DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Zmapper]

I should have specified - the left turn lane in my Broadway diagram is a left-turn/parking (with a smallish curb)/bus waiting platform lane.

That 6' platforms exist in San Francisco is absolutely irrelevant - they are illegal under current federal law, and any agency that tries to implement substandard-width platforms will (rightfully, IMO) be sued for discrimination against people with disabilities. My guess is the substandard platforms were erected before 1990 (perhaps when Market St was torn up in the 1970's for the BART and MUNI subways), when the ADA was enacted.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

If the cycle track is gone, why wouldn't you just put the southbound bus on the west side of the street? That way, you don't need the median.

1. Because curbside bus lanes aren't as effective as a separated transitway, because car drivers ignore the rules and drive in them anyway. Same reason cycletracks with physical separation are better than normal bike lanes.
2. Because Broadway is a one-way street, and if we want to have a bus lane going in the opposite direction of cars then it would be good to have some better separation. Pittsburgh has done it with just a double yellow line, but I'd prefer not to.
3. Because we already have curbside bus lanes on Lincoln, so if we were going to do that then there'd be little reason to put it on Broadway (except that generally it's better for transit to be on commercial streets).

So basically, if we were going to be happy with curbside bus lanes then we could fit a cycletrack, and there'd be no reason to move the bikes to Lincoln.

What does bunt_q think about that?

Originally Posted by Zmapper

That 6' platforms exist in San Francisco are illegal under current federal law

The bus stops on Market Street are accessible to wheelchairs. If ADA still doesn't allow them, despite that, then you're right that we can't do it on Broadway, but it's also a sign that ADA is overly inflexible and needs to change. It's silly that ADA says a 3' sidewalk is just dandy, but if there's a bus nearby suddenly it has to be almost 3 times as wide.

Anyway, I could live with using the same lane as turn lane wherever we don't need the median, but I think failing to preserve 2 rows of parking would almost certainly be a political deal-breaker.

[Cirrus]

PS: All these endless iterations is why the city does indeed have to study the issue.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1. Because curbside bus lanes aren't as effective as a separated transitway, because car drivers ignore the rules and drive in them anyway. Same reason cycletracks with physical separation are better than normal bike lanes.
2. Because Broadway is a one-way street, and if we want to have a bus lane going in the opposite direction of cars then it would be good to have some better separation. Pittsburgh has done it with just a double yellow line, but I'd prefer not to.
3. Because we already have curbside bus lanes on Lincoln, so if we were going to do that then there'd be little reason to put it on Broadway (except that generally it's better for transit to be on commercial streets).

So basically, if we were going to be happy with curbside bus lanes then we could fit a cycletrack, and there'd be no reason to move the bikes to Lincoln.

What does bunt_q think about that?

I like the bi-directional transit way on Broadway with the widened median - that last cross section looks great. I think the cycle-track on Lincoln makes more sense, and is probably a win for both.

We should next look at the corresponding cross-section for Lincoln. If two traffic lanes (plus a third at rush hour) works for Broadway, then we'd presumably do the same for Lincoln. And replace the current parking/transit lane with a full-time cycle track on the sidewalk-side of the parking/peak hour traffic lane.

Fortunately, I think the present day sidewalk situation on Lincoln is okay, so this would be a less dramatic change. Basically, we're just taking a traffic lane for bikes, with no impact on transit because it gets improved on Broadway. The only decision left is whether we want a third traffic lane full-time, or parking some of the day. But that's a car-vs-car decision, so no faction under the urbanism tent should care on that one either way.

EDIT: Gotta say, though, I think this would get criticism from the cycling community. I bet they'd feel slighted by not getting a spot on Broadway itself and would push back.

[bobg]

FYI if you are going to start playing around with Lincoln my memory was a little off yesterday on the ROW width:

Between I25 and Virginia Lincoln is 64 feet wide.

Between Virginia and 6th Lincoln is 80 feet wide.

North of 6th Lincoln is 90 feet wide.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But that's a car-vs-car decision, so no faction under the urbanism tent should care on that one either way.

It's a local residents versus suburban through traffic issue. Plus there's the whole using parked cars as a buffer for the sidewalk thing. If we could buy off the locals and avoid too many NIMBY issues by keeping the parking, that'd be my vote. But I wouldn't fight about it.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Gotta say, though, I think this would get criticism from the cycling community. I bet they'd feel slighted by not getting a spot on Broadway itself and would push back.

And that's where I'm comfortable telling them say have to compromise too, and if they want a cycletrack then that's how we can make it work. But if we're going to do that, then it actually has to be a good cycletrack. No half-assing or squeezing by with sub-standard dimensions if we go over to Lincoln. Minimum 10' with a minimum 2' barrier, with vertical separation.

Also, we can't expect cyclists to park on Lincoln and then walk over to Broadway. That can be their through route, but we'd need decent connections to Broadway from perpendicular streets every so often, and Broadway's sidewalks would still need bike racks regardless.

[Zmapper]

Cirrus,

ADA standards require 5' by 5' for turning a wheelchair. A bus will extend the ramp outward from the vehicle by 3-5' or so. About 4' past the bus ramp would be required for the wheelchair to wait while the ramp is deployed and stowed. Therefore, 8' by 5' is the required minimum size for a wheelchair accessible landing pad at a bus stop.

Rail stations are slightly different as (in almost all cases) the trains have level boarding, or a mini-high platform with a very short ramp. For level boarding, I believe ADA only requires 6' past the train platform, as there is no ramp to extend the distance. Once raised, the platform shown in the picture provided would be considered level boarding, or if there is a small ramp, within the limits.

[Cirrus]

Aha. So we can squeeze down if we can provide level boarding. We can do that with buses without too much difficulty on a transitway, although it's something we'd have to plan and pay for.

Although it's still probably easier to push the cycletrack to Lincoln.

[bcp]

that's a good idea...bikes on Lincoln, two-way bus on broadway.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Gotta say, though, I think this would get criticism from the cycling community. I bet they'd feel slighted by not getting a spot on Broadway itself and would push back.

I do not think the cycling community would push back on a Lincoln cycletrack, especially if it had good connections to downtown on one end (14th/15th/18th/19th) as well as a good connection to the other side of I25 on the southern end.

The primary issue with the other streets close to Broadway is they are not continuous roads to/from downtown. To get to 1st and Broadway from downtown using the current alternate cycling routes it can add between 0.3 to 0.6 miles to the approximately 2 miles it would take by car. To get to the Gates redevelopment from downtown using the side streets can add between 0.8 to 1.2 miles to the roughly 3.5 miles it would take by car. Not to mention those routes off of Broadway are full of stop signs and traffic signals with low signal priority.

Lincoln would provide a continuous route that would require less meandering around side streets, and is only a block away from Broadway. Most people are fine with 16th in lieu of Colfax -although 16th could be improved- so if the quality was there on Lincoln I would think the cycling community would rally behind it.

My bigger concern with having the two way cycletrack on Lincoln, and having two way bus lanes on Broadway is how that would impact the traffic signals and turning. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but one of many things that needs to be studied.

[PLANSIT]

There would definitely be push back from the cycling community for a Lincoln cycletrack. Everyone wants to be on Broadway. Just sayin'.

Cirrus,

Do you have any examples of shared drive/parking lane in the context of a commercial corridor. We don't have any here in Denver. I ask because it seems to be harder to manage parking for commercial as people would be oblivious to the peak hour change. I guess you could program the parking meters to only allow for paid parking up until 15 min before it switches to a drive lane. Thoughts?

[DenverRider2]

The cycling community would be psyched to get a real cycletrack that gets them safely where they need to go. Lincoln may actually be better because it connects directly to the cherry creek bike path ramp.

What program are folks using to design these cross sections?

[bobg]

^^

http://www.streetmix.net

[PLANSIT]

Toll lane to be added on I-70 near Twin Tunnels

Read more: Toll lane to be added on I-70 near Twin Tunnels - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2j8T5w8QY
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

A toll lane will soon be added on eastbound Interstate 70 near the revamped Twin Tunnels to help ease traffic bottlenecks during high-volume parts of the week.

The plan will be discussed during a series of public meetings scheduled for later this year.

The exact toll that drivers will pay to avoid I-70 traffic has yet to be determined. However, motorists will likely see quick results on the highway once the toll lane opens up by late 2015, said Amy Ford, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Transportation.

"Potentially, this could reduce travel times by as much as 45 percent on I-70," Ford said.
Photos: Work on I-70 twin tunnels

The toll lane will stretch from U.S. 40 at Empire Junction to the western terminus of the Twin Tunnels in Idaho Springs. It will be built using the existing shoulder on I-70 with pavement added at interchanges and on bridges, according to CDOT.

The toll lane will be open during peak travel times such as Sunday and Saturday afternoons Ford said.

On Sundays in 2010, CDOT says speeds along I-70 were slower than 20 mph 35 percent of the time.

Some motorists divert to the frontage road along I-70, which makes traveling tough for local drivers, CDOT said.

During off-hours, the lane will be used as a shoulder.

The $34 million project is part of the $646 million Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance & Partnership program approved last week by the Colorado Transportation Commission.

Read more: Toll lane to be added on I-70 near Twin Tunnels - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2j8SsOBnD
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

SOURCE

[EngiNerd]

I'm a little confused by this, so will this stretch between US 40 and the Twin Tunnels be 3 lanes and then 4 during peak times, with the 4th being tolled...or will it be 2 lanes, and 3 during peak times?

I think we've all been duped if they only intend to keep it 2 lanes and a 3rd tolled.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I'm a little confused by this, so will this stretch between US 40 and the Twin Tunnels be 3 lanes and then 4 during peak times, with the 4th being tolled...or will it be 2 lanes, and 3 during peak times?

I think we've all been duped if they only intend to keep it 2 lanes and a 3rd tolled.

Empire Junction is WEST of the tunnel, so it would be 2 lanes EB (as it is now) with the shoulder making up the 3rd tolled lane during peak. EB I-70 EAST of the tunnel will be 3 lanes and no tolling (that I know of).

Basically, this is an effort to use existing ROW and maximize capacity during peak period from Empire Junction through Idaho Springs and to the new 3 lane section at the new wider tunnel.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I think we've all been duped if they only intend to keep it 2 lanes and a 3rd tolled.

For $34 million? I don't know what else we would be expecting for that amount. Certainly not additional lanes. This seems like a stop-gap measure and a test to see how well tolling would actually be received along I-70.

[EngiNerd]

I know Empire Junction is West of the Twin Tunnels, but I was thinking this was part of the bigger expansion, I misread the article. So they will be using, for the most part, existing ROW as a stopgap toll road during peak times and should help also if there is an accident to get it moved out of traffic. Guess that's fine, but are the proceeds going only to the capital construction fee of $34 mil, or will it be used to also fund the proposed future expansion? I'm sure the lane will be used pretty frequently by people heading down the hill during those times.

[PLANSIT]

Like Wong said, they are short-term stop-gaps. There really is no larger expansion. It's a bunch of studies at this point. So CDOT does what it can do with the money it has.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Cirrus, Do you have any examples of shared drive/parking lane in the context of a commercial corridor. We don't have any here in Denver.

Sorry, missed this. Was in Seattle lat week and not reading the forum.

Anyway, yes, it's common. You just tow or ticket anybody who breaks the rules. I snapped this picture on Connecticut Avenue in DC while having dinner tonight: