I'm glad they axed the bridge. It was too expensive and a waste of money.
|Quoting hi_flyer (Reply 4):|
Given DEN's climate, I would think they'd put the whole length of the train under cover so that people don't have to go trudging through the snow.
Well, our climate is actually pretty decent. Usually, the sun comes out the next day after the storms and melts the snow away. Who knows if they'll have heated cement or whatever. It will be very nice during the spring through fall.
On a slight tangent, a similar thing happened with the planning for Union Station--the main transfer point for the metro-wide rail expansion. Rather than house all the trains and buses in one location, the light rail trains were pushed a few blocks away. They say it was because it wasn't feasible to construct a situation where all the transit modes were under one roof, but it seemed to me it was about creating retail opportunities, similar to what exists with the current 16th street mall being, which is bookended by two major bus terminals. About creating pedestrian activity between the two.
|Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 3):|
It would be nice if they could tie the new train connections to the rental car lot and the Tower road hotels.
I believe some developers are pushing to have stations added along Pena. Personally, I'm against it, as adding stations would slow the train. Keep in mind that this is also part of a metro wide rail transit expansion project. People will be using other train lines and transferring at Union Station downtown to the airport train. I would want to make it competitive to taxis and existing airport bus rides in terms of time. Plus, it's a lot easier I'm sure to have shuttles pick up and drop people off. You'd also be clogging the train with a bunch of people who are just going to the rental lots. I'm sure in time stations will be added along the route. I'd rather have shuttles from the airport to lots and hotels. Good for jobs too.
|Quoting PITrules (Reply 22):|
Right now DEN has the ability to double its runways and gates. Would it have the corresponding ability to double its landside (ticketing/baggage claim) terminal if this new plan goes through? The most obvious way to expand the Jeppesen Terminal is southward in a linear fashion. The location of the hotel and train station pretty much eliminates this ability.
I'm concerned about that too.
|Quoting point2point (Reply 7):|
And with that, it will be very difficult (in my personal opinion) to have the clear glass of the expansion phase harmonize with the bright white coloring of the Jeppesen Terminal.
I disagree. Under the teflon roof is glass. Interestingly, the original airport design called for stepped glass pyramids for both the terminal and the concourses.
If anybody is wondering why Pena Blvd curves out of the way instead of going straight to the airport, part of that has to do with the city purchasing land just east of the Arsenal because they believed the airport would be located in that area, before it was finally decided on its present location. I think the city wanted to save money by using that land as part of the road. Probably also helps with potential development by creating a larger area for possibilities.
If you look at the train route diagram in the original post, you can also see the entire length is not double tracked, which could be an issue later on down the line.