b e fu st r r eetcar Fe a addition to u ch as Colf a o re is an im p d or the CCDs l v enue Corri d e nver is to e ighborhood A reas way th areas includ e these the Ci t and e n thereb and in o r the past s n d use and o mmunity P c onomic D e m provement nding for s t p proved by t o ur bond fu n e destrian im t reet are on e e tween the C nds for Ea s r eet trees) a sibility S t the Citys g a x Avenue, p ortant land u l and use an d d or is consi d direct futu r s designate d of Change at benefits t will have e e walking, b areas does t y. New de v n hance the y positively the surroun s everal yea r transpo r tati o P lanning an d e velopment districts to t reetscape i he voters th n ds were a p p rovements e of the pr o C ivic Cente r s t Colfax ar to improve t udy oals to incr e attracting c o u se and ec o d transporta d ered an A r e growth t o d as Areas o provide De n t he city as a e xcellent ac c b iking, bus e more than j v elopment c a visual qua l affecting th ding neighb r s, various r e o n element s d Develop m have wo r complete p mprovemen rough the 2 0 p proved for Colfax an d o jects recei v r and Spee r e to be us e pedestrian Col u (BI D (co n Fed ped e (co n Eas t A c o with suc h 6 e ase the pe o mmercial a o nomic dev e tion plan, B l rea of Cha n o Areas of o f Stability. A n ver with th e whole. Fut u c ess to effi c e s and light j ust reduce a n improve l ity of buildi e quality of orhoods. e vitalization s on Colfax. m ent, the P u r ked with t p lans and i ts along va 0 07 Better D portions of d 14th A ven u v ing bond f u r Boulevard e d for stre e access an d u mbine Str e D )) and Col u n struction t o eral and Sh e strian imp r n struction to t of Broadw a o re group o f City Coun c h as the E a rson trip ca p a nd residen t e lopment go a l ueprint De n n ge. One o f Change, w A s stated in e opportunit y u re resident s c ient forms rail. Howe v the potenti a the econo m ngs, street s life in both efforts hav e Denver sta f u blic Works t he City C nfrastructur e rious segm e D enver bond Colfax Ave u es betwee n u nds and w i (constructi o e tscaping (i n d bus rider s e et (Colfax u mbine Stre e o begin in eridan) als o r ovements t begin 2010 ay f East Colfa x c il members a st Colfax C p acity of tra t ial infill de v a l for CCD. n ver, adopte d f the main p w hile mainta the Plan: y to focus g s and worke r of transpor t v er, redevel a l traffic co n m ic base, pr o s and neig h the Areas o e been und e f f members Departme n C ouncil me m e projects. e nts of the program. nue to pro v n Speer Bo u i ll provide i m o n to begin i n cluding pe d s hip betwe e Business I e t to St. Pa u 2010). W e o received b o t o enhance ). x stakehold e and City pl a C orridor Pla n J u nsportation v elopment i n d in 2002, t h rinciples of ining and i m g rowth in a r s in these t ation that opment in n gestion in o vide jobs, h borhoods, o f Change e rway to im p in the Depa n t, and the m bers and In addition, Colfax cor r v ide streets c u levard and m proved str e i n 2010). T d estrian lig h e n Grant S t mprovemen u l Street (Gr e e st Colfax ( o nd funds t o safety and e rs has bee n a nning staff n (2004) to u ly 2010 corrido r s n the city h e Colfax Blueprint m proving p rove the rtment of Office of special specific r idor was c ape and Bannock e etscape T wo bond h ting and t reet and t District e ektown) ( between o provide mobility n working on plans outline a

PAGE 15

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 7 vision for the street's future as redevelopment occurs. Streetscape improvements funded by the bond program on East Colfax will be coordi nated with a Colfax Ave Transit Operations Enhancement or transit priority project, which is a joint project with CCD and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). This pilot pr ogram will utilize innovative technology and other capital improvements to enhance RTD Rout e 15L. The pilot project will provide improvements such as priority signalization, street improvements, and safety and security measures at RTD bus stops along east Colfax designed to encourage more transit usage in the corridor. Main Street Zoning The Main Street zoning district was created in 2005 as an outgrowth of the East Colfax Plan to promote the revitalization of Denvers commercial main streets. This new zoning has been applied in differing intensities along Colfax Avenue with the intention of encouraging redevelopment and revitalizing the Colfax Corridor. The new zone district was applied to East Colfax Avenue in 2006, and was applied on West Colfax from Irving Street to Lakewood in 2007. Main Street zoning was applied to the entire length of Colfax Avenue in Denver between Aurora and Lakewood, with the exception of Downtown, and largely carried forward in Denvers zoning code completed in 2010. West of Broadway Major activity along Colfax Avenue west of Broadway and the RTD Civic Center Station revolves around the implementation of the Civic Center District Plan and the construction of the new Justice Center, which includes a courthouse and jail. At the Auraria Higher Education Complex between Speer Boulevard and I-25, major RTD light rail transit lines currently intersect. These include the lines that serve Denver Union Station from the Southwest and Southeast light rail transit corridors and the lines that serve central Downtown via California and Stout Streets, with a Welton Street spur to the Five Points area at 30th and Downing. In 2013, the West Corridor light rail line (12.1-mile light rail transit corridor between the Denver Union Station in downtown Denver and the Jefferson County Government Center in Golden) will be operational and will also provide service to the Auraria campus. Several RTD bus lines currently serve the Auraria Campus as well Greenprint Denver Action Agenda Greenprint Denver was approved in 2006 and represents the Citys action agenda for sustainable development. Its aim was to support and further integrate sustainable practices into the citys programs and policies. Its key policies related to transportation, which are applicable to the Colfax corridor, include: Reduction of Denver per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by 2011 to develop and implement effective strategies for adaptation to and amelioration of global climate change Decrease reliance on automobiles through public transit use and access, and promote transit-oriented development, as well as bicycle and pedestrian enhancements

PAGE 16

C S P C olfax St r S trate g ic Traa r P UBLIC PR O T h la y o b of f g a c o S p T a r eetcar Fe a nsportation r e applicabl e Innov a o M o D Conn e o L o E o O Green o L o A o P o P Health o M o P b o P o I O CESS h e public in v y ered appr o b jective wa s f icials, and o a thered inf o o rridor, and p ecific step s a skforce, in d a sibility S t Plan e to a potent i a tion M ove peopl e D o not grow e cted L ink land us e E nhance co n O ffer transp o and Sustai n L imitation o f A lign with G r P romote alt e P rovide alte r y, Livable C M ixed-use s t P rovide tra n b eing P romote pe d ntegrate la n v olvement s o ach to re a s to engag o ther intere s o rmation ab o shared inf o s of the outr e d ividual outr e t udy Th e tra n fut u ap p a m tra n i al streetcar e not just v e Denvers r o e and trans p n nections b e o rtation cho i n able f the roadwa r eenprint D e e rnative pub r natives to f o C ommunity t reets supp o n sportation c d estrian-frie n n d use and t r s trategy for t a ch a broa d e the publ s ted individ u o ut how th e o rmation a s e ach proces e ach, small g 8 e 2008 Str a n sportation p u re transpo r p roach to id e m ethod to in c n sportation d system. e hicles o ad footprint p ortation e tween mod i ces y footprint e nve r lic transit m o o ssil fuel us e o rt great nei g c hoices tha t n dly mixedu r ansportatio t he Colfax S d range of ic, Colfax c u als throug h e public th i s claims a b s included t g roup outre a a tegic Tran s p lan aimed a r tation need s e ntifying fut c orporate th o d ecisions a n es o des e g hborhoods t improve t h u se develop n choices S treetcar F e interests al o c orridor st a h out the stu d i nks a mo d b out feasibi l he formatio n a ch, and co m s portation P a t understa n s of the cit y ure system o se needs a n d solution s h e communi t ment e asibility St u o ng the co r a keholders, d y area. T h d ern street c l ity were r e n and partic i m munity-wi d J u P lan is a m u n ding the cu r y It is an i n needs and a nd values i n s Its majo r t ys health a u dy include d r ridor. Th e appropriat e h e outreach c ar would a e viewed an d i pation of a S d e outreach. u ly 2010 u ltimodal r rent and n novative provides n to future r themes a nd welld a multie primary e elected process af fect the d tested. S treetcar

PAGE 17

C S I S C olfax St r S treetcar Ta s T h C o st u T h ndividual O u A s e c o S mall Group A e d to G r r eetcar Fe a s kforce h e Streetca r o lfax Corrid o u dy. h e role of th e u treach: One series of di e nse of the o nsidered. Outreach series of s m d ucate stak e gain insig h r oup discus s Colfax Color a Citiz e street c Repre s Repre s Downt Capit o Senat o City a n a sibility S t r Taskforce o r. The Str e e Streetcar T on-One Intescussions w overall con t m all group m e holders ab o h t and feed b s ions were h Business I m a do Depart m e n advocat e c ar and its p o s entatives f r s entatives f r own Denve r o l Hill United o r Chris Ro m n d County o f t udy included re p e etcar Task f T askforce w a P a S r T f T t rviews w ere held w i t ext of the c m eetings we r o ut the fram b ack from i n h eld with th e m provemen t m ent of Tran s e s those o tential fea s r om the Blu e r om Greekt o r Partnershi p Neighbors m e r f Denver St a 9 p resentativ e f orce met t h a s to: P rovide inf o a rea S peak on r epresent T hink critica f easible tra n T est ideas a t he process i th intereste c orridor as w r e held duri n ework, goal n dividuals w e following g r t District (C B s portation ( C individuals s ibility along e bird Distric t o wn p a f f e s from a w h ree times a o rmation ab o behalf of lly about ho w n sit alternati v a nd recom m d individual s w ell as ch a n g the proc e s and obje c w ith knowle d r oups: B ID) board o f C DOT) who have p the corrido r t (along Colf a ide range o a s a group o ut unique a the group s w streetcar v e for the C o m endations t s and key s a llenges an d e ss. The m c tives of the d ge and int e f directors p articular t e r a x between J u f interests a during the f a spects of t s or intere may or may o lfax corrido t hat emerg e s takeholders d opportuniti eetings wer feasibility s e rest in the e chnical insi York and C o u ly 2010 a long the f easibility t he study sts they not be a r e d during to get a es to be e held to tudy and corridor. ghts into o lorado)

PAGE 18

C C C olfax St r C ommunit y W T h c o F e s e re f p r r eetcar Fe a W orkshops h e first Com o ntext, edu c e edback wa e cond work s f ined align m r eliminary fi n a sibility S t munity Wor k c ation abou t s sought fr o s hop was he m ent optio n n dings and r e t udy k shop was h t the over a o m the co m ld toward t h n s, assess e commend a I n t h p i n p f e i n m t o a a 10 h eld at the b a ll streetcar m munity bot h h e end of th e the comm u a tions. n addition t h ere were erson discu n terested m e rocess. A e asibility st u n cluded ac m eetings, c o o the study. nd commu n re included eginning of concept, a h on the co e process to u nitys willi n o the form a many infor m ssions bet w e mbers of t h A dditionally, u dy was act cess to a o ntact infor m Summari e n ity worksh o in Appendix the feasibili t a nd streetc a ncepts and gain additi o n gness to p a l meeting s m al teleph o w een project h e public th a websit e ive through o a ll present a m ation and i e s of the ta s o p meetings A. J u t y process t o a r options a potential r o o nal feedba c p ay, and t o s and pres e o ne, e-mail, team mem at helped i n e dedicate d o ut the pro c a tions, not e i nformation s kforce, sm a were p r ep a u ly 2010 o provide a vailable. o utes. A c k on the o outline e ntations, and inbers and n form the d to the c ess and e s from pertinent a ll group, a red and

PAGE 19

C S C olfax St r S ection 3: T h e v 1 5 s y N e d a L o th a T h c o af f a n al T h fr o r eetcar Fe a Surve y o f h e experie n v aluated in o 5 or 20 citi e y stems are e e w Orleans a y-to-day m a o well, MA). a t are comp Portla n Seattl e Taco m Little R Tamp a h e next se c o nstruction a f ordable ho u n d Ta x -Incr e 2009.) h e original P o m the follo w Creati o A loca Tax in c a sibility S t f Streetc a n ces and c o rder to und e e s with so m e ither herita g and Phila d a rket (such a Only five ci t arable mod e n d, Oregon e Washingt o m a, Washing R ock, Arkan s a Florida c tions descr i a nd operatin g u sing, and d e ment Finan P ortland Str e w ing source s o n of a park i l improvem e c rement fin a t udy a r S y stem s c haracteristi c e rstand bes t m e form of s g e systems d elphia) or t a s Denvers t ies have re c e ls for pote n o n ton s as i be these fi v g characteri s Por t Th e 200 Leg Por t con s per hel p nei g sid e ra m kno w acr e emolition of cing Option s e etcar was a s : i ng benefit d e nt district a ncing 11 s c s of stre e t practices a s treetcar se with long h i t ourist-orien t Platte Vall e c ent experie n tial new sy s v e systems s tics of thos t land Street c e Portland s 1 as a si n acy Good S t land State s tructed for track mile) p redevelo p g hborhoods, e s of town, w m p. Workin g w n as the P e to 125 u the elevate d s for Street c a locally fu n d istrict e tcar syste m nd lessons l rvice in thi s i stories of s e t ed system s e y Trolley a n nce in stre e s tems: followed b e systems. c ar s treetcar op e n gle-track c S amaritan H University. approxima t The stre e p downtown and a way w hich were p g with a pro p P earl Distric t nits per a c d freeway r a c ar Constru c n ded project m s through l earned. W h s country, t h e rvice (incl u s that do n o n d systems e tcar constr u b y a table t h e ned its ini t ounterclock w ospital in N This 4.8-tr a t ely $55 mill e tcar was s e Portland a to connect p reviously b p erty owne r t was rezon e c re and wa a mp (accord c tion, The B with the c a J u out the U h ile there ar e h e majority u ding San F o t serve a t r in Kenosha u ction and o p h at summa r t ial segme n w ise loop f orthwest P o a ck-mile sy s ion (or $11 e en as an o a nd its su r the north a isected by a r /developer, e d from 15 s to includ ing to Valu e B rookings In s a pital fundin g u ly 2010 S. were e at least of those rancisco, r aditional WI, and p erations r izes key n t in July f rom the o rtland to s tem was 5 million o ption to r rounding nd south a freeway the area units per e parks, e Capture s titute, et g coming

PAGE 20

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 12 Additional extensions to the south waterfront redevelopment area added 4 track miles to the system. Total construction cost for the sy stem stands at $103 million, or $11.7 million per mile. Total daily ridership is approximately 11,000. Its current annual operating cost is approximately $5.5 million. The operating characteristics of the Portland Streetcar are summarized in Table 1. The ongoing operating expenses are funded through the local transit agency and the City of Portland. The local transit agency (Tri-Met) pays for two-thirds and the City pays a third raised out of sponsorships and other funding. The Portland Streetcar Loop project will add another 3.3 miles to the system (6.7 track miles) at a cost of $147 million (or $21.9 million per tr ack mile). This extension will cross the Willamette River and serve the Lloyd District to the east of downtown. Additional expansions are proposed as part of the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan developed by the City of Portland in 2009. Portland uses a modern streetcar for its system. The system has 8.8 miles of track that loop through downtown Portland connecting the South Waterfront District to the Pearl District and Northwest Portland. There are 46 stops with connections to the MAX light rail system, Portland Aerial Tram, and Tri-Met buses. The route is shown in Figure 2. The streetcar runs with 12to 15-minute headways from 5:30 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday, 7:15 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. Saturday, and from 7:15 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Sunday.

PAGE 21

C C olfax St r ** "Cru s r eetcar Fe a System len Sys Cost p e Annu a V V ehicl e Ri Rig h Operat i Station / Fare Own e s h capacity" (se a a sibility S t TAB L gth (track mil e tem Cost e r track mile a l O&M cost V ehicle Size e capacity** d ership h t-of-way i ng rationale / stop spacing collection e r/Operato r a ts+standees) b a t udy L E 1: PORTL A e s) a sed on TCRP r e 13 A ND STREET C e port 13 "rail tra n C AR SUMMA R On-boar d Portla n n sit capacity" sta n R Y 8.8 miles $103 millio n $11.7 millio n $5.5 millio n Skoda (Mode 66 long x 8 w 170 (30 seat s ~11,000 per d Mixed-flow Local/limited s 3-4 blocks d (free in Farel n d Streetcar I n n dard of .5 squa J u n n n rn) w ide s ) d ay s top ess Square) n c./Tri-Met re meters per p e u ly 2010 e rson

PAGE 22

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 14 Figure 2: Portland Streetcar System Map Source: www.portlandstreetcar.org

PAGE 23

C C olfax St r p e a n S e In Hi D e th r li n T h i m ta x S e C a st r is M o to r eetcar Fe a e r track mile n nual opera t e attle South November ll and Cap e cember 20 r ee additio n n es. h e Seattle m provement x and feder a e attle uses a a mpus Driv e r eetcar con n shown in F i o nday throu 7 p.m. a sibility S t The syst e t ing cost is Lake Union 2008, voter s itol Hill nei 08, the Se a n al extensio n South Lak e d istrict (LID ) a l and state a modern s t e There a r n ects with t h i gure 3. Th e gh Thursda y t udy S e T h th s e st s o p o bi o b e c o b e c o D i s y e m currently approxima t streetcar a r s in the Se a ghborhood s a ttle city co u n s, althoug h e Union st r ) was creat e grants were t reetcar for i r e 11 stops h e monorail t e streetcar o y 6 a.m. to 15 e attle Street c h e Seattle S e South La e eing the s u reetcar lin e o uth of La k o tential for r o sciences h e gan in 20 0 o nstruction e gan opera t o nnects do w i strict and t h y stem (2.6 t r serves app r t ely $2.5 m i r e summari z a ttle area a p s ) as part o u ncil voted t h no specifi c r eetcar is f u e d to financ e used to fin a ts system f r on the 2.6 t o Seattle C perates wit h 11 p.m. Fri d c ar S outh Lake U ke Union D u ccessful d e e Propert y k e Union w r edevelopm e h ub. Plan 0 3, with fi n initiated in t ion in Dec e w ntown Sea h e Denny T r r ack miles) c r oximately 1 i llion. The z ed in Table p proved a s e o f a region t o create a c funding w a u nded thro u e half of the c a nce the oth r om Westla k track-mile r enter and L i h 15-minute d ay and Sat u U nion street c D istrict by lo e velopment y owners i n w anted a w e nt of the i n ning for t h n ancing ap p 2006. Th e mber 2007 ttle with th e r iangle area c ost $52.1 m ,000 riders operating c 2. e cond stree al transpor t multi-line st a s identified u gh severa l c apital cost s er half of th e k e and 7th n r oute. At t h i nk Light Ra headways f u rday, and S J u c ar was pro p cal develo p around the n the neig h w ay to incr e n dustrial ar e h e streetca r p roved in 2 e streetca r The stre e e South La k The initial m illion, or $ 2 per day. I t c haracteristi c tcar line (to t ation mea s reetcar net w for those a l sources. s A surplus e capital co s n orth to Fair v h e southern il. The syst f rom 6 a.m. t S unday fro m u ly 2010 p osed for p ers after Portland h borhood e ase the e a into a r system 005 and r system e tcar line k e Union 1.3-mile 2 0 million t s current c s of the the First s ure. In w ork with a dditional A local property s ts. v iew and end, the em route t o 9 p.m. m 10 a.m.

PAGE 24

C C olfax St r ** "Cru s r eetcar Fe a T A System len g Sys t Cost p e Annua l Ve S V ehicl e Ri d Rig h Operati n Station/ s Fare c Owne r s h capacity" (se a a sibility S t A BLE 2: SEA T g th (track mil e t em Cost er track mile l O&M cost e hicle S ize e capacity** d ership h t-of-way n g rationale s top spacing c ollection r /Operato r a ts+standees) b a t udy T TLE SOUTH e s) a sed on TCRP r e 16 LAKE UNION e port 13 "rail tran STREETCAR 6 L City of S sit capacity" sta n SUMMARY 2.6 miles $52.1 million $20 million $2.5 million Skoda (Moder n 6 6 long x 8 wi d 170 (27 seat s ~1,000 per d a Mixed-flow L ocal/limited st 2-3 blocks Honor syste m eattle/King Co u n dard of .5 squa r J u n ) d e s ) a y op m u nty Metro r e meters per p e u ly 2010 e rson

PAGE 25

C C olfax St r r eetcar Fe a a sibility S t Figure 3 : t udy : Seattle So u Source: ww w 17 u th Lake Uni o w .seattlestreetc a o n Streetca r a r.org r Map J u u ly 2010

PAGE 26

C C olfax St r T h $ 3 b u a n T a S o A i T h pl a in c T a S t C o ro 1 0 a. r eetcar Fe a h e 1.6-rout e 3 2.6 million u ilt to light r n nual opera t a coma Link a o und Transi rport, as a r e h e funding f o a n. This f u c luded a 0. 4 a comas sy s t reet. Ther e o mmuter R a ute is show 0 :10 p.m. M o m. to 6 p.m. a sibility S t e -mile (2.4 t r per track m r ail standar d t ions cost i s a re summa r t is consid e e sult of the p o r the Taco m u nded both 4 % local sal e s tem operat e e are five s a il at the Ta c n in Figure o nday thro u t udy T a T h ra m o d o c e D o e n b e e c a r T h r ack miles) ile (primaril y d s), and cu s approxim a r ized in Tabl e e ring a nu m p assage of a m a Link wa s capital an d e s tax and a e s from the T s tations on c oma Dom e 4. The str e u gh Friday, 8 18 a coma Link h e Tacoma L il by its ow n o dern stree t o wntown cir c e nters in d o o me (includ i n ding at the e ing a conn e c onomic de v r ea as well h e Tacoma system wa s y because t rrently carri a tely $3 mi e 3. m ber of exte a regional f u s primarily fr o d operation s 0.3% vehic l T acoma Do the route. e Station, as e etcar runs w 8 a.m. to 1 0 L ink is a far e n er/operato r t car system. c ulator to c o o wntown T a i ng the Sou n Theatre Di s e ctor, the s y v elopment i n as reduce system be g s construct e he trackwo r es approxi m llion. The nsions of t h u nding refer e o m 1996 S o s costs. T h l e license ta me Station t The south e well as wit h w ith 10-min u 0 :10 p.m. S a e -free syste m r (Sound Tr a The syste m o nnect maj o a coma star t n der comm u s trict to the y stem was d n the downt o street and g an operati e d at a cos t r k and relat e m ately 3,00 0 operating c h e system, e ndum in 20 o und Moves h e voters a p x. t o the Thea t e rn end co n h local and r u te headwa y a turday, an d J u m that is ca l a nsit) but is a m was desi g o r activity a n t ing at the u ter rail sys t north. In a d d esigned to o wn and su r parking co n on in Aug u t of $78.2 m e d construc t 0 riders pe r c haracteristi c including t o 08. regional bu s p proved $3. t re District/ S n nects with r egional bu s y s from 5:2 0 d Sunday fr o u ly 2010 l led light a ctually a g ned as a n d transit Tacoma t em) and d dition to facilitate r rounding n gestion. u st 2003. m illion, or t ion were r day. Its c s of the o SeaTac s and rail 9 billion, S outh 9th Sounder s es. The 0 a.m. to o m 10:10

PAGE 27

C C olfax St r ** "Cru s r eetcar Fe a System len Sys Cost p e Annu a V V ehicl e Ri Rig h Operat i Station / Fare Own e s h capacity" (se a a sibility S t TABL E gth (track mil e tem Cost e r track mile a l O&M cost V ehicle Size e capacity** d ership h t-of-way i ng rationale / stop spacing collection e r/Operato r a ts+standees) b a t udy E 3: TACOMA e s) a sed on TCRP r e 19 LINK STREE T e port 13 "rail tra n T CAR SUMM A Mix e n sit capacity" sta n A RY 2.4 miles $78.2 millio n $32.6 millio n $3 million Skoda (Mode 66 long x 8 w 170 (30 seat s ~3,000 per d a e d-flow and d e Local/limited s 1/4 mile Free Sound Tran s n dard of .5 squa J u n n rn) w ide s ) a y e dicated s top s it re meters per p e u ly 2010 e rson

PAGE 28

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 20 Figure 4: Tacoma Link Streetcar Map Source: www.soundtransit.org

PAGE 29

C C olfax St r p e o p s u o n T h fl e P u Li t st o H e C A st r W a. r eetcar Fe a e r track mil e p erating cos u mmarized i n n e to Little R h e Little Ro c e x g r ants s u u laski Coun t t tle Rock sy s o ps, a loop i e ifer Intern a A TA bus s e r eetcar run s W ednesday, 8 m. to 5:00 p a sibility S t e The sy s t is approxi m n Table 4. C R ock Nation a c k River Rail u ch as thos e t y, Little Ro c s tem is 3.5 i n Little Roc k a tional, whi c e rvice can b s with 25m 8 :30 a.m. t o .m. t udy Littl e The repli c syst e $8.2 by t h a lin k dow n resi d in N o ope n Clin t Inte r s tem carrie s m ately $80 0 C ATA is co n a l Airport. streetcar s y e provided f o c k, and Nort h track miles w k has six st o c h operates b e made al o m inute head w o 12:00 a. m 21 e Rock River Little Roc k c a system e m in Nove m million per h e Central A k between t h n town Little d ential and c o rth Little R n ed in 2007 t on Preside n r national. T o s approxim a 0 ,000. The n sidering ad y stem was 8 o r Livable C h Little Roc k w ith 14 stat i o ps, and an e until 5:30 p o ng the rou w ays from m Thursday Rail k River Rail that starte d m ber 2004, b track mile). A rkansas Tr a h e rapidly r e Rock, a n c ommercial R ock. A 1m to connect n tial Library o tal system a tely 3,000 operating c ditional ext e 8 0% funded C ommunitie s k i ons. One l o e xtension t o p .m., has t h te. The ro u 8:30 a.m. t through Sa streetcar s d with an b uilt at a co s The syste m a nsit Autho r e developing n ew arena, area acros s m ile, $7.5 m the River M and the he cost is $28 riders per c haracteristi c e nsions for t by federal g s Local fun d o op in Nort h o Clinton Pr e h ree stops. u te is sho w t o 10.00 p. turday, and J u s ystem is a initial 2.5-t r s t of $20.5 m m built and r ity (CATA), River Mark e and a red e s the Arkan s m illion exten s M arket area adquarters million, or $ day, and it s c s of the sy s t he system, g rants. This d s were pr o h Little Roc k e sidential Li b Connectio n w n in Figure m. Monday Sunday fr o u ly 2010 a vintage r ack-mile m illion (or operated provides e t area in e veloping s as River s ion was with the of Heifer $ 8 million s annual s tem are including included o vided by k has five b rary and n s to the 5. The through o m 11:00

PAGE 30

C C olfax St r r eetcar Fe a System len Sys Cost p e Annu a V V ehi c Ri Rig h Operat i Station / Fare Own e a sibility S t TABLE 4: LI T gth (track mil e tem Cost er track mile a l O&M cost V ehicle Size c le capacity d ership h t-of-way i ng rationale / stop spacing collection e r/Operato r t udy T TLE ROCK R e s) 22 R IVER RAIL S T G T REETCAR S U G omaco replica 4 9 L Central A U MM A RY 3.5 miles $27.1 millio n $7.8 million $708,000 Birney Trolley 9 long x 8 6 w 88 (44 seats ) ~3,000 per d a Mixed-flow L ocal/limited s t 2-4 blocks On-board A rkansas Tran s J u n (Vintage Repl w ide ) a y t op s it Authority u ly 2010 ica)

PAGE 31

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 23 Figure 5: Little Rock River Rail Streetcar Map Source: www.cat.org

PAGE 32

C C olfax St r In c a n s e r eetcar Fe a c ., a nonpr o n d HART to e rvice. The o a sibility S t o fit corporati manage d a o perating c h t udy Ta m Th sy s re s of hi s in v fo r op Li n T a pe $2 on created a y-to-day o p h a r acteristic s HART p 2010 th a in the d o structur e (http:// w The TE Federal Starts m sales, S Naming endow 33 cen The T a long w i Purple Trans p The st r to 10. 0 11:00 a.m. t o 8:00 p. 24 m pa Streetc a e Tampa T E s tem that s idential co n downtown s toric Ybor C v estment. T r $48.3 mil eration in 2 n es of the H a mpa. Th e r day, and .4 million. by an interl o p erations an s of the TE C p lans a 1/3 a t will conn e o wntown ar e e with an an w ww.tecolin e CO Streetc a Congestion m oney, Ta m S tate Inter m rights and ment for op e ts for every a mpa vinta g i th 12 statio and Gree n p ortation Ce n r eetcar run s 0 0 p.m. M o p.m. Thurs d o 2:00 a.m. m. a r E CO Street c was initiall y n nection to Tampa to C C ity. It wa s he 2.4-trac k lion ($20.1 002. It co n H ART In-T o e system ca r its annual o It is manag e o cal agree m d maintena n C O Streetca r -mile north e e ct the mo r e a to almos t ticipated op e e streetcar.or g a r had 30 f Mitigation a m pa gas ta x m odal funds station ad v e rations. In $1,000 in v a g e replica st r ns. The TE C n Trolley li n ter. The r s with 15-mi o nday throu d ay, 11:00 Saturday, a c ar is a vint a y promote d various de s C hannelsid e s not viewe d k -mile syst e million p e n nects to th e o wn Trolley r ries appro x o peration c o e d by Tam p m ent betwe e n ce, though r are summ a e rn extensi o r e than 35,0 t every maj o e rating date g /about/hist o unding sou r a nd Air Qual x es, urbaniz e and vario v ertising we addition, a a lue for ope r r eetcar syst e C O line con n nes at the oute map i s nute headw gh Wedne s a.m. to 2: 0 a nd Sunda y J u a ge replica d as a to u s tinations fr o e District a n d as a tran s e m was co n e r mile) an d e Purple a n to reach d x imately 1,0 0 o st is appr o p a Historic S e n the City o HART ope r a rized in Ta b o n to the s y 00 people w o r downtow n of Decemb e o ry/index.ht m r ces, which ity [CMAQ] e d area fu n us other r e re used to tax district a r ations. e m is 2.4 tr a n ects with t h Dick Gre c s shown in F ays from 1 1 s day, 11:00 0 0 a.m. Fri d y from 12:0 0 u ly 2010 streetcar u rist and o m south n d to the s portation n structed d began n d Green owntown 0 0 riders o ximately S treetcar, o f Tampa r ates the b le 5. y stem in w ho work n parking e r 2010 m ). included and New n ds, land e sources. build an a ssesses a ck miles h e HART c o Plaza F igure 6. 1 :00 a.m. a.m. to d ay, 9:00 0 p.m. to

PAGE 33

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 25 TABLE 5: TAMPA TECO STREETCAR SUMMARY System length (track miles) 2.4 miles System Cost $48.3 million Cost per track mile $20.1 million Annual O&M cost $2.4 million Vehicle Gomaco replica Birney Trolley (Vintage Replica) Size 46 long x 8 6 wide Vehicle capacity 84 (44 seats) Ridership ~1,000 per day Right-of-way Mixed-flow Operating rationale Local/limited stop Station/stop spacing 1/4 Mile Fare collection On-board Owner/Operator City of Tampa & Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART)

PAGE 34

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 26 Figure 6: Tampa TECO Streetcar Map Source: www.tecolinestreetcar.org

PAGE 35

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 27 Existing Streetcars Summary Table 6 summarizes the major cost and operating data of five peer city streetcar systems. TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF STREETCAR DATA Portland Seattle Tacoma Little Rock Tampa Year open/ext open 2001/2005 2007 2003 2004/2007 2003 Length (track miles) 8 miles 2.6 miles 2.4 miles 3.5 miles 2.4 miles Capital cost $103 million $52.1 million $78.2 million $27.1 million $48.3 million Cost per track mile $11.5/$14.83 million $20.1 million $32.6 million* $7.8 million $20.1 million Annual O&M cost $5.5 million $2.5 million $3 million $708,000 $2.4 million Annual fare revenue $200,000 $275,185 $0 $66,349 $607,423 Recovery ratio 3.6% 11.2% 0% 9.4% 25.3% Annual passenger mile NA 378,200 871,778 249,052 862,224 Annual unlinked trips 4,000,000 413,300 860, 349 154,644 562,320 Passenger trips/mile NA 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 O&M cost/rider $1.38 $5.95 $3.46 $4.58 $4.27 Annual vehicle revenue mile 200,000 56,600 97,115 52,256 87,147 Trips/vehicle revenue mile 20.0 7.3 8.9 3.0 6.5 O&M cost/vehicle revenue mile $27.50 $43.46 $30.68 $13.56 $27.57 Annual vehicle revenue hours 36,000 11,500 10,060 11,866 17,985 Trips/vehicle revenue hour 111.1 35.9 85.5 13.0 31.3 O&M cost/vehicle revenue hour $152.78 $213.78 $29 6.21 $59.72 $133.58 Ridership ~11,000/day ~1,000/day ~3,000/day ~3,000/day ~1,000/day *The Tacoma streetcar was constructed to light rail s pecifications, resulting in higher capital cost. Source: Street Smart, 2009 (Reconnecting America), Portland Streetcar, Inc., 2007 & 2008 National Transit Data Base (NTDB) data KEY FINDING Cost estimates for rec ent streetcar projects indicated capital cost in the $15-20M range per track mile.

PAGE 36

C S V C olfax St r S ection 4: V ehicle Crite r S e p o O t r eetcar Fe a Overvie w r ia e veral char a o tential Colf a The v e comm u comm u center s chara c The v e passe n comfo r The v e weath e Perfor m decel e given l t her key iss u The u s opera t result i The u s buses passe n vehicl e a sibility S t w of V ehi c a cteristics a a x system. e hicles mu s u nity. In ot h u ter transp o s peak ho u c teristics. e hicles mu s n gers, incl u r t, and serv e e hicles mus er condition s m ance crit e e ration rate s evel of safe t u es to consi d s e of single ed in one di i n lower pas s e of single, which op e n ger capaci e s, which ca t udy c le O p tio n The repr e com m the m proje that t syst e resid e ame n deve l in its vehi c nd require m s t be able t h er words, t h o rtation, spe c u r vs. of f -pe a s t have the u ding Ameri e the needs t be able t o s topograp h e ria shoul d s operating t y, comfort, d er in the s e end vs. do u rection. Do senger cap a side vs. do u e n on the r ty but are n load and u 28 n s choice of a e sents one m unity can m m ost import ct, as they t he public w e m will serv e e nts and vi s n ity and l opment an d own right. c le will be vit m ents affec t t o adapt to h e local co m c ial events a a k service, a capacity t o cans with of public tra o operate in h y, and stre e d include speeds, a n and service e lection of a u ble-end e q uble-end v e a city becau s u ble-side ve h r ight side f o more limite d u nload pass a streetcar of the m m ake. The ant elemen are the mo s w ill see and e not only a s itors of the asset tha t d redevelop m Therefore, al to the ov e t the select i the natur e m munity sho u a nd weeke n a nd other s o o accommo Disabilities nsit service the local e n e t geometry. frequency n d track ge o reliability. streetcar v e q uipment S e hicles can m s e an operat h icles Sin g o r curbside d in operati engers fro m vehicle fo r m ost impo r vehicles us e t in the ov s t visible el e use. The v a s a mode area, but a t could c m ent and s e the perfor m e rall succes s i on of a st r e of the se r u ld decide i f n d transit, c o o metimes c o date the n e Act (ADA) and special n vironment of service o metry, whil e e hicle includ e S ingle-end v m ove in bot h ors area wi l g le-side veh pickup) pr o onal flexibil m either side J u r a Denve r r tant decisi e d in the sy erall imag e e ment of th e v ehicles us e of transpor t a lso as a c o c onceivably e rve as an a m ance of th e s of the proj e r eetcar vehi c r vice desire d f it wants to o nnections t o mpeting o p e eds of all requireme n events. of Denver, accelera t e operating e : v ehicles ca n h directions b l l be on bot h icles (simila o vide slight l ity than do u or center pl a u ly 2010 r system ons the stem are e of the e system e d in this t ation for o mmunity attract a ttraction e chosen e ct. c le for a d by the focus on o activity p erational potential n ts, rider including t ion and within a n only be b ut could h ends. r to most l y higher u ble-side a tforms.

PAGE 37

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 29 The use of single-unit vs. multiple-unit equipment As with light rail, most modern streetcars could be operated in consists of two or more vehicles, providing more passenger carrying capacity and limiting operational costs with one operator able to control more than one vehicle at a time. Vintage restored or replica vehicles are generally operated in single-unit configurations. Turning radius and other geometric considerations Most vintage restored or replica cars can negotiate a turning radius of approximately 50 feet, allowing right-lane-toright-lane turns around corners in most downtown areas. Modern streetcar vehicles have a larger turning radius (usually 62 feet), which generally requires curb cuts or other special designs to negotiate tight turns. Light rail vehicles typically have a larger turning radius (usually >85 feet) ADA compliance Compliance with ADA accessibility regulations is a requirement regardless of the funding source of vehicles. Vintage restored or replica vehicles may have construction and cost issues related to retrofitting to allow ADA accessibility. High blocks (ramps or lifts on passenger platforms) can be used, although they could affect passenger circulation and could result in high costs given the typical close spacing of streetcar stops. Low-floor vehicles, such as most modern streetcars, provide the greatest flexibility for ADA accessibility, although passenger platforms must be built to accommodate low-floor boarding that is typically higher than a standard curb height. Fare collection systems Streetcars can include on-board equipment, such as that found on many vintage restored or replica vehicles. However, on-board equipment can cause maintenance issues and costs and can limit passenger capacity. Point-ofpurchase or honor systems (such as that used on many light rail systems) can improve passenger flow and capacity on vehi cles but are expensive items for many systems. Propulsion This is not normally an issue, although there are options. Most vehicles used in urban streetcar systems today are powered by overhead electric lines, typically at 600 to 750 volts DC. At least three systems in the nation are powered by non-electric propulsion systems. Tourist streetcar operations in Denver (Platte Valley Trolley) and Galveston, Texas use vehicles that are powered by diesel engines. A recently restored tourist system in Savannah, Georgia, uses biodiesel fuel. Dieselpowered vehicles do not require the construction of an overhead wire system, resulting in some capital cost savings. However, diesel propulsion systems release more pollutants (though biodiesel can mitigate pollutants, and diesel fuel and engines have strict pollution standards), are noisier than electric-powered vehicles, have relatively poor acceleration when compared to electric-powered vehicles, and diesel fuel costs are more variable than electricity. Some companies worldwide are experimenting with battery power, such as a new Kawasaki light rail vehicle that combines on-board regenerative battery propulsion that can reportedly travel 6 miles without connection to overhead catenary systems. This system is being tested in Paris, although those cars do not include power-hungry air conditioning. Bordeaux, France, uses an in-ground power system manufactured by Alstom. This system has

PAGE 38

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 30 been reported to have substantial maintenance issues and costs and does not have resistance to the weather extremes of Colorado. Bombardier is testing a magnetic induction propulsion system in Europe as well, which would only power the segment of track occupied by the vehicle. Thes e technologies, while unproven and likely more expensive than traditional electric power (a t least in the near term), nevertheless provide options to consider for new systems.

PAGE 39

C C S P C T m L C R G O S S F S C olfax St r C omparison T a S ize P owe r C apacity (vehi T ypical capac i m inute headw a L ifespan C ost per vehi c R ight-of-way G eometry/cur v O perating rati o S tation/stop s p S peed F are collectio n ** "Crus h S treetcar Ve h T h U n si m p r r eetcar Fe a of Streetcar a ble 7 lists t h cle) i ty/hour (7.5 a ys) c le v es o nale p acing n h capacity" (seat h icle Option s h ere are ge n n ited States m ilar to tho s r oject. Each a sibility S t to Buses an d h e differenc e TABLE 7 : Streetc 66 lon g Overhead e V 170 (30 8 30 $2. 9 Mixed-flow b exclusive; s t r ~ Local/li 2-3 bloc k City street sp e envi r On board o r s +standees) ba s s n erally thre e : vintage re s s e already i n vehicle has t udy d Li g ht Rail e s between : STREETCA R ar (Modern) g x 8 wide e lectric 650-75 0 V dc 40 seats)** 8 80 years 9 million b ut can be sem s tandard gaug e r ack ~ 50 mited stop k s to mile e eds in an urb a r onment r honor syste m s ed on TCRP re p e types of st r s tored, vint a n use in th e several vari V inta g To m rebuil acqui seve r Som e Conf e were elect r mod e 31 streetcar, b u R BUSES, LI G Bus e 40 lo n 0 65 1 0 $400, 0 ie M C i Loca 2 a n City street environm e m O p ort 13 "rail tran s r eetcar vehi c a ge replica, e Denver ar e ations and o g e Restored aintain hist o d existing red and res t r al years or t e cities h a e rence Com developed r ic railway e rn design u ses, and li g G HT RAIL CO M e s (Standard) n g x 8.5 wide Diesel (40 seats) 520 0 -15 years 0 00-$500,000 M ixed-flow i ty streets l/limited stop -3 blocks speed in an u r e nt up to high w speeds O n board s it capacity" stan c les availab and moder n e a are incl u o ptions, whi c Vehicles o rical accur a vehicles. t ored trolle y t hat have b e a ve acquir e mittee (PC C in the 193 0 industry, that could g ht rail. M PARISON 9 5 Overhe 3, 9 Semi-e x mixed fl o Li m mile t o an r ban w ay City st envir o dard of .5 squar e le for use i n n In additi o u ded as an o c h are desc r a cy, some c Many stre e y s that have e en in stora g e d several C ) cars. Th e 0 s through whose le a compete w i J u Light Rail 5 long x 8.5 w ad electric 65 0 166 (64 seat s 9 84 (3-car con s 30-35 years $3.8 million x clusive, exclu ow ; standard g a >85 m ited stop/regi o 1 mile+ (can urban environ m reet speed in a o nment up to 5 Honor syste m e meters per pe r n new syste m o n, light rail o ption for t h r ibed in this s ities have c e tcar syste m been aban d g e by other vintage P r e se types o f a joint eff o a ders deve i th buses a n u ly 2010 w ide 0 -750 Vdc s ) s ists) sive, and a uge track onal be less in m ent) a n urban 5 5 mph m r son m s in the vehicles h e Colfax s ection. hosen to m s have d oned for systems. r esidents f vehicles o rt of the loped a n d autos

PAGE 40

C C olfax St r G r eetcar Fe a TABL E Con f Boarding V ehi c Cost p G eometry/cur v S Air-c o ADA A a sibility S t E 8: TYPICAL C f iguration characteristi c Size c le capacity p er vehicle v e minimum r S peed o nditioned A ccessible t udy for pu manuf a cars t strea m singlewere u contin u Philad e vintag e C HARACTERI c s r adius V in t Vin wit h ge a sp e ac c rep Litt l an d wa y the ve h 32 blic suppo r a ctured in t h t ypically ar e m lined desig n ended, req u u sed in mo u e to be us e e lphia. Tab e restored PSTICS OF VI N Yes t age Replic a tage replic a h an histor a r. The re e cific opera t c ess, heatin g lica vehicle s l e Rock and d are gene r y side lifts f o major ch h icles. r t. Approx i h e US betw e e 50 feet n Most P C u iring loops re than 20 e d in San F le 8 summa CC vehicle s N TAGE REST O Sing l 5 0 $500,00 0 (Retrofitted wi t a Vehicles a vehicles g ic look mo plica cars a t ing and a e g and air c o s have bee n Tampa. T h r ally high-le v o r ADA co m aracteristic s i mately 5,0 0 e en the 193 long and C C cars w e to reverse d cities arou rancisco, B o rizes the b a s O RED PCC C A l e-ended/singl e High-floor 0 long x 8 5 w 60 (46 seats ) 0 -$700,000 for 36 Max 30 mph Yes (retrofitte d t h onboard lift g enerally co unted on r a re easily c e sthetic crit e o nditioning. n manufact u h ese cars c a v el cars, r e m pliance. T s of vinta g J u 0 0 PCC c a 0s and 195 0 have a d e re single-s i d irection. P nd the cou o ston, Keno a sic charact e A RS e -sided w ide ) restoration d ) generally rea nsist of ne w r ehabilitated c ustomized e ria, includ i The most u red by Go m a n be ai r -co n e quiring onT able 9 su m g e replica u ly 2010 a rs were 0 s. PCC d istinctive i ded and P CC ca r s ntry and sha, and e ristics of r door) w bodies running to meet i ng ADA common m aco for n ditioned board or m marizes Gomaco

PAGE 41

C M C olfax St r G M odern Stre e R e th a ra th e o p C z W A b y a r a p n e r eetcar Fe a TABLE Con f Boarding V ehi c Cost p G eometry/cur v S Air-c o ADA A e tcar Vehicl e e cent street a t are large r il vehicles, a e y are ap p p erations. P z ech Repu b W orks. recent addi t y Siemens, t r ticulated to p proximatel y e ar future. T a sibility S t 9: TYPICAL C f iguration characteristi c Size c le capacity p er vehicle v e minimum r S peed o nditioned A ccessible e s car system s r and longe r a lthough th e p roximately P ortland, S e b lic. The S k t ion to the m t he S-70 u l accommod a y 160. This T able 10 su m t udy C HARACTERI S c s r adius s in Portlan d r than vinta g e ir appearan 65 feet lo n e attle, and T k oda design m odern stree l trashort v e a te urban st r vehicle is p m marizes th e 33 S TICS OF VIN d Seattle, a g e restored o ce more clo n g and ar e T acoma are is now bei n tcar fleet is a e hicle. It i s r eet running p lanned for u e major cha r TAGE REPLI C Doub l 46 $ 7 Yes (mini-hi a nd Tacom a o r replica v e sely resem b e double-ar t using cars n g manufa c a larger mo d s approxima and can h a u se in San r acteristics o C A STREETC A l e-ended/doub l High-floor 1 long x 8 6 60 (48 seats ) 7 50,000-$1 Mi l 50 Max 30 mph Yes gh platform or a use mode r e hicles but a b les light rai l t iculated to manufactu r c tured in th e d ern vehicle tely 80 feet a ndle a pas s Diego and S o f modern s t J u A RS l e-sided wide ) l lion on-board lifts) r n streetcar a re smaller t l vehicles. G allow urb a r ed by Sko d e US by Or e being man u long and i s s enger crus S alt Lake C t reetcar veh i u ly 2010 vehicles t han light G enerally, a n street d a in the e gon Iron u factured s doubleh load of ity in the i cles.

PAGE 42

C L C olfax St r C Boar d Ve C o Geometry / A A L ight Rail VeO n b e fo r A l s y M A in t si n w o st a r eetcar Fe a T A C onfiguration d ing characte r Size e hicle capaci t o st per vehicl / curve minim u Speed A i r -conditione d DA Accessibl hicles n e other p o e ing used b y r use in the though ligh t y stems oper a A X light rai t eractions w n gle light ra i o uld conne c a tion at 38t h a sibility S t BLE 10: TYPI C r istics t y e u m radius d e tential vehi c y the RTD s c orrido r t rail vehicl e a te light rai l l line has l w ith traffic, p i l vehicles i n c t the existi n h and Blake. t udy C AL CHARA C I Double Low-fl o wheelchai 66 1 60 mi n Yes (level c le for the C ystem in th e L i w 2 5 w a n m r a a n n e t h e s usually o p l in limited m imited mix e p rimarily at n mixed traff n g light rail s 34 C TERISTICS O nekon Skoda -ended/doubl e o or center sect i rs, carriages, b standees long x 8 wi d 1 20 (30 seats) ~$3 Million n imum turning r Max 43 mph Yes boarding, cen t C olfax Corri d e Denver m e i ght rail ha s w ith the first 5 /Broadway w ere added t n d southe a m aintenance a il vehicles u n d maintain e e ed for a s e h e Colfax co p erate in e x m ixed-traffic e d-traffic op e left-turn la n ic in the Ce n s tation at 3 0 O F MODERN S e -sided i on for b ikes and d e r adius t er doors) d or is light e tropolitan a s a long hi s line startin g and down t o the Cent a st corridor s experience u sed in the e d at existi n e parate facil i rridor. x clusive or s flow. For e e rations in t n es. In ad d n tral Corrid o 0 th and Do w TREETCARS Siemen Doublee Low-flo o wheelchair s 79 l o 1 6 ~ 65 mini m M Yes (level b rail, similar a rea. Light s tory in the g operation s town. Su b ral Platte V s RTD h with light r a Colfax corr n g RTD faci i ty to serve v s emi-exclusi v e xample, th e t he center o d ition, RTD o r Extension w ning with t h J u s S70 Ultra S h e nded/doubles o r center sectio s carriages, bi k standees o ng x 8.7 wid e 6 0 (60 seats) ~ $3.6 Million m um turning r a M ax 66 mph Yes oarding, cente to the vehi c rail has the Denver me s in 1994 b e b sequent e x V alley and s o h as operati o a il vehicles, idor could b lities, elimin v ehicles op e v e guidewa y e Portland I o f the road w is proposin project. Th i h e new East u ly 2010 h ort s ided n for k es and e a dius r doors) c les now potential tro area, e tween Ix tensions o uthwest o ns and and light b e stored ating the e rating in y s, some nterstate w ay and g to use i s project Corridor

PAGE 43

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 35 TABLE 11: TYPICAL CHARACTERIST ICS OF LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES Configuration Double-ended/double-sided Boarding characteristics High-floor Size 95 long x 8 5 wide Vehicle capacity 166 (64 seats) Cost per vehicle $3.8 Million Geometry/curve minimum radius >85 Speed Up to 55 mph Air-conditioned Yes ADA Accessible Yes (high blocks or ramps) Figure 7: Size Comparison of Typical Transit Vehicles Standard Bus (40 x 8.5) Vintage Restored Streetcar (50 x 8.5) Vintage Replica Streetcar (46.1 x 8.6) Modern Streetcar (66 x 8.1) Light Rail (95 x 8.5)

PAGE 44

C S C olfax St r S TREETCAR r eetcar Fe a SYSTEM D E a sibility S t E SIGN CON S t udy S IDERATION S Station s A stree t the mo s These f the ride street e vehicle s charact e Several location s I p e d W a a m l T t a w n a p e r o s s p C s d w t a l 36 S s and Stops t car system s t-visible co f acilities are r, and will b nvironment s pass. Th e e r, scale, a issues are s and desig n n a develo p p rovided e e nvironmen t d eveloped a W here pos s a djacent to m a nd signali m ovements oading. T he passe n t angent or s a nd passen g w hen they a n eed for the a rea. As a p lace in an e xtensions r esulting in t o n the leng t s tops in th e s treetcar w e p arking ma y C CD relies s tormwater. d isplaces s o w ater undes t he vehicle i a rchitectural ong, a vint a s stations o mponents o the entran c b e an esse n through wh e refore, the nd style of important w n s. p ed urban a r e very two t s, but c a reas, much s ible, statio m ajor cross zed inters e through tho n ger loadin g s traight trac k g er safety w a re along tr a guideway t result, pass active trav e where pa r t he loss of 2 t h of the pl a e Colfax co r e re to use y be less. on streets t Additiona o me storm w ireably. i nfluences t h style and a ge restored o r passeng e o f the syste m c e or gatew a n tial part of t ich the stre e y should b e the surrou n w hen consi d r ea, streetc a to three a n be fart like traditio n ns should streets or m e ctions to se intersect g areas sh k s to facilit a w hen loadin a ditional cu r o curve to li enger loadi n e l lane, an d r king may to 3 parkin g a tform. Ons r ridor has b existing st o t o ca r ry a s l concrete w ater capa c h e design o size. At a p or replica v J u e r loading a m after the a y to the s y t he urban f a e tcar guide w e designed n ding neigh d ering stree t a r stops gen e blocks i n her apart n al bus stop s be located m ajor activit y facilitate ions after p a ould alway s a te ADA ac c g. Stops w r b lines to a ne up with a n g tradition a d is located be on th e g spaces, d e s treet parki n b een remov e o ps, the i m s ignificant a m for curb e x c ity and ma y The sele c f the statio n p proximatel y v ehicle woul u ly 2010 a reas are vehicles. y stem for a bric and w ays and to fit the borhood. t car stop e rally are n urban in less s near or y centers streetcar a ssenger s be on c essibility w ork best a void the a loading a lly takes on curb e street, e pending n g at bus e d. If a m pact on m ount of x tensions y redirect c tion of n both in y 45 feet d have a

PAGE 45

C C olfax St r r eetcar Fe a a sibility S t t udy s i l A d f w C r c s P w n a T a P a 37 s maller pas s s 65 feet o onger platf o A DA acces s d esign. Lo w f or loading w ayside ra m C CD curbs a r equire mini c an be ac c s loping to m P assenger l w ell with su r n ot interfer e a djacent sid e T he design a s budgeta r P assenger a a s: o Shelt e the el e o Seati n street c o Cust o syste m infor m neigh b o A men racks o Other conc e publi c s enger plat fo or longer. L o rms. s ibility of th e w -floor mod e Highe r f m ps or lifts o r a re generall y mum 8 cu r c ommodate d eet the exis t l oading are a r rounding p e e with nor m e walk. of the stati o r y resource s a menities c a e r or canopi e e ments n g (if loca c ar stops w o o mer inform a m informa t m ation, an d b orhood ities such a can be pro v amenities, e ssions, ne w c art fo rm than a L ight rail ve h e vehicle al s e rn vehicles f loor vinta g r on-board li f y 6. Low-fl r b. This c h d with the s t ing sidewal k a s should b e destrian tr a m al pedest r o n can be a s and loca l a n also an d e s for pass e l bus sto p o uld as well ) a tion, either t ion or e d informati a s trash ca n v ided including w spaper ra c J u modern ve h h icles woul d s o influenc e require a ra i g e vehicles f ts for acce s oor modern h ange in cu r s top curb e k height. b e designed a ffic. Statio n r ian activit y s simple or l preferenc e d include it e e nger prote c p s provide ) printed sc h e lectronic s on on t h n s, lighting, advertising c ks, pay tel e u ly 2010 h icle that d require e s station i sed curb require s sibility. vehicles r b height e xtension to work n s should y on the complex e s allow. e ms such c tion from seating, h edule or s chedule h e local and bike panels, e phones,

PAGE 46

C F F C olfax St r As in t F igure 8: Str e F igure 9: Str e r eetcar Fe a s stated p t ersections, e etcar Stop E e etcar Stop E a sibility S t reviously, s preferably a int e c o st o s h of a c a r fe e th e E xample: F a E xample: N e t udy s tations sh o a signalized e rsection. o nfiguration s o p example h ows a stop these ex a c commodat e r ea or platf o e t long). T h e vehicle. a r Side of an e ar Side of a 38 o uld gener a intersection Figures 8 s for streetc a located at t example lo c a mples sh o e the passe n o rm is scale d h is dimensio Intersection a n Intersecti o a lly be lo c to facilitate through 1 0 a r stops at i t he far side c ated at a n e o w a bu m n ger loadin g d for a mo d n would var y Platform o n Platform c ated near streetcar m o 0 show so m i ntersection s of an inter s e ar side of a m p-out in g area. Th e d ern streetc a y dependin g J u major cr o o vement th r m e of the s Figure 8 s ection and a n intersecti o a parking e passenge a r (approxi m g on the exa u ly 2010 o ss-street r ough the possible shows a Figure 9 o n. Both lane to r loading m ately 65 ct size of

PAGE 47

C F C olfax St r Fi g bl o c o w e F igure 10: S t r eetcar Fe a g ure 10 sh o o ck activity o ntinuous c u e ll. t reetcar Sto p a sibility S t o ws a mid-bl center or m u rb line. Th i p Example: M t udy ock passen g m inimize co n i s type of d e M id-block Pl a Center p the cent e instance s consider e removal existing accomm o narrowin g redesign lower-tra f as show n 39 g er stop. T n flicts at a n e sign could a tform latforms co u e r of a str e s although e d. Cent e of a cente r traffic con f o date exist g of lanes, of the str e f fic areas s u n in the acc o his type of s n earby inter s be integrat e u ld be use d e et. This it present s e r platform s r turn lane f igurations, ing t r affic sidewalks e et. Cente r u ch as the o mpanying p s tation woul d s ection. Th e d with a bu l d if a street c configurati o s other iss u s generally or other s or additio lanes, whi curb lan e r platforms Portland S o p hotos. J u d serve a m is example l bout and p a c ar guidewa o n is used u es that s h require ei ignificant c h nal right-o f ch could r e s, or othe would wor k o uth Waterf r u ly 2010 ajor midshows a a rking as y was in in some h ould be ther the h ange to f -way to r esult in r radical k best in r ont area

PAGE 48

C I C olfax St r nte g ration w A c o s c Fi g e x sl o s p C o in S t s e hi g p r at t T h la n v e al l Fi g st r r eetcar Fe a w ith the Loca l streetcar s y o nsider. Fig c enarios, ra n g ure 11: Str e x clusive or e o w speeds p eeds (and o mmuter rai a fully dedi c t reetcars ar e e rvice at slo w g her speed s r ovide even t ractions of s h e flexibility n es so tha t e hicles. Th i l owing max i g ures 12 th r eetcar guid e a sibility S t l Transporta t y stem falls w ure 11 is a n ging from l o e etcar Integ r e xclusive g u in a localiz e regional se r l (and in so c ated guide w e able to sp a w speeds in s and can o higher spe s treetcar sy s of streetca t the street c i s minimize s i mum acce s rough 15 ill e ways (and t udy t ion Networ k w ithin a br o matrix that o cal service r ation into T r u ideways a s e d urban e n r vice ability) me cities, h e w ay, usually a n several s mixed traffi c o perate in s e eds, depen d s tems to m a r design a n c ar vehicle s s costs (sin c s s to the s y ustrate ho w stops) in s e 40 k o ad range o f shows how at slow spe e r ansportatio n s speeds in c n vironment increase a s e avy rail) is in a railroa d s ervice sce n c but they c e mi-exclusi v d ing on sta a ny urban ar n d operatio n s share the c e a separ a y stem for th w streetcars e veral street f transporta streetcars f e ds to regio n n Network c rease. Li g in a semie s it moves i focused al m d corrido r n arios. The y c an also rec e v e or exclus i tion spacin g eas. n s allow it t right-of-wa y a te guidew a e local co m operate in a lane and p a tion option s f it into a var i n al service a Figur e local provi d spee d entir e with recei v in mi x transi in t h servi c more with transi g ht rail can e xclusive gu i nto a fully d m ost entirel y y can provid e ive priority i ve guidew a g This fle x o function w y with auto s a y is usuall y m munity thr o a mixed-flo w a rking config J u s for a com m i ety of tran s a t higher sp e e 11 sho buses and d e slow o d s focused e ly on local some a b v e priority t x ed traffic. B t (BRT) is a h e realm c e, able to of a region a priority t tioning int o operate at ideway, alt h d edicated g y on region a e relatively treatment f o a ys in some x ibility is o n w ithin existi n s buses, a y not requir e o ugh freque w environm e urations. u ly 2010 m unity to s portation e eds. ws that shuttles o perating almost service, b ility to reatment B us rapid a step up of bus operate a l service reatment o semirelatively h ough its uideway. a l service localized o r slightly areas to n e of the n g travel nd other e d) while nt stops. e nt using

PAGE 49

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 41 Figure 12: Conceptual Cross Section with Streetcar #1 Figure 12 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with three travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center turn lane. This cross section does not include parking.

PAGE 50

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 42 Figure 13: Conceptual Cross Section with Streetcar #2 Figure 13 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and parking on both sides of the street.

PAGE 51

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 43 Figure 14: Conceptual Cross Section with Streetcar #3 Figure 14 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and parking on one side of the street.

PAGE 52

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 44 Figure 15: Conceptual Cross Section with Streetcar #4 Figure 15 shows a concept for a streetcar within the right-of-way of a roadway with two travel lanes in each direction and no on-street parking.

PAGE 53

C C olfax St r r eetcar Fe a a sibility S t S ys Mo s wir e an d str e vol t the str a sli d tra d Ov e or a effi exi s S m int e El e ret u Si g ve h co m ar e tra n ge o mo Fa ne a Lo c pa s Fa a p lig h bo a R o t udy s tems s t modern e s. Overh e d issues tha t e etcar syste m t s DC provi d overhead c a ddles the w d es along t d itionally u s e rhead wir e a catenary t cient electri s ting buildin m all substati o e rvals alon g e ctrical grou n u rn current t g naling and h icle mov e m municatio n e integrated n sportation o graphic po vements an re collectio n a r the fron t c ating the s senger ca p re collectio n p roo f -of-pay m h t rail syste a rding the v o ving fare in s 45 streetcar s y e ad electric t should be m Electric d ed through c ontact wire w ire, or a p a t he wire. s e a trolley e s are eithe r t hat is a do u cal power d g facades o o ns for ele c g the rout e n ding is req u o a substati o communic a e ments. n s (radios, i n with local systems (I T sitioning sy s d potentiall y n systems c t doors. T h fareboxes p acity and sl o n can also b e m ent syste m m. Under v ehicle. T h s pectors ca n y stems are power has a considered power for s t overhead w with either a ntograph w Vintage re s pole; mod r single troll e u ble wire th a d istribution. r light poles c trical pow e e usually u ired to co m o n. a tions syst e These c n -street dete traffic sign a T S), and ve h s tems (GP S y a rider info c an be onb h is is the u near the d o w the boar e conducted m with way s this system h is allows t h n request tic k powered b a number o in the plan n t reetcars is g w ires. Vehic a spring-lo a w ith a wide s tored or v ern vehicle e y wires hu n a t allows lon It may be e r distributio at hal f -mil e m plete the D e ms are re q c an inclu d ction loops, a lization sy s h icle locatio n S ) that allo w rmation sys t b oard, whic h u sual practi c d oor of th e ding proces s with advan c s ide ticketin g riders pur c h em to ent e k ets to ens u J u b y overhea d o f key char a n ing and de g enerally 6 0 les draw po a ded trolley contact sur f v intage rep l s use pan t n g from pol e ger spans a possible t o n will be n e e or mile C circuit an d q uired to c o d e train-to or other m e s tems and i n systems, w tracking o t em. h requires f a c e for vint a e vehicle c s c ed ticketin g g similar to c hase ticke t e r through a u re complia n u ly 2010 d electric a cteristics sign of a 0 0 to 750 wer from pole that f ace that l ica cars t ographs. e to pole a nd more o tie into e eded at intervals. d allow a o ordinate -wayside e ans) that ntelligent including o f vehicle a reboxes a ge cars. c an limit g This is Denvers t s before a ny doo r n ce.

PAGE 54

C T C olfax St r ri d 2 0 to T h T h Ro u 15 East Col f 15L East C o 10 East 12th 20 20th Ave n T otal Bus Bo a Source: DRCO G Note: The perc e primary r eetcar Fe a d ership in th 0 07 base ye develop a d h e results s h h e 2035 mo d u te f ax o lfax Limited Avenue n ue a rdings G Regional Mod e e nt change betw routes in the st u a sibility S t e Colfax co ar. The pe r d justed 203 5 h own in Tab d el includes TABLE 21: 2 0 2007 Obse r Boardin g 10,020 10,810 3,360 3,250 27,440 e l, RTD, Fehr & e en the 2007 an u dy area. t udy Futu r RTD to f o area inclu trav e well Trav e inclu rout e The fore c rridor. Tabl r cent chang e 5 ridership f le 21 reflect planned bu s 0 35 ADJUST E r ved g s 2007 M o Boardi n 5,16 0 4,93 0 2,70 0 2,45 0 15,2 4 Peers d 2035 model r e 77 r e Transit S e used the 2 o recast futu r both with a n de ridership e l east/west as foreca s e l time com ded in this e s and resul t results sh o c asts. The e 21 provid e e between t f orecasts fo r a scenario s service im E D MODEL RI D o del n gs 2035 Boa (No S t 0 7, 0 3, 0 5, 0 7, 4 0 2 3 e sults were used e rvice & Rid e 035 DRCO G r e transit ri d n d without a forecasts f o through the s ts for two parison bet w analysis. t s for three s o wn in Fig model is e s observe d he 2007 an d r the four p r without any provements D ERSHIP FO R Model rdings t reetcar) 640 480 780 020 3 ,920 to develop adju s e rship G regional t r d ership wit h streetcar. T o r the four e study area possible s t w een bus a n Figure 24 s cenarios. ure 24 ar e currently u d and model d 2035 mo d r imary rout e streetcar s e as well as t R ECASTS Forecast Percent Change 48% 29% 114% 187% 57% s ted 2035 riders h J u r avel dema n h in the CS F T he modeli n e xisting bus l (10, 15, 15 L t reetcar ali g n d streetca r shows the e unadjuste nder predi c ed boardin g d el results w e s in the st u e rvice in the t he FasTrac k 2035 Ad j Model Boar Street 14,8 4 7,6 3 7,1 9 9,3 1 38,9 7 h ip forecasts for u ly 2010 n d model F S study n g results l ines that L 20) as g nments. r was not modeled d model c ting bus g s for the ere used u dy area. corridor. k s plan. j usted dings (No car) 4 0 3 0 9 0 1 0 7 0 the four

PAGE 55

C S P C olfax St r S ection 5: P OPULATIO N In of a r P o b e d e a n a s C C P e li k G o h o C o in c a r to r eetcar Fe a Existing a N AND EMPLgeneral, th e the region r ound the st u o pulation in e tween Lin c e velopment n d Downing s shown in F C D populati o e ople who li v k ely to take t o vernments o useholds i n o lfax study a c ludes 12% r ea currentl y 7,400 in 20 a sibility S t a nd Futu r OYMENT e househol d (2.5 in 201 u dy area. the study a c oln Street is expected Street, and F igure 17. B o n. v e in low-in c t ransit. Low (DRCOG) n the regio n a rea, and t h of the CCD y has appro x 3 5. t udy r e Condit i Populati o The C C 254,900 765,400 359,600 approxi m average is expec t in 29,70 0 1.5. Th e two, indi c d size in the 0 and 2.4 i n ar ea is curr e and Color a in Downto w the southe a oth today a n c ome hous e -income ho u as those n There a r h is number low incom e x imately 5,6 47 i ons o n and Hous C D currentl y household s residents househol d m ately 35,5 0 of 1.6 pers o t ed to have 0 household e average h c ating the p study area n 2035). F e ntly conce n a do Boule v w n Denve r t h a st quadran t n d in the fut u e holds and t u seholds ar e household s r e approxi m is expected e household s 00 zero-ca r ehold Chara c y has appr o s By 2035 (an increa d s. The 0 0 resident s o ns per hou s a populatio n s. This yiel d ousehold si z resence of m is smaller t h igure 16 sh n trated in t h v ard. The h e 19th Av e t of the Colf a u re, the stu d t hose hous e e defined b y s in the l o m ately 6,10 0 to rise to 8 s in 6% of t h r household s c teristics o ximately 5 8 the CCD se of 30 % study a s in 22,300 s ehold. By 2 n of 45,300 ( d s an avera g z e in the st u m any single h an the av e ows popula h e area sou t most inte n e nue corrido a x Avenue a d y area incl u e holds with n y the Denve r o west 11% 0 low-incom e 8 ,600 by 20 h e overall p o s which is e J u 8 7,900 res i is expected % ) in appr o rea curre n households 2 035, the s t ( an increas e g e househo u dy area is l -person ho u e rage house h tion by blo c t h of Colfa x n se new r e r between B a nd I-25 int e u des about 6 n o vehicles a r Regional C income b r e househol d 35. The st u o pulation. T e xpected to u ly 2010 i dents in to have o ximately n tly has with an t udy area e of 28%) ld size of l ess than u seholds. h old size c k in and x Avenue e sidential B roadway e rchange, 6 % of the a re more C ouncil of r acket of d s in the u dy area T he study increase

PAGE 56

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 16: study area population, 2000 0-25 people 26-50 people 51-100 people 101-500 people 5011000 people Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2000 Census, feild survey miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevardstudy area boundary

PAGE 57

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 17: study area population growth 2000-2035 -33-0% growth 1-50% growth 50-100% growth101-500% growth +501% growth Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2035 DRCOG TransCAD model miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevardstudy area boundary

PAGE 58

C C olfax St r A p r Ci T h w h r eetcar Fe a summary o r ovided in T a ty of Denve h e employ m h ole. a sibility S t o f the pop u a ble 12. In r and conta ent density t udy Emplo y Overa increa Figur e largel y highe s Figur e expec t and i n Boule v the Ci t Popul a While empl o huge r corrid o This y peopl e peopl e densit 14,94 6 2035. u lation and general, th e ins a larger within the s 50 y ment ll the Colfa x sing to 10 5 e 18 illustra y concentra t s t concentr a e 19, betwe e t ed in the C n various lo c v ard. In ge n t y and Coun a tion and E m the absolu o yment is im r ole in deter o r. The stu d y ields a cur r e per squar e e per squa y is expec t 6 jobs per s q employme n e study are a proportion o s tudy area i s x study area 5 ,300 in 20 3 tes that e m t ed on the w a tions in D o e n now and C entral Plat t c ations in t h n eral, the st ty of Denve r m plo y ment D e te number portant, the mining if an d y area is a r ent study a e mile, whic h re mile by t ed to incr e q uare mile t o n t characte r a populatio n o f low inco m s five times has appro x 3 5 (an incr m ployment i n w est side of Y o wntown D e 2035 additi t e Valley, i n h e study ar e udy area in c r employme e nsities of populati o density of d area can b e pproximatel a rea popula t h is forecast 2035. Si m e ase from o 22,743 jo b r istics withi n n is twice as m e househol that of the J u x imately 69, 2 ease of ov e n the stud y Y ork Street e nver. As s onal devel o n Downtown e a east of C c ludes abo u nt. o n, househ o d evelopme n e a success f y 4.63 squ a t ion density to increase m ilarly, em p its current b s per squa r n the stud y dense as t ds than oth e City of De n u ly 2010 2 00 jobs, e r 50%). y area is with the s hown in o pment is Denver, C olorado u t 16% of o lds, and n t plays a f ul transit a re miles. of 7,667 to 9,784 p loyment value of r e mile in y area is he entire e r areas. n ver as a

PAGE 59

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 18: study area employment, 2004 0-50 employees 51-100 employees 101-500 employees 501-1500 employees 1501-3000 employees Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2004 ES202 data from DRCOG and RTD miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevardstudy area boundary

PAGE 60

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 19: study area employment growth 2004-2035 -67-0% growth 1-50% growth 51-100% growth101-500% growth+501% growth Source: City and County of Denver GIS, 2035 DRCOG TransCAD model miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevardstudy area boundary

PAGE 61

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 53 LAND USE KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS Several significant activity centers generate travel along the Colfax Corridor and the greater study area. They include schools, civic destinations, recreation, and entertainment opportunities. These types of activities can be well served by access to streetcar to accommodate commuters, students, tourists, shoppers, and visitors. The following summary outlines key clusters of activities within these categories. Education Five educational campuses are in the corridor: Auraria Higher Education Campus (at Co lfax Avenue and Speer Boulevard) is home to three institutions of higher education (University of Colorado at Denver, Community College of Denver and Metropolitan State College) that collectively enroll approximately 45,000 students. Faculty and other school workers increase the overall number of people using the campus. Emily Griffith Opportunity School (north of Colfax Avenue at Speer Boulevard) is part of Denver Public Schools. Emily Griffith encompasses a high school and postsecondary vocational institution and enrolls approximately 11,000 students. East High School (at Colfax Avenue and York Street) is a four-year high school that enrolls approximately 2,200 students. TABLE 12: EXISTING & FUTURE STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Characteristic Existing (2010) Future (2035) Study Area City of DenverStudy Area City of Denver Population 35,500 587,900 45,300 (28% increase) 765,400 (30% increase) Population Density (per square mile) 7,667 3,803 9,784 (28% increase) 4,952 (30% increase) Low Income Households 6,100 49,700 8,600 (41% increase) 69,500 (40% increase) Low Income Household Density (per square mile) 1,317 322 1,857 (41% increase) 450 (40% increase) Employment 69,200 424,600 105,300 (52% increase) 629,600 (48% increase) Employment Density (per square mile) 14,946 2,747 22,743 (52% increase) 4,073 (48% increase) Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), 2009

PAGE 62

C E C C olfax St r E mplo y ment T h in O t C ivic Destin a S e st r A l r eetcar Fe a Johns o privat e Denv e and hi g h e study ar e Downtown D t her signific a Presb y Exem p Frankl Nation Rose H Color a a tions e veral civic r eetcar, incl u l of these d e a sibility S t o n and Wa e university a e r School of g h school a n e a encompa s D enver is a p a nt employe y terian/St. L u p la Saint J o in Street) al Jewish H H ospital an d a do Bouleva r destinatio n u ding: e stinations a t udy les Univers a nd enrolls a the Arts (a n d enrolls a p s ses a signi f p proximatel y rs in the stu d u kes (at 19 t o seph and ospital (at C d the VA Ho r d) n s generat e a re located n 54 ity (at Mon a pproximate t Montview p proximatel y f icant portio n y 110,000 w o d y area incl u t h A venue b e Kaiser (at 1 C olfax Aven u spital are a d e significan t C W D S S S D D C n ear Civic C e tview Boul e ly 1,500 stu d Boulevard a y 800 stude n n of Downt o o rkers. u de four ho s e tween Fra n 1 8th A venu e u e and Colo r d jacent to t h t visitation C ity and Cou W ebb Munici D enver Justi c S tate Capitol S tate Justice S tate Office C D enver Art M D enver Publi c C olorado His e nter Park a e vard and Q d ents. a nd Quebe c n ts. o wn Denver. s pitals: n klin Street a e between D r ado Boulev a h e study are that could nty of Denv e pal Building c e Cente r Cente r C omplex M useum c Library tory Museu m a t Colfax Av e J u Q uebec Str e c Street) is Overall em p a nd High Str D owning S t a rd) a (at 9th A v e be well s e e r Building m e nue and Br o u ly 2010 e et) is a a middle p loyment eet) t reet and e nue and e rved by o adway.

PAGE 63

C P C olfax St r P arks and R e S e r eetcar Fe a e creational A e veral of De Civic C and g a Chee s Street surrou Congr e to rec r in the s City P series the w a The D e The D annua Denv e Street ) classe a sibility S t A menities nvers most C enter Park a therings th r s man Park i n and High S t nding the p a e ss Park, ju s r eational so c s ummer mo ark (at 17thand recentl y a te r e nver Zoo (i D enver Mus e lly. e r Botanic G a ) is one of s and a pop t udy prominent p (at Broadw a r oughout th e n the Capit o t reet) provi d a rk. s t outside o f c cer and ba nths. A venue a n y built an in t n City Park ) e um of Nat u a rdens, im m the top-ra n ular summ e Entertain m Several e Fillmore, events. Shoppin g Neighbo r Capitol H Mayfair. 55 p arks and a m a y and Colf a e year. o l Hill Neig h d es open sp a f the study a seball leag u n d Colorad o t eractive fou ) has 1.6 mil u re and Sci m ediately ou t n ked botani c e r concert s e m ent e ntertainme n Ogden, an d g r hood shop H ill, Uptow n m enities are a x) is home h borhood (a a ce for the d a rea (at 8th A u es and a w o Boulevard ntain that a t lion visitors ence (in Ci t t side the st u c al gardens e ries. n t venues a d Bluebird T h ping distri c n Cheesm a in the stud y to numerou t 12th A ven u d ense resid e A venue and Y w ell-used ou t ) holds a f r t tracts man y annually. t y Park) ha s u dy area (at in the US a re in the c o h eaters whi c c ts in the a n Park, C J u y area. s festivals, c u e between e ntial neigh b Y ork Street ) t door swim m r ee summe r y people to c s 1.2 millio n 9th A venue a offering a v o rridor, incl u c h all host li v study area C ongress P a u ly 2010 c oncerts, Franklin b orhoods ) is home m ing pool r concert c ool off in n visitors a nd York v ariety of u ding the v e music include a rk, and

PAGE 64

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 56 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Streetcar systems around the country have been built with several purposes in mind. Systems have been built to serve the typica l transit objectives of moving people and improving transportation access. Systems have also been built with significant goals for economic development, new housing, and downtown revitalization. Since a new streetcar system along Colfax Avenue would represent a signi ficant public investment for the Denver region, an approach to measuring economic development potential is needed in order to weigh the costs and benefits of implementing a system. Definitively measuring the economic development potential from a streetcar is more easily said than done, however. While evidence from other cities suggests that streetcars and development go hand-in-hand, it is difficult to separate the impact from the streetcar on development from other influences such as market conditions, locational strengths, public subsidies, and other factors. A streetcar is usually one of several projects, actions, and incentives that combine to make a corridor revitalization effort successful. To evaluate the likelihood that a streetcar will ca talyze development along Colfax, it is helpful to explore the conditions for success that have led to successful revitalization elsewhere and to study those factors along Colfax. If m any or most of those conditions are already present or could be applied to Colfax, then it is likely that a streetcar would be reinforced by the desired land use investments if built. Conversely, if many of these conditions are missing from Colfax, it can be expected that a streetcar alone would not achieve the desired revitalization. The success factors seen in other cities generally fall into the following categories: Real estate opportunity: Development can be expected if real estate conditions are positive. This can include factors such as the number of recent projects (the market is there), population and employment growth, positive demographics in surrounding neighborhoods (rising incomes, small household sizes), and available land (development opportunity). Public tools: The presence of public policies and tools can encourage development alongside streetcars. These can include mixed-use zoning, minimal parking requirements, public financing tools (such as tax increment financing, tax credits), and an accelerated permitting process that speeds up projects that meet policy goals. Leadership: Strong leadership can help projects break through unforeseen barriers that impede implementation. Champions should come from both the public sector (city council) and the private sector (business associations, media, and community groups). Development opportunities: Significant new investment cannot occur unless there are physical sites for new investments or redevelopment. This can be measured by the presence of large, vacant sites under single

PAGE 65

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 57 ownership, expressions of developer in terest in the area, significant underutilized sites (such as surface parking lots, single-story buildings), and a track record of local developers experienced in building mixed-use development. Urban amenities: Finally, revitalization does not occur in a vacuum. Great communities also require strong pedestrian environments (good sidewalks, street trees, connectivity), a diverse range of retail and service uses, and civic, cultural, and employment destinations. In order to evaluate the opportunity for economic development, the conditions for success along Colfax were compared to those in two other cities where streetcars have been planned or built: Portland and Albuquerque. These cities were selected because they have both key similarities and differences to Colfax and the availability of data makes for an easy comparison. Portland is a similarly-sized city to Denver and has a streetcar system that is already built. Albuquerque, while smaller than Denver, is planning a streetcar system on Central Avenue, an urban corridor very similar to Colfax. Albuquerque voters recently passed a sales tax that will partially fund the streetcar. The analysis revealed that Colfax ranked relati vely highly compared to Portland in several areas such as a track record of recent development, leadership, and a good mix of origins and destinations. Compared to Albuquerque, Colfax is the same or better in many areas such as development opportunity sites, origins and destinations, developer interest, and supportive demographics. However, compared to both cities, Colfax ranked moderately in areas such as the size of development sites, parking regulations that encourage denser development, and housing and employ ment growth. A summary of the comparison findings is on the following pages. Compared to the two other cities where signifi cant planning for streetcars has already taken place, the conditions for success along Colfax are relatively strong. This strength indicates that the likelihood for economic development is high, since the preexisting conditions for success are already present.

PAGE 66

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 58 TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF STREETCAR ISSUES Real Estate Findings Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland Household growth Employment growth Prices/rents Demographics Recent developments Public Tools Findings Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland Zoning Parking regulations Public finance Leadership Findings Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland Champions ? Neighborhood Support ? Business Support ? Identified in plans Media Support ? Development Opportunities Findings Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland Property owner interest ? Large, single ownerships Underutilized land Knowledgeable, local developers Urban Amenities Findings Indicator Colfax Albuquerque Portland Quality public realm Walkable street grid Local serving retail Major destinations = Weak = Moderate = Strong ? = Additional Study Required Note: Based on Leland Consulting Groups assesment of existing conditions

PAGE 67

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 59 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS AND ELEMENTS The study area for the Colfax Streetcar Feas ibility Study extends roughly from I-25 and Colfax Avenue southwest of the Auraria campus to Syracuse Street, a distance of approximately 6 miles. The northern boundary of the study area is 19th Avenue and the southern boundary is 12th Avenue. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Tables 14 and 15 summarize the cross-sections of the major roadways in the study area. TABLE 14: GENERAL STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS: COLFAX AVENUE From To Approximate width Lane configuration Comments I-25 Speer Blvd. 80 3 travel lanes in each direction Median barrier on viaduct; left turn lanes in center added at Osage and east; no parking Speer Blvd. 14th St. 80 3 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections No parking 14th St. Broadway 80 2 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Curves around Civic Center Plaza; no parking Broadway Grant St. 65 3 travel lanes in each direction; left turn lanes at intersections No parking Grant St. Logan St. 60 2 lanes each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Parking south side only Logan St. Pearl St. 60 2 lanes each direction Parking both sides Pearl St. Clarkson St. 60 2 lanes each direction; left turn lanes at intersections Parking north side Clarkson St. Ogden St. 65 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking generally one side only (usually north) Ogden St. Colorado Blvd. 65 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking both sides Colorado Blvd. Syracuse St. 75 2 lanes each direction; continuous center left turn lane Parking both sides Source: Visual inspection and Google Earth

PAGE 68

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 60 TABLE 15: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA Street From To Comments/Characteristics 19th Ave. Broadway Park/Ogden One-way eastbound; generally 50 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides; truncated at hospital at Ogden 18th Ave. Broadway York/Josephine (City Park) One-way westbound; generally 40 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on one side 17th Ave. Broadway York/Josephine (City Park) One-way eastbound; generally 50 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides 16th Ave. Broadway City Park Esplanade (East High School) Two-way, generally 35-40 ROW with 1 travel lane in each direction and parking and/or bicycle lane on both sides 14th Ave. Broadway Colorado Blvd. One-way eastbound; generally 35-40 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on one or both sides 14th Ave. Colorado Blvd. Syracuse St. One-way eastbound; generally 30 ROW with 2 travel lanes and parking on one side (generally the south side) 13th Ave. Broadway Grant St. One-way westbound; generally 55 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking on both sides 13th Ave. Grant St. Marion St. One-way westbound; generally 40-45 ROW with 3 travel lanes and parking one side (usually north side) 13th Ave. Marion St. Syracuse St. One-way westbound; generally 30-40 ROW with 2 travel lanes and parking one side (usually north side) 12th Ave. Broadway Franklin (Cheesman Park) Generally 35-40ROW, two-way with 2 travel lanes, parking both sides Source: Project team from vi sual inspection and Google Earth

PAGE 69

C C olfax St r M a r eetcar Fe a a jor east/w e travel l 14th Av edge o on-str e and o n 17th Av Auror a descri b B w s o Y C t C 1 d o E s a sibility S t e st streets t h l anes and o n v enue is a o f the City o f e et parking n -street par k v enue provi a to downto w b ed below. B roadway t o w ith three t r s ection is p r o n the north Y ork Street t C ity Park w i t he street, a n C olorado B o 1 7th A venu e d irection se p o n each sid e E ast of Mon s treet parki n t udy h rough the s t Col f ce n Hig lon g stu d ea c a c e 13t h wa y Yo s ha s sid e n -street par k one-way e a f Denver at on the sout k ing on the s des east/w e w n Denver. o York Stre e r avel lanes r ovided by 1 side of the s t o Colorado i th two trav e n d a center o ulevard to e Parkway p arated by a e of the roa d aco Parkw a n g on both s i 61 t udy area a r f ax A venu e n tral Denve r hway 40 a n g est contin u d y area the c h direction, e nter two-w a h Avenue is y travel b e s emite Stre e s two travel e of the roa k ing on the n a stbound a r Yosemite S h side. Th e s outh side ju e st connecti The cross e t the roa d and parkin g 8th A venue w s treet. Boulevard e l lanes in e left turn lan e Monaco Pa because th a 100-wide t d way. a y 17th A v e i des of the s r e described e is the m r Colfax n d, from A u u ous arteria cross sect i parking ge n a y left turn l a a one-wa y e gins at th e e t and ends lanes and dway. The n orth side ju r terial from S treet. The s e cross sec t st east of C o vity from th section vari e d way beco m g on both s i w ith three tr the roadw a e ach directi o e rkway th e e roadway t ree-lined m e nue has o n s treet. below. ajor east/w Avenue is u rora throu g l street in t i on include s n erally on b o a ne or medi a y westboun d e eastern e at Kalamat on-street p cross secti o st west of M Kalamath S s treet has t h t ion change s o lorado Bou e A nschutz e s through o m es a onew i des. West b avel lanes a a y is along t o n, parking e road is ty p has two t r m edian. A s t n e lane in e a J u est arterial designate d g h Lakewoo t he country s two travel o th sides, a a n. d arterial. T e dge of D e h Street. T p arking on t o n change s M arion Stree t S treet to th e h ree travel l a s to two tra v levard. Medical C a o ut the stud y w ay eastbou b ound trav e a nd on-stre e t he souther n on the sout p ically refer r r avel lanes t riped parki n a ch directio n u ly 2010 through d as US d, is the In the lanes in nd either T he onee nver at he street t he north s to three t e eastern a nes and v el lanes a mpus in y area as nd street e l for this e t parking n edge of h side of r ed to as in each n g lane is n and on-

PAGE 70

C C olfax St r It th a re O t r eetcar Fe a The C o off-str e A ppro x meter e The bl progr a A ppro x off-str e Peak aroun d 49% o parkin g Sever a surve y is noted th a a n those in lated to hig h t her parking Parkin Parkin meter e The C with p West, neigh b a sibility S t o lfax Main S e et. x imately 20 e d, includin g ocks aroun d a m. x imately 16 0 e et spaces i n parking oc c d 9:00 PM o o ccupied wit g spaces o c a l of the re y a t the resid e the Cherr y h er residenti trends with i g on Colfax g is typica l e d. SFS study a arking per m Botanic G b orhoods. t udy P A RKING CCD is i n The first p The repo r in the p a Colfax M a on the so on the w e Main Str e Phase 1 R S treet distric % of the o g those spa c d the Bluebi r 0 on-street s n the study a c upancy, a s o n Friday d h 63% of o n c cupied. sidential bl o e ntial rates g y Creek No al density in i n the CSF S Avenue is m l ly time re s a rea includ e m it restrictio n G ardens, Ci 62 A V AILABILI T n the proce s p hase of th e r t shows th a a rking stud y a in Street di uth by 13th A e st by York e et district R eport are s t has 4,800 o n-street sp c es on Colfa x r d Theater a s paces are r a rea are rel a s observed uring a con n -street par k o cks were f g enerated f o rth and Un i the Colfax M S study area m etered wit h s tricted on e s several r n s includin g ty Park, H T Y (ONA N D s s of devel o e project ha s a t a section y as the C o strict is bou A venue, on Street. Th from the D ummarized parking sp a aces in th e x Avenue. a re in the D e r eserved for a ted to the s during the cert at the k ing spaces f ully occupi e o r the Colfa x i versity of D M ain Street include: h 2 hour limi t segments o esidential p a g Capitol H i H ospital W e D OFF-STR E o ping a Str a s been co m of the CSF S o lfax Main S nd on the n the east by e key findi n D enver Str a below. a ces 2,84 3 e district ar e nver Resid e East High S s chool. Phase 1 e Bluebird T h occupied a e d (>85%) x Main Stre D enver neig area. t s west of El o f Colfax A a rking per m i ll, North C a e st, Hospit a J u E ET) a tegic Park i m pleted with S area was S treet distri orth by 17thJackson St n gs about t h a tegic Park 3 on-street a e time res t e ntial Parki n S chool. Ma e valuation, h eater. Par k a nd 29% of during the et district a r hborhoods. izabeth Str e A venue that m it areas wit a pitol Hill, C a l, and No u ly 2010 i ng Plan. a report. included ct. The Avenue, reet, and h e Colfax ing Plan nd 1,957 t ricted or n g Permit ny of the occurred k ing was off-street Phase 1 r e higher This is e et. are not h streets C ity Park rth East

PAGE 71

C U C olfax St r U TILITY INF R T h a o p re ut r eetcar Fe a On str 2-3 p a could b as pa r be stu d R ASTRUCTU R h e location, significant c p portunity a n view of exis ility design s a sibility S t e ets with o n a rking spac e b e used for r king has al r d ied in mor e R E redesign, s e c ost of cons t n d constrai n ting utilities s are expl o t udy n -street par k e s for stop a streetcar s t r eady been e detail duri n e rvice level, t ructing a m n t. Typicall y during a pr e o red to ide objec t desig n servic recon s utilitie s mode r feasi b challe when retain i lack o have r This s within west analy s under s is the assoc mode r The e used t equip m storm electri Base d appe a below study as th e 63 k ing, streetc a a ccess. If e t ops, the nu m removed fo n g future stu maintenan c m odern stre e y the constr e liminary de s ntity sever a t ives. In ma n of utilities e delivery a s truction or s for adj a r n infrastru b ility of a m nges are n o major stru c i ng walls ar e o f cost effe c r ecently be e s tudy inves t the right-o f streets in t s is provid e s tanding of first step i iated with r e r n streetcar e xisting City t o determin e m ent, lighti n sewer inlet c conduits, u d on this g e a rs that se w segments o area. The e y do not ru n a r construc t e xisting bu s m ber of sp a r bus acce s dy. c e access, a e tcar. In m a uction of a s s ign phase o a l economi c ny situation s presents a nd moderni z relocation a cent rede v ctu r e. Ut m odern stre e o t cost effe c c tures, suc h e requi r ed. c tiveness if u e n construct e t igated a p f -way of Co l he study c o e d the pr the presen c i n identifyin g e constructi n project. and Count y e general c h n g, natural g s, water lin e u tility upgra d e neral asse s w er lines an d o f all of the e length of s e n east/west o t ion typicall y s stops in t h a ces remov e s s. Parking a nd modern i a ny settings s treetcar re q o f the proje c c land us e s the explor a a unique op z e utility sy s of utilities c v elopment ilities also e tcar proje c c tive. This h as bridge s There can a u tilities in a e d or upsiz e p reliminary l l fax Avenu e o rridor. T h oject tea m c e of utilitie s g opportuni n g or reloca t y of Denve r h aracteristic s g as lines, s a e s, telecom m d es and rel o s sment of t d storm se w e ast/west ro e gments wit o n a continu J u y requires r e h e CSFS st u e d would be impacts wil l i zation of ut utilities are q uires an e x c t. During t h e and sus t a tion and pr e portunity to s tems. Like w c an adequ a projects th can cons t c t if utility r e is typically s underpas s a lso be una c particular a e d. evel of util e and the m h is prelimin a m with a s This inv e ties and c o t ing utilities r GIS data b s about traf f a nitation se w m unication s o cation mas t he GIS dat a w er lines ar e adways in t h h sewer lin e ous path th r u ly 2010 e moval of u dy area reduced l need to ilities are a critical x haustive h is phase t ainability e liminary improve w ise, the a tely size at need t rain the e location the case s es, and c ceptable a lignment ity detail ajor east a ry utility general e stigation o nstraints during a b ase was f ic signal w er lines, s chases, t er plans. a base, it e present h e CSFS e s varies r ough the

PAGE 72

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 64 length of the study area. Storm sewer inlets are typically located near the street intersections. A detailed evaluation of utilities and locations in specific street segments was not deemed necessary at this feasibility study level and given the alignments identified by stakeholders, workshop participants, and the project team. If the project moves into the next level of evaluation or design, further investigation to determine utility locations will be required. CCD staff, property owners, and previous planning efforts in Colfax Avenue suggest utilities in the right-of-way have a wide range of service life and some need reconsideration in the immediate future. The following are specific issues to research if the project reac hes a preliminary design or alternatives analysis stage: Do specific corridors have more utility impacts than others? Are there opportunities to share costs of future improvements? Are there opportunities to modernize and enlarge utilities? Are there joint federal funding opportunities to modernize infrastructure? Are there opportunities for innov ative or demonstration utilities? How do utility improvements interconnect with nonimproved sections? PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES Bicycle Facilities The 2007 American Community Survey suggested that approximately 1.6% of Denvers population bicycles to work. CCD has a goal to increase commuter trips on bicycle to 10% by 2018. The primary bicycle route through the CSFS area is D-10 which runs along 12th Avenue and through Cheesman Park. The bicycle route on 12th Avenue has signs throughout the study area and includes sharrow pavement markings near Broadway and bike lanes between Madison and Elizabeth. CCD Public Works Department has a commitment to assess bike improvements with routine street maintenance so additional segments of 12th Avenue may be striped as maintenance occurs. Bicycle lanes are present on 16th Avenue from Broadway east to City Park Esplanade and will be part of bike route D-8. This provides a route from East High School to downtown with dedicated bicycle lanes. There are also numer ous bicycle paths through City Park that connect to bicycle route D-8 (east-west route along Montview Boulevard). CCD conducted bicycle counts in 2001 during the morning peak hour on both 12th Avenue and 16th Avenue. The counts on 12th Avenue (route D-10) were conducted at Sherman

PAGE 73

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 65 Street and Madison Street. There were approximately 30 peak-hour cyclists on 12th Avenue at each location. The count from the 16th Avenue bicycle lanes was conducted at Emerson Street. There were approximately 40 peak-hour cyclists on 16th Avenue. Connections to north/south bicycle routes from the east/west bicycle routes described above can be made at the following locations: D-9 at Sherman/Logan (sharrows) D-10 at Mariposa D-11 through Cheesman Park at Franklin Street D-13 at Adams Street D-15 at Cherry Street D-17 at Kearney Street D-19 at Syracuse Street Bicycle racks are provided in front of some of the businesses along Colfax Avenue, at East High School, and in numerous locations downtown. Pedestrian Facilities The city completed a Pedestrian Master Plan in 2004. The Pedestrian Master Plan shows that there is extensive sidewalk coverage within the CSFS area. Most of the study area includes a mixture of attached and detached sidewalks while Colfax Avenue has attached sidewalks. A few isolated blocks do not have sidewalks within the study area, including much of the area east of Monaco Parkway. The 2006 Colfax Avenue signal retiming traffic model included pedestrian crossing volumes for all of the signalized intersections al ong Colfax Avenue from Broadway to Monaco Parkway. The maximum number of pedestrians crossing Colfax Avenue in one crosswalk was used to classify the intersections by level of pedestrian activity. The intersections with 20 or more peak-hour pedestrians crossing Colfax Avenue are shown in Table 16.

PAGE 74

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 66 TABLE 16: COLFAX AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ACTIVITY 100+ Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossings 50-100 Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossings 20-50 Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossings Broadway Lincoln Street Pennsylvania Street Sherman Street Grant Street Logan Street Pearl Street Ogden Street Downing Street Williams Street Washington Street Clarkson Street Lafayette Street Franklin Street/Park Avenue High Street Race Street York Street Josephine Street Columbine Street Fillmore Street Adams Street Colorado Boulevard Glencoe Street Monaco Parkway

PAGE 75

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 67 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ON ROADWAYS AND AT INTERSECTIONS Existing Traffic Operations CCD conducted a signal retiming project on Colfax Avenue in 2006. For that project a 2005 model was built with Synchro traffic analysis software. This model was used to determine which intersections along Colfax Avenue are currently congested. The operations of intersections are measured by Level of Service (LOS) A through F, with A representing free flow conditions and F representing failure of an intersection due to high levels of congestion. Table 17 summarizes the intersections along Colfax Avenue that are currently congested at some point during the day (LOS E or F). In general, the congested intersections are at major roadways and are shown on Figure 20. TABLE 17: EXISTING CONGESTED COLFAX AVENUE INTERSECTIONS Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (seconds/vehicle) LOS Delay (seconds/vehicle) Colfax Ave / Broadway F > 100 B 16 Colfax Ave / Franklin St / Park Ave D 50 F > 100 Colfax Ave / Colorado Blvd D 45 E 65 Colfax Ave / Monaco Pkwy (SB) E 55 E 65 Colfax Ave / Monaco Pkwy (NB) F 90 F 80 Notes 1. Intersection LOS & Delay (seconds/vehicle) va lues represent the overall intersection average. Source: 2005 data from City & County of Denver, Fehr & Peers In addition to looking at congested intersections, congested east/west roadway segments were determined from the 2005 DRCOG regional travel demand model. Figure 18 shows segments that are currently operating under congested conditions for three or more hours during the day. A segment is considered congested if the hourly volume to capacity ratio is greater than 0.95. Future Traffic Operations The 2035 DRCOG regional travel demand model was used to determine which additional roadway segments would be congested in 2035. Figure 20 shows that in 2035 many segments of Colfax Avenue, 17th Avenue, 13th Avenue, and 14th Avenue will operate with congestion for three or more hours during the day. Further analysis of streetcar impacts on traffic operations will need to be conducted during future study of specific alignments.

PAGE 76

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 68 KEY FINDING Long range forecasts anticipate 30% growth in person trips by 2035 and no roadway widening is planned in the corridor. PERSON TRIP ANALYSIS Existing traffic and transit passenger counts were used to determine the number of people currently traveling across a representative lo cation in the study area. The person trip analysis is based on the screenline concept. Automobile trips are typically counted at a specific location with a tube laid across the street. Transit trips are typically counted with the total boardings on a route. Using a screenline allows transit trips to be counted at a specific location in a corridor rather than the entire route. This method compares automobile and transit trips crossing a specific location instead of comparing transit ridership for the entire corridor to automobile trips crossing a single location in the corridor. The daily east/west automobile and transit volumes in the study area are summarized in Table 18. The volumes shown are maximum volume in the study area crossing a point just east of York Street.

PAGE 77

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard 28,000 36,000 16,000 23,000 16,000 25,000 15,000 19,000 32,000 36,000 14,000 18,000 28,000 36,000 2005 east/west congested routes (+3 hours congested) 2035 east/west congested routes (+3 hours congested) 2005 existing ADT 2035 projected ADT 28,000 36,000 congested intersection (2005) gure 20: existing and future trac conditions

PAGE 78

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 70 The DRCOG 2035 regional travel demand model was used to determine the future person trips expected to occur in the study area. The results in Table 19 provide a baseline of the anticipated travel as the model used for the analysis was a scenario without a streetcar in the study area. The model includes the existing bus routes and the new transit corridors planned as part of the FasTracks program. The person trip analysis suggests that there is expected to be a 30% increase in east/west automobile and transit travel in the study ar ea by 2035. Colfax Avenue currently operates near automobile and transit capacity. As a result, much of the forecasted growth is expected to occur along the parallel streets. TABLE 18: EXISTING DAILY EAST/WEST TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLINE) Corridor Automobiles Transit Load Total Person Volume Percent of Volume on Transit Vehicles Persons Persons Colfax Avenue 32,000 44,160 10,850 55,010 20% 13th/14th Avenue 29,000 40,020 2,370 42,390 6% 17th/18th Avenue 32,000 44,160 1,870 46,030 4% Total 92,000 128,340 15,090 143,430 11% Notes: 1. Colfax Avenue traffic volumes from 2008 CDOT counts 2. 13th/14th Avenue and 17th/18th Avenue traffic volumes from the City and County of Denver 3. Transit volumes represent the maximum daily load within the study area from RTD 2009 runboard reports 4. Analysis by Fehr & Peers TABLE 19: 2035 DAILY EAST/WEST TRAVEL IN THE STUDY AREA (SCREENLINE) Corridor Automobiles Transit Total Person Volume Percent of Volume on Transit Vehicles Persons Persons Colfax Avenue 36,260 50,030 10,720 60,750 18% 13th/14th Avenue 36,640 50,560 4,250 54,810 8% 17th/18th Avenue 48,370 66,750 4,150 70,900 6% Total 121,270 167,340 19,120 186,460 10% Source: 2035 DRCOG Regional Travel Demand Model, RTD, Fehr & Peers

PAGE 79

C T E E C olfax St r T RANSIT RI D E xistin g Tra n A l m a B r b u s e 1 5 R T 1 2 2 2 1 5 E xistin g Tra n T h Fi g ro r eetcar Fe a D ERSHIP AN D n sit Service though its s a jor transp r oadway/Lin u s corridor e rvice week d 5 -minute off T Ds ridersh 2 ,373 riders 2 ,598 daily b 5 L and 15 b u n sit Ridershi p h e total dail y g ures 21 a n utes throug h a sibility S t D SERVICE s tatus as a ortation ro u c oln) have in the RT D d ays betwe e peak head w ip counts f o The Rout b us riders o n u ses are us e p y ridership o n d 22 show h the study a t udy through hi g u te. The R the highest D system. R e n the hour s w ays. Ro u o r 2009, the e 15 has a n n Colfax Av e e d daily on t h RT D thro u bet w A ur o to m mai n Rou t Den v min u offp app r 13 b o n routes th a the existin g a rea. 71 g hway has d R TD bus r o bus riders h R oute 15 Li m s of 5:00 a. m u te 15 local existing av e n average d e nue. A pea k h e Route 1 5 D routes 2 0 u gh the stu d w een the h o o ra and Den v idnight bet w n tains 20t o t e 10 provi d v er from 5:1 u te headwa y p eak head w r oximately 4 uses per d a a t serve th e g boarding p d eclined ov e o utes on E h ip for any m ited (15L) m and 1:0 0 (15) oper a e rage daily r d aily ridersh i k of 18 bus e 5 0 and 10 o d y area. Ro u o urs of 5:0 0 v er West. S w een Aurora o 30-minute d es service 5 a.m. to m y s during t h w ays. E a 4 ,000 riders a y. e study are a p atterns for e r time, Col f E ast Colfa x revenue-ge currently p 0 a.m., with a tes more f r r idership on i p of 10,22 5 e s serve the o ffer parall e u te 20 curre 0 a.m. and S ervice cont and downt o headways between A u idnight. Th e h e peak pe r a ch of th e per day an d a is approxi m the four m a J u f ax Avenue x Avenue nerating, fi x p rovides li m 10-minute p r equently. B the 15L bu s 5 riders for a corridor da i e l east/wes t ntly provide s 7:00 p.m. inues from 7 o wn Denver throughout u rora and d e 10 operat e r iods and 1 e se routes d requires a m ately 30,0 0 a jor east/w e u ly 2010 is still a (east of x ed-route m ited-stop p eak and B ased on s route is a total of i ly on the t service s service between 7 :00 p.m. The 20 the day. owntown e s with 75-minute carries a peak of 0 0 riders. e st transit

PAGE 80

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf route 20 route 10 route 15L route 15 0-50 boardings51-100 boardings101-200 boardings201-500 boardings501+ boardings gure 21: westbound existing transit boardings Source: City and County of Denver GIS, RTD miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard KEY FINDING To serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment should connect from Broadway to Colorado (3 miles, 6 track miles).

PAGE 81

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 22: eastbound existing transit boardings route 20 route 10 route 15L route 15 0-50 boardings51-100 boardings101-200 boardings201-500 boardings501+ boardings Source: City and County of Denver GIS, RTD miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard KEY FINDING To serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment should connect from Broadway to Colorado (3 miles, 6 track miles).

PAGE 82

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 74 Existing transit boardings in the corridor are distributed along the routes. Passengers are getting on and off the bus throughout the corridor. The routes do not exhibit a dumbbell effect where the majority of passengers get on at one end of the route and off at the other end. Rather, the routes are well utilized throughout the corridors. Table 20 summarizes the daily transit boarding for these four routes. TABLE 20: 2009 TOTAL DAILY ROUTE BOARDINGS Route Eastbound Westbound Total 15 East Colfax 5,232 4,993 10,225 15L East Colfax Limited 6,409 5,964 12,373 10 East 12th Avenue 2,123 2,075 4,198 20 20th Avenue 2,017 1,991 4,008 Total 15,781 15,023 30,804 Source: RTD Service Planning Ridership Characteristics Characteristics of the population within the Colfax corridor were studied to determine what types of transit riders reside in the study area. Detailed demographic data from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation were used to classify the residents into five types of transit riders. Each transit market segment is described below. Transit Trippers Transit dependent, low-income households without vehicles available, lower travel time sensitivity Mellow Movers Low-income households (less than $25,000 annual income) with access to a vehicle, lower travel time sensitivity Blazers Over 65 years of age, medium travel time sensitivity Young & Restless Students or employed with a middle income job, higher travel time sensitivity Movers & Shakers Households above the average median income (greater than $50,000 annual income), higher travel time sensitivity Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation defines the 2008 median household income in the Metro Denver area as $60,344, which is higher than the national median income of $51,233. For the CSFS study area, households with incomes higher than the national median income were classified as Movers & Shakers because the median income in the corridor is $38,125.

PAGE 83

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 75 The breakdown of study area residents by transit market segment is shown in Figure 23. In general, about 40% are Movers & Shakers, 20% are Transit Trippers, 20% are Young & Restless, 10% are Mellow Movers, and 10% are Blazers. Based on discussions with RTD service planning personnel, the transit dependent population is currently being well served by the trans it service provided along Colfax Avenue and surrounding corridors. The demographic profiles provide information that can guide decisions about additional transit service that should be considered in the study area. For example, many of the residents within the study area are Movers & Shakers and Young & Restless. These types of riders are typically ve ry sensitive to travel time competitiveness. The current RTD route 15 service provides minimal travel time competitiveness compared to driving a motor vehicle. This is partly due to the current fare collection methods, bus pullouts, and high floor vehicles. Each of these decreases the routes schedule adherence and overall time competiveness. A modern streetcar could retain the same the schedule, but improve schedule adherence through the use of off-board fare collection, curb extensions at stops, and low floor vehicles.

PAGE 84

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS, Metro Denver Economic Develompent Corporation Detailed Demographic Data (2009) Demographic proles based on research conducted by Cambridge Systematics and applied by Fehr & Peers in California marketsgure 23: transit market proles miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard 30% 10% 10% 20% 30% 18% 9% 9% 23% 41% 10% 12% 10% 14% 54% blazers mellow movers young & restlesssegment 1 broadway to york segment 3 colorado to syracuse segment 2 york to colorado total boardings: 5,752total boardings: 3,363 total boardings: 2,608 movers & shakersmovers & shakers income greater than $50K young & restelss remaining population blazers age greater than 65 years mellow movers income less than $25K access to a vehicle transit tripperstransit trippers income less than $25K no access to a vehicle KEY FINDING To serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment should connect from Broadway to Colorado (3 miles, 6 track miles).

PAGE 85

C T C olfax St r ri d 2 0 to T h T h Ro u 15 East Col f 15L East C o 10 East 12th 20 20th Ave n T otal Bus Bo a Source: DRCO G Note: The perc e primary r eetcar Fe a d ership in th 0 07 base ye develop a d h e results s h h e 2035 mo d u te f ax o lfax Limited Avenue n ue a rdings G Regional Mod e e nt change betw routes in the st u a sibility S t e Colfax co ar. The pe r d justed 203 5 h own in Tab d el includes TABLE 21: 2 0 2007 Obse r Boardin g 10,020 10,810 3,360 3,250 27,440 e l, RTD, Fehr & e en the 2007 an u dy area. t udy Futu r RTD to f o area inclu trav e well Trav e inclu rout e The fore c rridor. Tabl r cent chang e 5 ridership f le 21 reflect planned bu s 0 35 ADJUST E r ved g s 2007 M o Boardi n 5,16 0 4,93 0 2,70 0 2,45 0 15,2 4 Peers d 2035 model r e 77 r e Transit S e used the 2 o recast futu r both with a n de ridership e l east/west as foreca s e l time com ded in this e s and resul t results sh o c asts. The e 21 provid e e between t f orecasts fo r a scenario s service im E D MODEL RI D o del n gs 2035 Boa (No S t 0 7, 0 3, 0 5, 0 7, 4 0 2 3 e sults were used e rvice & Rid e 035 DRCO G r e transit ri d n d without a forecasts f o through the s ts for two parison bet w analysis. t s for three s o wn in Fig model is e s observe d he 2007 an d r the four p r without any provements D ERSHIP FO R Model rdings t reetcar) 640 480 780 020 3 ,920 to develop adju s e rship G regional t r d ership wit h streetcar. T o r the four e study area possible s t w een bus a n Figure 24 s cenarios. ure 24 ar e currently u d and model d 2035 mo d r imary rout e streetcar s e as well as t R ECASTS Forecast Percent Change 48% 29% 114% 187% 57% s ted 2035 riders h J u r avel dema n h in the CS F T he modeli n e xisting bus l (10, 15, 15 L t reetcar ali g n d streetca r shows the e unadjuste nder predi c ed boardin g d el results w e s in the st u e rvice in the t he FasTrac k 2035 Ad j Model Boar Street 14,8 4 7,6 3 7,1 9 9,3 1 38,9 7 h ip forecasts for u ly 2010 n d model F S study n g results l ines that L 20) as g nments. r was not modeled d model c ting bus g s for the ere used u dy area. corridor. k s plan. j usted dings (No car) 4 0 3 0 9 0 1 0 7 0 the four

PAGE 86

FIGURE 24: 2035 STUDY AREA DRCOG MODEL RIDERSHIP FORECASTS JULY 2010 Current Route 10, 15, 15L, & 20 Ridership Streetcar Replaces Route 15 from Colorado to Broadway 7,000 5,800 7,600 3,500Average Weekday Boardings (full route) Market Street Station Auraria Campus Route 15 B r o a d w a y C o l o r a d o Q u e b e c Co l fax 23rdAve 23rd Ave Civic Center Station 1 7th & 18th Ave Cou p le t p Route 20 Route 10 Colfax 10t h Av e 12thAve 12th Ave Route 15L Aurora Aurora Aurora 23,900 Bus Total 1 5 t h & 1 7 t h A v e C o u p l e t 4,500 1,700 3,800 2,700Average Weekday Boardings (full route) Market Street Station Auraria Campus Route 15 B r o a d w a y C o l o r a d o Q u e b e c Co l fax 23rdAve 23rd Ave Civic Center Station 1 7t h & 18t h Ave Cou pl et p Route 20 Route 10 C olfax 10th Av e 12thAve 12th Ave Route 15L Aurora Aurora Aurora 12,700 Streetcar 38,500 1 5 t h & 1 7 t h A v e C o u p l e t Bus Total Streetcar 51,200Total Streetcar Replaces Route 15 from Quebec to Auraria Campus 5,000 2,300 4,800 3,400Average Weekday Boardings (full route) Market Street Station Auraria Campus Route 15 B r o a d wa y C o l o r a d o Q u e b e c Co l fa x 23rdAve 23rd Ave Civic Center Station 1 7t h & 18t h Ave Cou pl et p Route 20 Route 10 C olfax 10t h Av e 12thAve 12th Ave Route 15L Aurora Aurora Aurora 15,500 Streetcar 16,400 Bus Total Streetcar 31,900Total 1 5 t h & 1 7 t h A v e C o u p l e t NOTE: Ridership forecasts are unadjusted 2035 DRCOG model results provided by RTD

PAGE 87

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 79 The first scenario shown in Figure 24 provides a modeled forecast for ridership that would be expected with the same level of transit service that exists today. The model predicts that the four bus routes would carry approximately 23,900 riders per day. As shown in Table 21, this appears to be under predicting the future transit ridership on these routes because current ridership exceeds the forecast. In the second scenario shown in Figure 24, route 15 is replaced by a streetcar from Auraria Campus to Syracuse Street. Routes 10, 15L, and 20 are not changed. The results are based on 7.5-minute headways for the streetcar which is consistent with the level of service provided by route 15. The model predicts that the streetcar will carry approximately 38,500 passengers per day and about a third of those passengers would be existing bus riders. In addition, the model was used to determine the difference between 7.5-minute and 15-minute headways on the streetcar. The model predicts that reducing service to 15 minutes on the streetcar would reduce the boardings by about half. Currently the Portland streetcar operates at a peak frequency of 13 minutes. It is not known at this time if the frequency of service (7.5 or 15 minute headways) or the transit mode (bus or streetcar) has a stronger correlation to ridership. It is also unknown if improvements to the Colfax corridor through transit signal priority would increase the demand for transit. The third scenario shown in Figure 24 provides results for an alternative where streetcar service is provided from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard on Colfax Avenue. For this scenario, the 15 is replaced by a streetcar on that segment but still runs between Auraria Campus and Civic Center and east of Colorado Boulevard. Routes 10, 15L, and 20 are not changed. The model predicts that a streetcar from Broadway to Colorado Boulevard would draw approximately 16,400 riders per day with approximately 50% of those being existing bus riders. Each of these scenarios projects ridership that would be much higher than current ridership on peer streetcar systems (Table 6). A technical memorandum including the full modeling results from RTD is provided in Appendix B. KEY FINDING Smaller trolleys are inefficient and costly responses to the transit demand in the study area.

PAGE 88

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 80 PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS A preliminary operations and capital cost analysis was completed to determine how a modern streetcar on Colfax Avenue, between Br oadway and Syracuse, could compare to current RTD route 15 operations, expanded RTD route 15 service using larger buses, and Class 2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. The analysis utilizes data from RTD, the National Transit Database, and peer streetcar systems. Analysis Facts The total one-way length of the RTD route 15 is approximately 13 miles. The segment analyzed for this operations and capital analysis is approximately five miles or 40% of the current RTD route 15 (Broadway to Syracuse). The current RTD route 15 service betw een Broadway and Syracuse requires 11 vehicles (plus spares) to maintain an average peak frequency of 7.5 minutes and an average off peak frequency of 15 minutes. The current buses used on the RTD Route 15 are 40 Gillig buses that have a 10-year service life. The buses are approximately 3-5 years into their service life. Capital & Operations Cost Findings The initial capital costs of a modern streetcar for the RTD route 15 between Broadway and Syracuse could be approximately $175 million, $43 million for BRT, and $12 million for higher frequency bus service with stop upgrades. Service Level & Operations Costs Findings The information provided below is for preliminary planning purposes. It is not definitive in the role of transit signal priority and the change in travel time competitiveness due to increased motor vehicle travel in the study area. KEY FINDING Enhancement of the existing bus service on Colfax will require substantial fleet investments, stop improvements, and increased frequency.

PAGE 89

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 81 TABLE 22: ROUTE 15 MODE ANALYSIS Existing System 6Platoon 40 Foot Buses 7 Mixed Flow BRT 8 Streetcar 9 Total Vehicle Capacity 1 50100120170 Vehicle Cost $300,000$300,000$750,000$3,000,000 Average Speed 10101010 Cost/Revenue Hour 2 $95$190$95$87 Weekdays/Year 254254254254 Saturdays/Year 52 52 52 52 Sundays and Holidays/Year 59 59 59 59 Track Cost/Mile (no vehicles or maintenance facility) n/a n/a $5,000, 000 $17,500,000 Maintenance Facility 3 n/a n/a n/a Stop Costs 4 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $500,000 Number of Stops 44 44 44 44 Max Service Vehicles 8 16 8 8 Daily Passenger Capacity 10,500 21,000 25,200 35,700 Total Capital Cost 5 $150,000 $6,600,000 $36, 000,000 $175,000,000 Annual O&M Cost $3,347,5 15 $6,695,030 $3,34 7,515 $3,066,035 Vehicle Recapitalization $2,70 0,000 $5,400,000 $6, 750,000 $27,000,000 Recapitalization Schedule 10 10 10 30 $2,850,000 $12,000,000 $42,750,000 $175,000,000 Source: Fehr & Peers (1) "Crush capacity" (seats+standees) based on TCRP report 13 "rail transit capacity" standard of 0.5 square meters/person (2) Based on National transit data base 2009 RTD estimates for LRT and Bus operations (3) Included in cost per track mile. Seattle maintenance fac ility was $4,000,000 for three vehi cles on a parcel 60x300 foot wi th development rights available above the facility. (4) Planning cost based on estimates from peer systems. Stop costs include basic pas senger amenities and required facilities f or each mode. BRT and Streetcar costs both assume off fare payment collection equipment. (5) Includes all new costs such as stops, main tenance facility, and vehi cles if required. (6) Use existing 15 buses (50 crush) and buy similar type for platoon (7) Replace 15 with Gillig 40 foot bus and 15L with Articulated (8) Mixed Flow Bus Rapid Transit that operates in a trav el lane with motor vehicles and has transit signal priority. (9) Replace with United Streetcar T4

PAGE 90

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 82 Section 6: Preliminary Alignments PROCESS To assess the feasibility of a streetcar in the study area, several alignments were considered. Routing alignments were prepared with the assistance of the project management team, stakeholders, City and County of Denver staff, and the public during open houses. The routing alternatives respond to a wide range of transportation, economic, social, cultural and historic conditions. The alignments are divided into two sections based on the unique ridership patterns of existing RTD bus service, travel shed mobility plans from the Strategic Transportation Plan, existing land use patterns, and future economic development opportunities. There are 6 alignments that travel east of Civic Center Station toward the eastern city of Denver limit and there are 9 alignments that travel west of Civic Center Station into the Auraria campus, downtown Denver, and Denver Union Station. The east and west alignments could interconnect at Civic Center Station or be implemented in phases. ALTERNATIVES EAST OF CIVIC CENTER The alignments east of Civic Center are numbered 1-6 in this document. They are described briefly below and shown in Figures 25-30 in the following pages. Alternative #1 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard with bi-directional service on Colfax. Alternative #2 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Syracuse Avenue with bi-directional service on Colfax. Alternative #3 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard with eastbound travel on Colfax and westbound service on 12th or 18th Avenue. Alternative #4 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard with eastbound travel on 17th Avenue and westbound travel on 18th Avenue. Alternative #5 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard with eastbound travel on 14th Avenue and westbound travel on 13th Avenue. Alternative #6 Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Colorado Boulevard with bi-directional service on 16th Avenue between Civic Center and Franklin Street and bi-directional service on Colfax between Franklin Street and Colorado Boulevard. KEY FINDING Alignments 1, 2, 4, 5 are recommended for continued study.

PAGE 91

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 25: alternative 1 Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkrecommended for continued study miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard c c Maintainence Facility & Museumlength: 6 track miles cost estimate: $105 million

PAGE 92

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf recommended for continued study Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 26: alternative 2 miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard c Maintainence Facility & Museum length: 10 track miles cost estimate: $175 million

PAGE 93

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard Maintainence Facility & Museum r gure 27: alternative 3length: 10 track miles cost estimate: $175 million

PAGE 94

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf length: 6 track miles cost estimate: $105 million recommended for continued study Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard Maintainence Facility & Museum gure 28: alternative 4

PAGE 95

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 29: alternative 5 recommended for continued study miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudylength: 6.5 track miles cost estimate: $113.75 million colfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard Maintainence Facility & Museum vic c ter te

PAGE 96

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard Maintainence Facility & Museum gure 30: alternative 6length: 6 track miles cost estimate: $105 million

PAGE 97

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 89 ALTERNATIVES WEST OF CIVIC CENTER Alignments west of Civic Center are designated A-I in this document. They are described briefly below and shown in Figures 31-39 in the following pages. Alternative A Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and downtown Denver with a loop along 15th and 17th Street. Alternative B Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria following the current 15 bus route through downtown. Alternative C Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along 15th and 17th Streets. Alternative D Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along with bidirectional service along 15th Street. Alternative E Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria with bidirectional service along Colfax. Alternative F Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS along 18th and 19th Streets, following the proposed route for the circulator shuttle. Alternative G Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and DUS with bi-directional service along the 16th Street mall. Alternative H Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and Auraria along Colfax and Speer. Alternative I Streetcar alignment between Civic Center and the Pepsi Center along Colfax and Speer. KEY FINDING Alignments B & E are recommended for continued study.

PAGE 98

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 31: alternative A miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard d d d d length: 2.5 track miles cost estimate: $43.75 million

PAGE 99

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf gure 32: alternative BSource: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard d d d d length: 4 track miles cost estimate: $70 million recommended for continued study

PAGE 100

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 33: alternative C miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard d d d d length: 3 track miles cost estimate: $52.5 million

PAGE 101

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 34: alternative D miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard ivic c length: 3 track miles cost estimate: $52.5 million

PAGE 102

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard ivic c gure 35: alternative Elength: 2 track miles cost estimate: $35 million recommended for continued study

PAGE 103

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 36: alternative F recommended for continued study miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudylength: 3 track miles cost estimate: $52.5 million colfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard tow w ow o down w w ow w d enve v nv ve v

PAGE 104

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudygure 37: alternative Glength: 2.5 track miles cost estimate: $43.75 million colfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard

PAGE 105

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center park miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudygure 38: alternative Hlength: 3 track miles cost estimate: $52.5 million colfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard ivic c

PAGE 106

J Cbtn Sfrfnr Fnf Sf Source: City and County of Denver GIS city park cheesman park congress park downtown denver civic center parkgure 39: alternative Ilength: 3 track miles cost estimate: $52.5 million miles 01 21 2345 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetcarFeasibilityStudycolfax avenue16th avenue 14th avenue 13th avenue 12th avenue 11th avenue 6th avenue 17th avenue 19th avenue montview boulevard 23rd avenuecolfax avenue13th avenue 8th avenue 6th avenue 20th avenue 23rd avenueinterstate 25 kalamath street santa fe drivebroadwaylincoln street franklin street williams street josephine street detroit street madison street steele street clermont street dahlia street fairfax street holly street monaco parkway syracuse street york streetcolorado boulevard quebec street downing streetspeer boulevard ivic c

PAGE 107

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 99 Section 7: Preliminary Screening EVALUATION CRITERIA The project team worked with stakeholders to develop evaluation criteria that provide a preliminary assessment of corridors in the study area to determine if streetcar service is feasible. The evaluation criteria provide assessment in several land use, economic, and transportation objectives. The high level measures shown below are applicable to this study as well as corridors city-wide. They can be used in the identification of future streetcar feasibility studies. The detailed measures show n below are corridor-specific details that help determine preliminary feasibility of a specific streetcar alignment in a study area. Within each of the main evaluation areas, goals/objectives were created along with criteria for evaluating those goals/objectives. High Level Measures 1. Does the corridor or study area have a need for enhanced mobility? o Increase trip capacity o Increase choice riders and serve transit dependent riders 2. Does the corridor or study area have a need for enhanced economic development? o Provide incentive for new development o Promote neighborhood reinvestment and character preservation that promotes stability 3. Does the corridor or study area have a need for improved sustainable transportation options? o Provide a competitive advantage to single occupant vehicles o Reduce overall vehicle miles trav eled or greenhouse gas emissions while increasing capacity 4. Is streetcar affordable or implementable in the corridor or study area? o Cost-effective investment that is implementable and minimizes disruption Detailed Measures 1. Enhance Mobility o Increases trip capacity Additional transit capacity Impact on traffic Impact on parking o Provides additional multi-modal capacity Serves short trips Connects to regional transit for longer trips in the study area Connects to regional transit for longer trips outside the study area o Increases choice riders and serve transit dependents Travel time reliability

PAGE 108

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 100 Short headways Adjacent to diverse socio-economic mix o Provides increased linkages Regional rail connection Local and regional bus connections Bicycle connections Pedestrian connections 2. Enhances and Promotes Economic Development o Provides incentive for new development Ability to promote higher-density mixed-use development Ability to attract private investment to help with construction and operations o Promotes increased intra-corridor economic activity through focus on mixeduse development Potential increase in household, employment, and retail density Potential increase in adjacent property values Number of key activity centers served o Promotes neighborhood reinvestment and character preservation that promotes stability Compatibility with CCD plans for redevelopment Overall land use compatibility o Helps develop streetscape and amenities to promote walkability Impact on proposed urban design improvements or enhancements 3. Improves Sustainable Transportation Options o Provides a competitive advantage to single occupant vehicle Ability to serve a variety of trip types o Reduces overall vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions while increasing capacity Vehicle miles traveled per capita reduction o Encourages increase bicycle and pedestrian activity Bicycle connectivity Pedestrian connectivity 4. Affordability and Implementablity o Cost-effective investment that is implementable and minimizes disruption Capital costs Operating costs Grade issues

PAGE 109

C A C olfax St r A NALYSIS OT h re al t A l al t p a r eetcar Fe a F ALTERNA T h e criteria li s commende d t ernatives r e Neut r Alter n Alter n ternatives e t ernatives w a ges show t h a sibility S t Overall e n Impacts o Degree o Potential Level of c T IVES s ted above d for furthe r e lative to on e r al or lower ratin g n ative provides s o n ative provides b e ast of Ci v w est of Civic h e results o f t udy n vironment a o n utilities f constructi o for receivin g c ommunity/ s were used r study. Th e e another. T g as compared w o mewhat better b etter performan c v ic Center w Center wer e f the evalua t 101 a l impacts o n difficult y g federal fu n s takeholder s to evaluate e criteria w e T he alternati w ith other altern a performance as c e as compared w w ere evalu e evaluated t ion. n ds s upport the altern a e re used fo ves are rat e a tives compared with o w ith other altern a ated relati v the same w a tives and f o r a qualitati e d as follow s o ther alternative s a tives v e to one w ay. The ta J u o cus the alt e ve evaluati o s : s another. L bles on the u ly 2010 e rnatives o n of the L ikewise, following

PAGE 110

C I n P c I n t r P C olfax St r Goal n crease trip c a P rovide additio n c apacity n crease choic e r ansit-depend e P rovide increa s = Neutral o r eetcar Fe a /Objective a pacity n al multi-mod a e riders and se e nt s ed linkages o r lower rating, a a sibility S t Addi t Impa Impa a l Serv e Con n long e Con n long e rve Trav e Shor t Adja c econ o Regi o Loca l conn e Bicy c Ped e a s compared wit h t udy Criteria t ional transit c a ct on traffic ct on parking e s short trips n ects to region a e r trips in stud y n ects to region a e r trips outside e l time reliabilit t headways c ent to diverse o mic mix o nal rail conne c l and regional b e ctions c le connection s e strian connect h other alternativ e a pacity a l transit for y area a l transit for study area y socioc tions b us s ions e s 1:Colfax BroadwayColorado = Alterna t TABLE 23: 2. Colfa x S y t ive provides so m EVALUATIO N x Broadwayy racuse m ewhat better p e N OF ALTER N 3. Onew Colfa x westbou n e rformance as c o 102 N ATIVES EAS T w ay eastbou n x to Colorado n d on 13th or 1 o mpared with ot h T OF CI V IC C E n d 8th 4. 1 Bro a Co l h er alternatives E NTER ENH A 7th/18th a dway to l orado A NCE MOBIL I 5. 13th/14th Broadway t o Colorado = Alternati v I TY o 6. 16thBroa d Col o v e provides bett e /Colfax d way to o rado A d a c o i s T E p e g R s e C s e C s e B A N A C a S B d e e r performance a A ll have similar a y between B r o nsidered bett e s focused hose on onew E very stop wou l e r stop). Loss reater impact R outes with mu e rve short trip s C onnection to C e rvice with ad d C onnection to C e rvice with ad d B etter on onew A ll have similar N o differences a A ll terminate at C olfax routes sl nd crossing/st o S treets with bik e B i-directional s e e sirable for pe d s compared wit h Co m ridership at thi r oadway and C e r because th a w ay streets are l d potentially d i of parking on C l tiple blocks b e s C olorado Blvd p d itional connec t C olorado Blvd p d itional connec t w ay pairs impact a t this level of a Civic Center s o i ghtly better d u o pping at Colf a e lanes will be e rvice on the s a d estrians h other alternativ e m ments s level of anal y olorado) but C a t is where cur r assumed to h a i splace some p C olfax is consi e tween track h a p rovides conn e t ions to comm u p rovides conn e t ions to comm u a nalysis all a o would have s u e to concentr a a x impacted by s t a me street is c o e s July 2 y sis (16,000+ p olfax options a r ent transit rid e a ve less impa c p arking (2-3 sp dered to have a ve less poten t e ction to region u ter rail e ction to region u ter rail re diverse s ame level of i m a tion of bus ro u t reetcar o nsidered mor e 2 010 p er a re e rship c t aces t ial to al bus al bus m pact u tes on e

PAGE 111

C P d P e m P r p H a C olfax St r Goal P rovide incenti v d evelopment P romote incre a e conomic activ i m ixed-use dev e P romote neigh b einvestment a n p reservation th a H elp develop s t a menities to pr o = Neutral o r eetcar Fe a /Objective v e for new a sed intra-corri d i ty through foc u e lopment b orhood n d character a t promotes st a t reetscape an d o mote walkabi l o r lower rating, a a sibility S t Abilit y dens i deve l Abilit y inve s cons t d or u s on Pote n hous e retail Pote n prop e Num b serv e a bility Com p for r e Over a Over a com p d l ity Impa desi g enha a s compared wit h t udy Criteria y to promote h i ty mixed-use l opment y to attract pri v s tment to help w t ruction and o p n tial increase i n e hold, employ m density n tial increase i n e rty values b er of key acti v e d p atibility with C e development a ll land use co a ll neighborho o p atibility ct on propose d g n improveme n ncements h other alternativ e T A igherv ate w ith p erations n m ent, and n adjacent v ity centers C CD plans mpatibility o d d urban n ts or e s A BLE 24: EV A 1: Colfax BroadwayColorado = Alterna t A LUATION O F 2. Colfa x S y t ive provides so m F ALTERNATI V x Broadwayy racuse m ewhat better p e V ES EAST O F 3. Onew Colfax t o westboun e rformance as c o 103 F CI V IC CENT E w ay eastbou n o Colorado wi d on 13th or 1 o mpared with ot h E R ENHAN C n d th 1 8th 4. 1 7 Bro a Co l h er alternatives C E AND PRO M 7 th/18th a dway to l orado M OTE ECONO M 5. 13th/14th Broadway t o Colorado = Alternati v M IC DEVELO P o 6. 16t h Broa d Col o v e provides bett e P MENT h /Colfax d way to o rado T T T T T T T T T e r performance a hose touching hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o hose focused o s compared wit h Co m Colfax assum e o n Colfax ass u o n Colfax ass u o n Colfax ass u o n Colfax ass u o n Colfax mor e o n Colfax mor e o n Colfax mor e o n Colfax mor e h other alternativ e m ments e d to have bet t u med to have b u med to have b u med to have b u med to have b e in line with C i e in line with C i e in line with C i e in line with C i e s July 2 t er rating b etter score b etter score b etter score b etter score i ty plans i ty plans i ty plans i ty plans 2 010

PAGE 112

C P t o R w E a C olfax St r Goal/ O P rovide a com p o SOV R educe overall w hile increasin g E ncourage inc r a nd pedestrian = Neutral o r eetcar Fe a O bjective p etitive advant a VMT and GH G g capacity r eased bicycle activity o r lower rating, a a sibility S t C a ge Ability t o variety o G VMT pe reductio Bicycle c Pedestr i connect a s compared wit h t udy C riteria o serve a o f trip types r capita n c onnectivity i an ivity h other alternativ e T 1: Col f Broad w Color a e s T ABLE 25: E V f ax w aya do 2 = Alterna t V ALUATION O F 2 Colfax Bro Syracu s t ive provides so m F ALTERN A T I adways e C m ewhat better p e I VES EAST O F 3. One-way C olorado wit h e rformance as c o 104 F CIVIC CENT eastbound C o h westbound o 18th o mpared with ot h ER IMPRO V o lfax to o n 13th or h er alternatives V E SUSTAINA B 4. 17th/18 t Broadway Colorad o B LE TRANSP O t h to o B = Alternati v O RTATION O P 5. 13th/14th B roadway to Colorado v e provides bett e P TIONS 6. 16 t Bro a Co e r performance a t h/Colfax a dway to lorado s compared wit h Those focus e demonstrate Colfax perfo r potential rid e modeling Those focus e plans Those focus e plans h other alternativ e Comme n e d on Colfax g a d transit use o n r ms slightly be t e rship based o n e d on Colfax m e d on Colfax m e s July 2 n ts a uged better d n Colfax t ter due to hig h n preliminary m ore in line wit h m ore in line wit h 2 010 ue to h er h City h City

PAGE 113

C C i m d C olfax St r Go a C ost-effectiv e m plementabl e d isruption = Neutral o r eetcar Fe a a l/Objective e investment t e and minimi z o r lower rating, a a sibility S t t hat is z es C a O p G r O v im Im D e di ff P o fe d Le st a a s compared wit h t udy Criteria a pital costs p erating cost s r ade issues v erall environ m pacts pacts on utili t e gree of cons t ff iculty o tential for re c d eral funds vel of comm u a keholder su p h other alternativ e s m ental t ies t ruction c eiving u nity/ p port e s TABLE 2 1: Colfax BroadwayColorado = Alterna t 6: EVALUAT I 2. Colfa x S y t ive provides so m I ON OF ALTE R x Broadwayy racuse m ewhat better p e R NATIVES E A 3. One-w a Colorad e rformance as c o 105 A ST OF CI V IC a y eastbound o with westb o 13th or 18th o mpared with ot h CENTER AF Colfax to o und on h er alternatives F FORDABILIT Y 4. 17th/18thBroadway t o Colorado Y AND IMPLE o 5. 1 Broa Co l = Alternati v MENTABILIT Y 3th/14th dway to l orado v e provides bett e Y 6. 16th / Col f Broadway Colorad o e r performance a f ax to o Trac k Trac k No f a No f a To b e No f a Shor t use b Colf a s compared wit h k length is on k length is on a tal flaws see a tal flaws see e determined a tal flaws see t er routes m o b enefit on Co l a x has higher h other alternativ e Comments ly discrimina t ly discrimina t n on any rou t n on any rou t in future stu d n on any rou t o re likely plus l fa x support than e s July 2 t or t or t e t e d y t e additional la n others 2 010 n d

PAGE 114

C E E I A T C olfax St r E nhance mo b E nhance and mprove sust a A ffordability a T OTALS = Neutral o r eetcar Fe a G b ility promote eco a inable trans p nd Impleme n o r lower rating, a a sibility S t G oal nomic devel o p ortation opti o n tability a s compared wit h t udy o pmen t o ns h other alternativ e 1: C o 2 e s T A o lfax Broad w Colorado 3 9 1 9 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 1 2 3 9 2 = Alterna t A BLE 27: EV A w ayt ive provides so m A LUATION O F 2. Colfax Br o Syracu s 5 7 1 9 0 0 4 0 0 5 2 1 23 9 2 m ewhat better p e F ALTERNATI V o adways e e rformance as c o 106 V ES EAST O F 3. One-way Colorado w i 1 1 2 0 9 0 0 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 4 6 o mpared with ot h F CI V IC CENT E eastbound C o i th westboun d or 18th 1 0 2 0 9 0 0 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 6 h er alternatives E R OVERA L o lfax to d on 13th 4 L L SUMMARY 4 17th/18th B r Color a 2 9 2 0 0 9 0 4 0 5 1 2 8 14 12 = Alternati v TALLY r oadway to a do v e provides bett e 5. 13th / 1 4 C 2 9 2 0 0 9 0 4 0 5 1 2 8 1 4 1 2 e r performance a 4 th Broadway C olorado 2 9 2 0 0 9 0 4 0 5 2 8 4 2 s compared wit h to 6. 1 6 h other alternativ e 6 th / Colfax Bro 2 10 1 3 6 0 0 4 0 5 1 2 10 22 2 e s July 2 adway to Col o 2 010 o rado

PAGE 115

C I n P m I n a d P l i C olfax St r Goal/Obje c n crease trip c a P rovide additio n m ulti-modal ca p n crease choic e a nd serve tran s d ependent P rovide increa s i nkages = Neutral r eetcar Fe a c tive a pacity Ad d ca p Im p Im p n al p acity Se r Co n tra n stu d Co n tra n out s e riders s itTra Sh o Adj so c s ed Re g co n Lo c co n Bic y Pe d or lower rating, a a sibility S t Criteria d itional transit p acity p act on traffic p act on parkin g r ves short trips n nects to regio n sit for longer t d y area n nects to regio n sit for longer t s ide study are a vel time reliabi o rt headways a cent to diver s c io-economic m g ional rail n nections c al and region a n nections y cle connectio n d estrian conne c a s compared wi t t udy A. 1 Bro a La w g nal rips in nal rips a lity s e m ix a l bus n s c tions t h other alternati v 1 5th/17th a dway to w rence B L v es B. 15 th / 17 th B roadway to L awrence and Auraria = Alterna t TABLE 28: C. 15th / 1 Broadwa y DUS t ive provides so m EVALUATIO N 7th y to D. 15t h Bro a D m ewhat better p e N OF ALTERN h two-way a dway to D US e rformance as c o 107 A TIVES WES T E. Colfax Broadway to Auraria o mpared with ot h T OF CIVIC C E F. 18th / 1 Broadw a DUS h er alternatives E NTER ENH 9th a y to G. 16 Bro a ANCE MOBIL th St. Mall a dway to DUS H S = Alternati v ITY H Broadway t o S peer/ Aurari a on Colfax v e provides bett e o a I. Broad w Speer/ P Center on e r performance a w ay to P epsi Colfax All w this Sin g be b Sin g be b All w this Tho Tho Ass u All c lev e Ro u Tho be b Tho be b Ro u Ro u a s compared wit h w ould increase level of analy s g le direction tr a b etter, fewer la n g le direction tr a b etter, fewer la n w ould provide b level of analy s se with DUS c o se with DUS c o u med better o n c ould provide b e l of analysis u tes traveling d o se with DUS o b etter se with DUS o b etter u tes traveling d o u tes traveling d o h other alternati v Comments capacity but n s is a ck on parallel n es impacted a ck on parallel n es impacted b enefits but no s is o nnections as s o nnections as s n one-way pair s b enefits but no o wntown rate h r Auraria conn e r Auraria conn e o wntown rate h o wntown rate h v es July 2 o discriminato r streets assum e streets assum e discriminators s umed to be b e s umed to be b e s discriminators h igher e ctions assum e e ctions assum e h igher h igher 2 010 r s at e d to e d to s at e tter e tter at this e d to e d to

PAGE 116

C P n P i n a m P r c t h H s a w C olfax St r Goal/Obje P rovide incenti v n ew developm e P romote incre a n tra-corridor e c a ctivity through m ixed-use dev e P romote neigh b einvestment a n c haracter pres e h at promotes s H elp develop s treetscape an d a menities to pr o w alkability = Neutral r eetcar Fe a ctive v e for e nt A b hi g u s A b in v c o o p a sed c onomic focus on e lopment P o h o e m d e P o a d v a N u c e b orhood n d e rvation s tability C o pl a re d O v c o O v c o d o mote I m ur i m e n or lower rating, a a sibility S t Criteria b ility to promot e g her-density m s e developmen b ility to attract p v estment to he o nstruction and p erations o tential increa s o usehold, m ployment, an d e nsity o tential increa s d jacent propert y a lues u mber of key a e nters served o mpatibility wit h a ns for d evelopment v erall land use o mpatibility v erall neighbo r o mpatibility m pact on propo s ban design m provements o r n hancements a s compared wi t t udy A. Br o L a e m ixedt p rivate lp with s e in d retail s e in y ctivity h CCD r hood s ed r t h other alternati v T A 15th/17th o adway to a wrence v es A BLE 29: E VA B. 15th/17t h Broadway t o Lawrence a n Auraria = Alterna t A LUATION O F h o n d C. 15t h Broad w D U t ive provides so m F ALTERNATI V h /17th w ay to U S D wa m ewhat better p e V ES WEST O F 15th twoy Broadway to DUS e rformance as c o 108 F CIVIC CENT E E. Colfa x Broadway Auraria o mpared with ot h E R ENHAN C x to F. 18 t Broa d D h er alternatives C E AND PRO M t h/19th d way to US G B M OTE ECONO M 16th St. Mall B roadway to DUS = Alternati v M IC DEVELO P H. Broadw a Speer/ Au r on Colf a v e provides bett e P MENT a y to r aria a x I. Br o Sp e C e C e r performance a o adway to e er/Pepsi e nter on C olfax a s compared wit h Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 assumed to s c Anything on 1 6 assumed to s c Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 score lower Anything on 1 6 score lower h other alternati v Commen 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall, 17 t c ore lower 6 th St. Mall, 17 t c ore lower 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall or C 6 th St. Mall or C v es July 2 ts C olfax assume d C olfax assume d t h Street, or Co t h Street, or C o C olfax assume d C olfax assume d C olfax assume d C olfax assume d C olfax assume d 2 010 d to d to lfax o lfax d to d to d to d to d to

PAGE 117

C C olfax St r Goal/Obj e Provide a co m advantage to Reduce over a and GHG wh increasing c a Encourage i n bicycle and p activity = Neut r r eetcar Fe a e ctive m petitive SOV A b v a a ll VMT ile a pacity V M re d n crease p edestrian Bi c P e c o r al or lower ratin g a sibility S t Criteria b ility to serve a a riety of trip typ M T per capita d uction c ycle connecti v e destrian o nnectivity g as compared w t udy A. 1 Bro a La w es v ity w ith other altern a TABLE 3 1 5th/17th a dway to w rence a tives 3 0: EVALUATI O B. 15 th / 17 th Broadway to Lawrence an d Auraria = Alter n O N OF ALTE R d C. 15th / Broadw a DU S n ative provides s R NATIVES W E / 17th a y to S D. 1 5 Br o s omewhat better E ST OF CIVIC 5 th two-way o adway to DUS performance as 109 CENTER E VA E. Colfax Broadway t Auraria compared with o A LUATION I M t o F. 18 t Broad w D U o ther alternative s M PROVE SUS T t h/19th w ay to U S G. B s T AINABLE T R 16th St. Mall B roadway to DUS = Altern a R ANSPORTA T H. Broadw a Speer/ Au r on Colf a a tive provides b e T ION OPTION S a y to r aria a x I. Br o Spe e Cente r e tter performanc S o adway to e r/Pepsi r on Colfax I n A r s A a A a e as compared w I ntroduces ne w n ot currently e x A ll would provi d r ates lower as s ervice A nything with D a ssumed bette A nything with D a ssumed bette w ith other altern a Comment s w high capacit y x ist d e benefits bu t it already has w D US or Aurari a r D US or Aurari a r a tives July 2 s y transit that do t 16th Street M w ell used tran s a connections a connections 2 010 es all s it

PAGE 118

C C i n i m m C olfax St r Goal/Objec C ost-effective n vestment tha t m plementable m inimizes disr u = Neutral r eetcar Fe a tive t is and u ption Capi Ope r Gra d Ove r imp a Imp a Deg r diffi c Pote fede r Lev e stak e or lower rating, a a sibility S t Criteria tal costs r ating costs d e issues r all environme n a cts a cts on utilities r ee of constru c ulty ntial for receiv i r al funds e l of communit y e holder suppo r a s compared wi t t udy A. 1 5 Broa d La w n tal c tion i ng y / r t t h other alternati v T A 5 th/17th d way to w rence B L v es A BLE 31: EVA L B. 15 th / 17 th B roadway to L awrence and Auraria = Alterna t L UATION OF A C. 15th /1 Broadw a DUS t ive provides so m A LTERN A TIV E 1 7th a y to D. 1 5 Br o m ewhat better p e E S WEST OF 5 th two-way o adway to DUS e rformance as c o 110 CIVIC CENTE E. Colfax Broadway t o Auraria o mpared with ot h R E V ALUATI O o F. 18t h Broad w D U h er alternatives O N A FFORD h /19th w ay to U S G. B r ABILITY AND 16th St. Mall r oadway to DUS = Alternati v IMPLEMENT A H. Broadw a Speer/ Aur a on Colfa x v e provides bett e A BILITY a y to a ria x I. Bro a Spe e Ce n C e r performance a a dway to e r/Pepsi n ter on olfax N N N N T A A ( f B M a s compared wit h N o major differ e N o major differ e N o fatal flaws s N o fatal flaws s T o be determin A nything on M a A nything on M a f ewer land us e B ased on input M eeting h other alternati v Commen t e nces track l e e nces een on any ali g een on any ali g ed in future st u a ll or Speer as s a ll or Speer as s e benefits) from 18 Marc h v es July 2 t s e ngth is very s g nment g nment u dy s umed to scor e s umed to scor e h 2010 Public 2 010 imilar e lower e lower

PAGE 119

C E E e I m T A I m T C olfax St r G o E nhance mobil i E nhance and p e conomic deve m prove Sustai T ransportation A ffordability an d m plementabili t T OTALS = Neutral r eetcar Fe a o al i ty romote lopment nable Options d t y or lower rating, a a sibility S t A. 15th/17 t to La w 3 10 0 6 3 1 0 4 0 6 0 2 16 17 2 a s compared wi t t udy t h Broadway w rence t h other alternati v B. 15th/17t h to Lawr e Au r 3 10 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 6 1 1 21 13 0 v es TABLE 3 h Broadway e nce and r aria = Alterna t 3 2: EVALUATI O C. 15th/17th to D 9 40 9 0 0 2 2 0 6 0 2 27 6 1 t ive provides so m O N OF ALTE R Broadway US m ewhat better p e R NATIVES W E D. 15th t w Broadway 6 6 1 9 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 3 23 8 3 e rformance as c o 111 E ST OF CIVIC w o-way to DUS o mpared with ot h CENTER EV A E. Colfax Bro a A urar i 2 11 0 0 8 1 1 3 0 5 2 1 9 24 1 h er alternatives A LUATION O a dway to i a F O VERALL SU M F 18th/19th Br o to DU S 9 4 0 9 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 1 29 5 0 = Alternati v M MARY TALL Y o adway S v e provides bett e Y G. 16th St. M Broadway to 9 4 0 1 4 4 1 0 3 4 1 3 16 9 9 e r performance a M all DUS H. A a s compared wit h Broadway to A uraria on C o 1 9 3 0 5 4 0 4 0 4 1 3 6 19 9 h other alternati v Speer/ o lfax Sp e v es July 2 I. Broadway t e er/Pepsi Cen t Colfax 1 9 3 0 5 4 0 4 0 4 1 3 6 19 9 2 010 t o t er on

PAGE 120

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 112 KEY FINDING Streetcar service would be feasible in the study area. Section 8: Summary of Findings The CSFS documents existing conditions and planned changes in the study area to determine if a streetcar is feasible. Information on existing and future conditions in the study area was collected from a wide range of previous planning efforts by several agencies. This information was shared with stakeholders, staff, and the public at outreach sessions during the course of the project. Preliminary route alignments and their suitability were evaluated using a robust set of criteria. The result was an objective set of data that was used to determine the feasibility of a streetcar in the study area. The following information is a summary of the findings of the CSFS. Specific details that support the findings can be found in the previous sections of this document. The findings suggest that a modern streetcar is feasible within several alignments in the study area, if federal funding sources could be obtained. The next step in evaluating a modern streetcar in the study area is to identify funding for an alternatives analysis consistent with Federal Transit Administration guidelines. KEY FINDINGS The Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study has produced the following findings for the study area (Figure 1): Streetcar service would be feasible in the study area. Long range forecasts anticipate 30% growth in person trips by 2035 and no roadway widening is planned in the corridor. Existing and growing transit demand exceed current and planned transit capacity. Lower capacity historic trolleys will not accommodate current or future transit demand making them a costly, inefficient vehicle choice. Enhancement of the existing bus service (adding more service with 40 foot buses or operating the route 15 as Bus Rapid Transit) will require increased frequency, substantial fleet investment, and stop im provements, to meet the transit demand. Modern streetcar become a cost effective vehicle choice relative to buses in the long term (approximately 30 years) and will serve the projected transit demand. Initial route screening suggests that to serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment should connect from Civic Center to Colorado Boulevard (3 miles, 6 track miles). Maintenance facility location(s) will need to be identified. Cost estimates for recent streetcar projects indicate capital costs in the $15-20M range per track mile.

PAGE 121

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 113 Current economic conditions indicate that multiple funding sources, including federal funds, will be needed for implementation of a streetcar alignment. Informal survey results from the March 18 community meeting indicate a majority of the attendees would be willing to contribute financially to the project. Funding has not been identified or programmed for further study. Future study will need to analyze existing utilities and the ability for a streetcar to turn around at either end of proposed alignments. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES Fifteen potential streetcar alignments were evaluated to understand their relative capacity to enhance mobility, enhance and promote economic development, and provide sustainable transportation options. Additionally, the alternatives were evaluated based on how relatively affordable and implementable they would be. This evaluation resulted in several of the alternatives being recommended for further study. Initial route screening suggests that to serve transit demand effectively, a minimum initial segment of streetcar should connect from Civic Center to Colorado Boulevard. This r oute would be 3 miles long requiring 6 miles of tracks. The routes recommended for further study are: East of Civic Center Alternatives 1, 2, 4, & 5 (Figures 25, 26, 28, and 29) West of Civic Center Alternatives B & E (Figures 32 and 35) In addition, during further study, maintenance facility location(s) will need to be identified. PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Most of the streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the last decade have been funded through a variety of sources. As shown in the chart to the left, there is no single way to fund streetcars. Funding strategies can include private contribution or sponsorship, federal funding, local funding through districts or taxes, as well as regional or state contributions. Current economic conditions indicate that multiple funding sources, including federal funds, will be needed for implementation.

PAGE 122

C F C olfax St r F igure 40: C a A l i m p e fir s r eetcar Fe a a pital Fundi n buquerque m provement s e destrian fa c s t phase of a a sibility S t n g Sources o recently re a s througho u c ilities, expa a streetcar w t udy o f Peer Stre e a uthorized a u t the City. nd the bicy c w hen federa 114 e tcar System a city-wide t The pro c c le network, l funds bec o s t ransportati o c eeds from improve ro a o me availabl Informal su March 18 meeting in d the meetin g be willin financially Figure 41 s survey b y Meeting selected t h commercia l residential other parti c was asked gauge thei r A lmost all asked we r funding st r exception w sales tax Citywide. o n tax to f u this tax wi a dway conn e e. J u rvey results 2010 c o d icate a m a g participa n g to c to the s hows resu l y participa n attendees h eir design l property property o w c ipants. Ea c a set of qu e r willingnes s of the q r e corridor r ategies. T w as an in c which w o The C u nd a wide ll be used e ctivity, and u ly 2010 from the o mmunity a jority of n ts would c ontribute project. l ts of the n t type. sel f ation as owners, w ners, or c h group e stions to s to pay. q uestions specific T he one c rease in o uld be C ity of range of to build fund the

PAGE 123

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 115 Figure 41: Results of Informal Survey of Public Meeting Attendees, 18 March 2010

PAGE 124

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 116 Next Steps The alternatives for payment should continue to be evaluated through the next phase of study. While the public workshop participants have shown distinct willingness to pay for streetcar in the study area, it is likely that federal funding will be required to complete a streetcar alignment in the study area. As sh own in the flow chart below, an alternatives analysis is the next step needed to solicit federal f unds. The alternatives analysis will look at other transportation options that could meet the purpose and need for the project. Specific impacts and benefits would be further analyzed in the federal process such as environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation effects. At this point, funding has not been identified or programmed for further study. Figure 42: Federal Funding Process Feasibility Study Alternatives Analysis Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction 1Year 12Years 24 Years 12Years 13 Years Range: 612Years

PAGE 125

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 117 Section 9: Future Evaluation Criteria for Streetcar Routes Criteria were developed for the future study of the technical and economic feasibility of other corridors in Denver that might be suited for future potential streetcar lines. A network or streetcar system could be established across the City and region. Travel Demand 2035 corridor travel time would increase without high capacity transit High capacity transit could increase person trip capacity High capacity transit could reduce overall vehicle miles traveled The corridor demonstrates a need for increased mobility options The corridor demonstrates a need for improved sustainable transportation options Economics Real estate opportunities are present near the high capacity transit system Public tools are available to contribute to the system funding Leadership is present and motivate to build high capacity transit Development opportunities exit near the high capacity transit system Urban amenities are present near the high capacity transit system Transit Service High capacity transit could serve a high-priority transit destination High capacity transit could serve pedestrian activity centers High capacity transit could avoid major operational constraints High capacity transit could increase existing transit ridership High capacity transit could provide long term operating costs savings Consider capital costs and operation criteria: Important issues include right of way width, bike lanes, pavement condition, and parking operations Land Use High capacity transit could serve planned development/redevelopment sites High capacity transit would be near employment and residential growth areas High capacity transit would serve visitor destinations High capacity transit would be near parcels with local financing capacity High capacity transit could serve a mix of demographics (age, race, income) High capacity transit is identified in adopted plans High capacity transit would provide incentive for new development Consider criteria such as population density, employment centers, attractions, pedestrian activity, distance to key destinations, proximity to existing transit, and ability to attract new riders

PAGE 126

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 118 Implementation High capacity transit is consistent with the goals in the Strategic Transportation Plan High capacity transit has public support or champions High capacity transit would have both local and regional benefits

PAGE 127

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 A Appendix A: Taskforce Meeting Notes

PAGE 128

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce Meeting September 29, 2009 Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Task Force Meeting Summary Notes, September 29, 2009 (Prepared by Progressive Urban Management Associates, 9/30/09, revised 10/08/09) As part of the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study effort, a task force meeting was hosted by the project management team to identify the pros and cons of a streetcar network along the Colfax corridor. Task force members were asked to identify pros and cons of a modern streetcar along the Colfax corridor. Ideas that emerged are summarized below: Pros of a Modern Streetcar Pros Description Provides easier mode of transit. Provides attractive mode of transit. Potential to add ridership. Has a unique Identity. Reduces greenhouse gases and energy consumption. Creates development potential. Creates better connectivity to Downtown. Provides connection with other transit modes. Potentially Increases property values. The Location and design of stops is critical. Fixed guideway provides route certainty. Car/bike share potential. Changes rider habits. Creates some predictability. Can help connect neighborhoods to Colfax Promoting walkability Supports businesses Provides East students alternative Cons of a Modern Streetcar Cons Description Costly Determining terminus on east could be difficult Does streetcar cannibalize or add riders? Bus and Transit? Potential loss of on-street parking Creates congestion issues? Budget is streetcar fiscally prudent? Development potential empty? Crime impacts does it create additional safety issues? Gentrification of area in general is a concern. Student overflow created by less capacity? Peak capacity Fare will it increase cost to ride? There needs to be honesty about limitations.

PAGE 129

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce Meeting September 29, 2009 Scoring of Pros and Cons After identifying the pros and cons of a modern streetcar, task force members were asked to vote for the pros and cons they felt would impact the Colfax corridor the most. Pros Description Score Connecting neighborhoods to Colfax Promoting walkability 12 Supports business Supports local business Serve East High School Development potential From investor perspective 11 Unique Identity 6 Location/design of stops 6 Reduces greenhouse gases and energy consumption 4 Attractive mode of transit Adds riders 3 Provides connectivity to Downtown Connection with other transit modes 2 Fixed guideway provides route certainty Car/bike share 2 Change habits Predictability Easier mode of transit 1 Potential to increase property value 1 Cons Description Score Cost 13 Cannibalize or add riders? Bus and Transit? 10 Impact of crime issues? 6 Loss of on street parking 4 Are streetcars fiscally prudent? 4 Development potential is it a foregone conclusion? 3 Fare increased cost to ride? 3 Honesty about limitations 2 Student overflow Peak capacity 2 Terminus on East 1 Congestion issues Gentrification of area?

PAGE 130

Colfax Streetcar Community Workshop #1 December 8, 2009 Meeting Summary(Prepared by Progressive Urban Management Associates, 12/08/09) Note:All presentations referenced in this summary are available on the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study website: http://www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetca rFeasibilityStudy/tabid/435130/Default.aspxww I. Introduction Terry Ruiter, Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Project Manager, City of Denver Public Works, welcomed everyone and introduced the project management team. II. Overview of Streetcar Feasibility Study Jeremy Klop, Consulting Team Project Manager (with Fehr and Peers), provided an overview of the project. III. Streetcar 101 Tim Baldwin, member of the cons ulting team, (with URS Corporation) pr esente d Streetcar 101 (power point presentation available at The Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study website) and provided a brief history of Streetcar on Colfax, outlined many of the pros and cons of streetcar, gave examples of how other cities have implemented streetcar systems and some of the tech nical and logistical considerations of streetcar. IV. Economic Development Chris Zahas, member of the cons ultin g team (consultant with Leland Consulting Group), reviewed the economic development potential of streetcar, how streetcar can attract investment and reviewed an analysis of economic indicators to be considered as the feasibility process moves forward. He also outlined potential sources of streetcar f unding. V. Transit Rider Profiles Carlos Hernandez, me mbe r of the consulting team (with Fehr and Peers), discussed the Colfax Corridor Transit Market reviewing the various characteristics of different groups of transit riders, how they think about and use transit. Carlos also summarized ridership patterns on buses currently serving the area, incl uding routes 15, 15L, 10 and 20. VI. Interactive Exercise After the formal presentation, five groups were formed and each group was charged with designing a desired streetcar route, identifying destinations, redevelopments sites and identifying approximate cost associated with each groups desired route. Sta tions were equipped with maps and vari ou s tools to design their route(s).

PAGE 131

Note: Photographs of each groups preferred route are available on the website. Results of each groups route exercise are summarized below: Group 1 $120 million line Destinations focus on Colfax east to Quebec; extend to Cherry Creek and Anschutz Medical Campus in the future. Top 5 Destinations: National Jewish Hospital Auraria Campus Civic Center/Downtown St. Joes/PSL Colfax and Quebec East High/Tattered Cover/City Park Top 5 Redeve lopment Opportunities: 9th and Colorado Colfax between Justice Center and Invesco Field Office Depot site at Colfax & Pearl Car dealerships near Colorado Boulevard and Colfax Krameria/Mayfair Preferred Maintenance Facility location: Near I 25/Invesco Connect via Welton to LRT maintenance facility Group 2 $75 million line Colfax focus with Union Station connection, long term route to Anschutz Medical Center Top Destinations: Civic Center/Auraria/Light Rail Union Station Major redevelopment opportunity: Auto dealerships at Colfax and Colorado Preferred Maintenance Facility location: Downtown, near Auraria

PAGE 132

Group 3 $94.5 million line Monaco to Auraria 2 single tracks at 17th/18th Avenue, and Colfax between York to Broadway to pick up riders from hospitals near downtown Up Park Avenue, downtown and Union Station Top 5 Destinations: Light rail Union Station Convention Center Group 4 $60 million (initial phase) Connection to Mile High Stadium, Civic Center and into downtown (17th and Speer), goes east along Colfax to Yosemite Later add line from Colorado Boulevard to First Avenue to Cherry Creek and Speer Colorado Boulevard Top 5 Destinations: Madison Johnson & Wales York/Josephine, East High Monaco/Krameria (Mayfair) 13th and Colfax (Art Museum) Top 5 Redevelopment Opportunities: Ogden Gove (14th and Colorado) York and Josephine/East High 9th and Colorado Preferred Maintenance Facility location: SW of Colfax & I 25 Group 5 $135 million line Auraria to Quebec, focused on Colfax Spur up Park Avenue, connect with Downing Corridor, to Ballpark Neighborhood, ending at Union Station Top 5 destinations: Downtown Civic Center Auraria City Park Botanic Gardens/Cheesman Park

PAGE 133

Top 5 Redevelopment Opportunities Old CU Medical School Campus (which is planned to become a residential/mixed use site) Colfax, East of Colorado Boulevard Krameria/Mayfair Old John Elway lot Church in the City/future Recreation Center Preferred Maintenance Facility location: On Colfax Across from Auraria (where strip mall is currently) VII. Next Steps: Public asked to provide any additional comments on this meeti ng by mid January Consulting team will continue to refine potential route(s) and present alternatives analyses The next community workshop will be in the spring

PAGE 134

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce Meeting #2 February 18, 2010 Meeting Summary (Prepared by Progressive Urban Management Associates, 2/19/10) Note:Most of the referenced information, including the summary of findings, preliminary alignment options and preliminary evaluation criteria are available on the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study website: http://www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetca rFeasibilityStudy/tabid/435130/Default.aspxww I. Meeting Introduction Terry Ruiter, Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Project Manager, City of Denver Public Works, welcomed everyone and introduced the project management team. II. Overview of Streetcar Feasibility Study Jeremy Klop, Consultant Team Project Manager (with Fehr and Peers), provided an overview of the project, where we are in the proces s and expected ti ming for completion of the feasibility study. III. Summary of Findings Jeremy Klop and Carlos Hernandez, members of the consultant team (with Fehr and Peers), discussed some of the feasibility study findings, providing an overview of the increased population and employment and projections in the corridor, associated congestion and need for additional transit ca pacity. They outlined the following elements of their analysis: Projected ridership if a streetcar is introduced to the corridor Ridership trends Potential types of funding Overall, there are promising ridership qualities along the corridor IV. Preliminary Alignment Options Jeremy Klop presented route alternatives and facilitat ed a discussion regarding the differences among the various options. Jeremy outlined six potential routes along the corridor to the east of Broadway and nine potential routes west of Broadway. V. Preliminary Evaluation Criteria Jeremy Klop introduced initial evaluation criteria to determine whether streetcar along the Corridor would achieve th e following goals: Advance mobility through the corridor Improve sustainable transportation options Enhanc e an d promote economic development

PAGE 135

VI. Task Force Comments and Feedback The meeting engendered a spirited discussion with regard to all facets of the feasibility study. Task force members were asked to share the preliminary findings and proposed routes with their various organizations and constituencies and provide any feedback to the consulting team by March 4, 2 010. Task force members were provided with a lis t of talking poi nts outlining the process to date, current conditions and issues and strategies to consider as the feasibility study moves ahead.

PAGE 136

Colfax Streetcar Community Workshop #2 March 18, 2010 Meeting Summary(Prepared by Progressive Urban Management Associates, 3/19/10) Note:Most of the presentations referenced in this summary are available on the Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study website: http://www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetca rFeasibilityStudy/tabid/435130/Default.aspxww I. Introduction Council President Jeanne Robb welcomed everyone and gave some background and context of the Streetcar Feasibility Study. II. Summary of Feasibility Study Findings Jeremy Klop and Carlos Hernandez, Transportation Consultants with lead consulting firm Fehr and Peers, provided an overview of the project, and provided project findings, including ridership patterns and ot her information that sugges ts a Colfax str eetcar is feasible acknowledging that: Significant investment is needed Long term transit operating cost savings can be realized relative to existing bus service Jeremy then summarized the preferred streetcar alignments. III. National Funding Scenarios Chris Zahas, member of the consulting team, (wi th Leland Consulting Gro up ) presented potential funding sources for streetcar construction and maintenance including special taxing districts, sales tax and other local, state and federal sources. IV. Local Funding Scenarios Brad Segal, consultant from P.U.M.A. talked about potential economic development activity a streetcar might bring to Colfax and potential to leverage investment. Local econ omic developme nt tools that could finance streetcar were identified: Improvement Districts Parking revenue Sales tax Citywide bond issue Tax increment financing Vehicle registration fees Brad outlined potential to raise money in various segments of the corridor through a 5% property tax in crease and introduced the interactive exercise asking attendees if and how mu ch they would be willing to pay and choose the preferred east/west streetcar alignments.

PAGE 137

V. Interactive Exercise Meeting participants were asked to provide feedback in two ways: 1. Vote on preferred streetcar route (routes East of Broadway were preferred by meeting participants). 2. Demonstrate a willingness to pay for streetcar through a tax or special assessment (the majority of residents of the area expressed an interest in con tributing through property or sales tax or a vehicle registration tax )

PAGE 138

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Taskforce Meeting #3 April 16, 2010 Meeting Summary (Prepared by Progressive Urban Management Associates, 4/16/10) Note:PowerPoint presentation presented at the Task Force Meeting is available at: http://www.denvergov.org/ColfaxStreetca rFeasibilityStudy/tabid/435130/Default.aspxww I. Meeting Introduction Terry Ruiter, Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study Project Manager, City of Denver Public Works, welcomed everyone and introduced the consulting team. II. Overview of March 18, 2010 Public Meeting Jeremy Klop, Consultant Team Project Manager (with Fehr and Peers), provided an overview of the public meeting held at Na tional Jewish Hospital in March, key points discussed were: Route preferences Broadway to Syracuse was favorite option of meeting attendees with 125 responses Downtown routes were overall less preferred than east of Broadway routes by meeting attendees. Also, there was less consensuses about placement of potential downtown lines tha n that east of Broadway. Task force discussion included the following points: Composition of meeting a t tendees (i.e. primarily residents living near the Colfax corridor) likely influenced route preference outcomes Thoughts about the line going to Fitzsimmons were discussed Discussion regarding keeping the Auraria connection was considered, noting there are few existing options that connect Aura ria to other rou tes DUS is accessible many ways from many transit modes Jeremy resumed the presentation and noted the additional information from the March 18 community meeting: Commercial property owners willingness to contribute to the financing of a streetcar plan: only 7 responses total Residential property owners at the meeting were largely willing to financially contrib ute via a number of methods including property taxes, sales tax and motor vehicle registration Other participants those who are not property owners were generally willing to pay Property tax generatedalong th e corridor is about $1.5M ~ $8M to $10M bonded value

PAGE 139

Discussion about potential assessments to be raised beyond 14th to 16th: thought is not much potential additional revenue to be raised (noting prominence of residential in those areas) Parking revenues as a source of revenue was discussed including cost, parking structures and potential to dedicate some portion of revenues to streetcar. III. Draft project findings Jeremy Klop reviewed the overall findin gs, major topics include d: Demand for streetcar exists Ridership capture is very high along Colfax ridership and is a compelling story for federal funding Inadequate transit to meet current and projected demand No plans to increase roadway capacity 20,000 to 30,000 riders daily on 15 and 15L Streetcar provides cost savings over the long term Streetcar prov ides lowest operating cost per rider Discussion regarding using cen terrunning streetcar versus side running streetcar Likely cost is $17M per track mile and we are likely looking at 10 mile project Overall process will likely need federal f unding and will take 6 12 ye ar s Minimum initial segment recommended: Broadway to Colorado Downtown connections: Auraria important, Welton is important, Civic Center is important IV. Next steps were reviewed Alternatives Analysis is next step will cost approximately $500K No identified fundin g currently for Alternatives Analysis

PAGE 140

Colfax Streetcar Feasibility Study July 2010 B Appendix B: Colfax Streetcar Modeling

PAGE 141

December 23, 2009 Key Routes: 2007 Modeled vs. Observed Ridership 2007 Observed 2007 Modeled Denver Local Service class Denver Limited Service class Light Rail Service Class Avg. Weekday Boardings Absolute Chg Pct Chg Bus Route Land Use Changes 2007 2035 Population and employment in zones directly adjacent to Colfax dont see significant change in population between 2007 and 2035 (see Figures 1 and 2). In examining the TAZs in the Fitzsimons area there is a large increase of employment. Those five zones have an increase of 35,135 jobs (see Figures 3 and 4). 1

PAGE 142

Figure 1: Land Use Change 2

PAGE 143

Figure 2: Land Use Change 3

PAGE 144

Figure 3: Land Use Change 4

PAGE 145

35,000 increasein these five zones Figure 4: Land Use Change5

PAGE 146

Travel Market The geographic areas benefiting (or disbenefiting) most from a travel time perspective were determined using FTAs Summit program, which compares two modeled scenarios. The results are captured geographically by TAZ and are expressed in terms of benefit and disbenefit. Areas benefiting are areas where travel time is improved and, inversely, areas receiving disbenefit are areas where travel time is longer as a result of the change in scenario. The areas of benefit or disbenefit indicate, to some extent, the geographic area from/to which the 15, 15L or streetcar produce and attract riders. The first Summit comparison is between a 2035 model run without the 15 or 15L bus routes between the CBD and Quebec (scenario NBa) to a 2035 model run in which the 15 and 15L run as they do today (scenario GL2035). From a trip production perspective, the 15 and 15L benefits are most concentrated east of I 225 and in the areas directly north and south of Colfax. No production benefits occur in the CBD (see Figure 5). From a trip attraction perspective, the benefits are still concentrated east of I 225 but slightly fewer benefits are seen along Colfax. More benefits are shown in the CBD, particularly southeast of Lawrence Street as well as the Auraria Campus and DUS zones (see Figure 6). The second Summit comparison is between the GL2035 model run (2035 scenario in which the 15 and 15L run as they do today) and a 2035 scenario in which the streetcar exists from Quebec to Auraria Campus via the CBD at 15 minute peak and off peak headways (scenario d). From a trip production perspective, while areas surrounding the CBD and DIA benefit from the streetcar, the areas benefiting most significantly are between Quebec and the CBD. Without the 15 and introducing a transfer from the 15L at Colfax/Quebec, however, some disbenefits are evident between Quebec and I 225 (see Figure 7). From a trip attraction perspective, the benefits are isolated to the area between Monaco and the CBD as well as at DIA (see Figure 8). 6

PAGE 147

Figure 5: 2035 Summit Results with and without 15 & 15L 7

PAGE 148

Figure 6: 2035 Summit Results with and without 15 & 15L 8

PAGE 149

Figure 7: Summit Results With and Without Streetcar 9

PAGE 150

Figure 8: Summit Results With and Without Streetcar 10

PAGE 151

Model and Input Details Model version: COMPASS_4.0v3.rsc Land use version: Zone_C2_09_35_Final.bin Highway layer: C1_09_2030RTP.dbd TransCAD: 4.8 build 475 Modeled Scenarios Model Run* 15L exists 15L truncated CSC Headway Route In scenarios b-e the 15 is truncated at Quebec 1. "normal" Systemwide without Streetcar 2. No 15, 15L or CSC east of Quebec 3. 15 runs as normal 4. 15 segment eliminated From Brdwy/Civc Ctr to Colo Blvd 11

PAGE 152

Key Route Ridership Average Daily Boardings Route No CSC 15 & 15L exist No 15/15L or CSC CSC = 15/15 15L exists CSC = 7.5/7.5 15L exists CSC = 7.5/7.5 15L truncated CSC = 15/15 15L truncated CSC = 7.5/7.5 Runs Brdwy/Colo 15L exists 15 exists entirely CSC = 7.5/7.5 Runs Brdwy/Colo 15L exists 15 not on CSC rte GL2035 NBa b c d e f g subtotal 11,115 4,490 6,382 6,456 6,160 5,797 8,446 8,111 Totals 31,764 28,523 39,382 58,590 59,249 40,119 38,903 39,230 12

PAGE 153

Scenariowith 15Lwithout 15L Travel Times Due to inconsistencies between the way dwell times are calculated for bus and rail, the travel times for the 15 and the streetcar are not exactly the same (details to be provided with methodology). The streetcar runs faster than the bus see the table below.The implementation of the streetcar may be accompanied by improved signalization or signal priority; therefore the shorter travel times may be appropriate. PeakOff Peak Route Routing Travel Time (min) 13

PAGE 154

Headways Throughout all model runs the 15 and 15L headways remained constant. Of course, the Streetcar headways changed from 7.5 and 15 minutes depending on the scenario. The table below provides the headways for all patterns of the 15 and 15L as well as the streetcar (Figures 9 13 provide maps of the routing and stops for each route in the table). PeakOff Peak Route Headway 14

PAGE 155

Figure 9: Bus Route 15a 15

PAGE 156

Figure 10: Bus Route 15b 16

PAGE 157

Figure 11: Bus Route 15La 17

PAGE 158

Figure 12: Bus Route 15Lb 18

PAGE 159

Figure 13: Streetcar Route 19

PAGE 160

Boardings A review of the chief stops for ons as well as offs for the 15, 15L and streetcar revealed additional indications of the areas served by each route. Maps of these ons and offs are provided in Figures 14 19. It is important to note that, while not shown on the maps, there is a stop for the I 225 rail line at the intersection of Colfax and I 225. 20

PAGE 161

Figure 14: 15 Eastbound Ons and Offs (all day) 21

PAGE 162

Figure 15: 15 Westbound Ons and Offs (all day) 22

PAGE 163

Figure 16: 15L Eastbound Ons and Offs (all day) 23

PAGE 164

Figure 17: 15L Westbound Ons and Offs (all day) 24

PAGE 165

Figure 18: Streetcar Eastbound Ons and Offs (all day) 25

PAGE 166

Figure 19: Streetcar Westbound Ons and Offs (all day) 26

PAGE 167

Observations Streetcar ridership o Increasing the frequency on the Streetcar route (from 15 to 7.5) yields about 21,000 additional riders (108 118%). o Truncating the 15L increases Streetcar ridership by 900 1,200 (depending on the CSC headways). 15 and 15 Limited ridership o The 15 Local picks up more riders between Quebec and Auraria than the 15 Limited. When the 15 is present in its full length, introducing the Streetcar and truncating the 15 decreases ridership on the 15 by: About 4,300 riders (56%) when Streetcar headways are 15/15 (15L present at full length). About 3,900 (51%) riders when Streetcar headways are 7.5/7.5 (15L present at full length). o The 15 Limited picks up more riders near its eastern terminus than the 15. When the 15L is present in its full length, introducing the Streetcar decreases ridership on the 15L by 450800 riders (depending on the CSC headways). 15L ridership decrease appreciably when truncated. the 15L loses: About 1,000 riders (34%) when Streetcar headways are 15/15. About 500 (18%) riders when Streetcar headways are 7.5/7.5. GL2035 versus Streetcar run d (Streetcar 7.5/7.5, 15L truncated) affects routes outside the study area. When the Streetcar is introduced and the 15 and 15L are truncated: o Route 0SB loses 19% ridership. o Route 0LNB loses 38% ridership. o Downtown Circulator loses 1,400 riders NB (27%) and 1,600 riders SB (19%). o LRT route JCDUSEB (West Corridor) gains 4% ridership. o LRT route LU18NB (Southwest CorridorLucent to 18th) loses 2% ridership. o LRT route LUDUS (Southwest CorridorDUS) southbound loses 15% ridership. o LRT route RG18 (Southeast Corridor RidgeGate to 18th) northbound loses 2% ridership. o LRT route RGDUS ((Southwest CorridorDUS) southbound loses 8% ridership. o Mall shuttle loses 2,600 riders (8%) NWbound and 11,500 riders (16%) SEbound. 27