DENVER | Transportation Thread

[TakeFive]

One reason I was curious about the Mall buses is that the first five 40-foot buses LAMTA bought from Byd had trouble going up the hills on the route used and also had lot of other problems as well.

LAMTA negotiated with Byd to buy the buses back for $3 million as a credit for ordering five new 60-foot buses to be used on the "Orange Line." Whether Byd had new factory start-up kinks or the bus was poorly spec'd ie. sufficient battery power, I dunno. Links Here and Here. They're also ordering five 60-foot EV buses from New Flyer. One issue with these new EV buses is that the upfront costs are reportedly 25% to 50% higher than conventional offerings.

I did a quick-check on Louisville to see if I could get a read on their 1st year experience with Proterra's. Sounds like they only had a handful of minor issues and couldn't be more delighted. I assume Foothills Transit is very satisfied with theirs since they've been using a Proterra bus since 2010, exclusively, I believe. Three cities in Texas including DART have also bought the Proterra EV.

[COtoOC]

I saw test trains on the R line yesterday. First time I've seen actual trains moving.

[mr1138]

Random question... does anybody know of any real-world examples of a center-running arterial BRT system that also has left-hand automobile turn lanes?

[TakeFive]

^ Not offhand but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mixed traffic center lane although it would be pretty dumb.

Oh my, so the devil is in the details.

Most Americans don’t want new tolls to pay for road and bridge improvements, poll says
January 17. 2017 By Ashley Halsey III and Scott Clement - Washington Post

A plan to pump up to $1 trillion into infrastructure by luring private investors won’t win public support if it means new tolls on existing roads and bridges, according to a new poll.

In Washington Post-ABC News poll, 66 percent of those surveyed said they oppose a plan that would grant close to $140 billion in tax credits to investors who put their money into roads, bridges and transit in return for the right to impose tolls.

The Trump Team has asked the State of Virginia for big projects that private investors could help with in return for tolling revenue. The Trump Team strategy is to provide income tax credits as incentives to private investors. Sounds like they want to find some big shiny "legacy" projects. Virginia's head of transportation thinks it's a red herring since there is no taxable income for several years typically with P3 projects. Only way to know I suspect would be to bid a project with and without the tax incentives.

So reality starts today. I recall when Obama took office Republicans actually helped build up his image of sainthood bcuz they knew that reality would chip away soon enough. With Trump, he's set such high and unrealistic expectations that I suspect reality will start biting soon.

[mr1138]

Sry, bad internet connection led to a double post.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

^ Not offhand but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a mixed traffic center lane although it would be pretty dumb.

Yeah, that seems to be the primary problem. NACTO apparently recommends not allowing left turns at all on a center-running BRT corridor (instead you would turn right and go around the block to head straight through the intersection you wanted to turn left at). But this isn't necessarily possible in an urban context lacking a regular urban street grid.

Sharing center bus lanes with left-turning vehicles, or (to me even worse) having traffic CROSS bus lanes into turn lanes would seem to negate most of the benefits of having a center-running alignment in the first place (i.e., at that point a side-running configuration where cars use the BAT lane to turn right would work just about as well).

The only other solution I can possibly think of would be a signal timing thing where left turners actually turn ACROSS the bus through lane, but the two never get the green light at the same time. Of course this presents signal timing issues.

I'm just curious if anybody else knows of ways this has been handled elsewhere.

[ddvmke]

Apologies for throwing out an unrelated topic to the past few pages, but I've been wondering about two specific TOD areas for a while now and was hoping someone (anyone!) has some information.

Both the Denver Design District and Broadway/I-25 areas adjacent to LRT stations have had some pretty impressive plans floating around for a while now. With the potential upcoming infrastructure/transportation bonds and completion of build-out in DUS, is there any chance we see infrastructure work or private development at either site in the near future? I think last I heard was that D4 Urban lost control of the DDD site, and that public infrastructure works are mid/long range at Broadway, but it seems like such a shame not to concentrate development in these areas with the current state of traffic on I-25 and lack of connection between Baker and S. Broadway.

[seventwenty]

Not quite Denver, but since commuters like me gonna commute...

Input on Interstate 25 widening north of Monument to Lone Tree sought at two public meetings

Originally Posted by Colorado Springs Gazette

The Colorado Department of Transportation will hold a meeting Tuesday at Library 21c in Colorado Springs and at the Douglas County Fairgrounds in Castle Rock on Thursday. CDOT spokesman Bob Wilson said both will be from 5 to 7 p.m. and provide updates on the Planning and Environmental Linkage study that will help determine the design of the project from north of Monument to Lone Tree south of Denver.

. . .

According to Wilson, public input is crucial for designing the project, estimated to cost from about $290 million to almost $600 million depending on the needed improvements. Wilson said "people that travel that corridor every day" should provide specifics on wildlife movement near the interstate, locations where the most troublesome backups occur and urgent issues that Wilson said might be able to be addressed immediately after the Planning and Environmental Linkage study and a second study required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Wilson called the section of the I-25 corridor from Monument Hill to south of Castle Rock "the gap." He said the two almost 20-mile, two-lane sections have been a trouble spot for a long time and could be the focus of "early-action construction" by mid-2019.

[COS]

The two lane stretch is 18m from the Monument exit to just south of the Plum Creek exit. If this is being executed as "early-action", I would love to see 4 lanes on each side and feasibly eliminate the need for any future expansion. There are three expensive spots in my mind: The weigh station section at Monument, the bridge over Greenland exit, and the bridge over the Larkspur/Upper Lake Gulch Road exit. Outside of those spots, should be a simple (albeit lengthy) project.

Will be interesting to see if going to 4 lanes through Castle Rock is on the table for this project as well. That would only add 4m and will be necessary in the near future anyway.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Yeah, that seems to be the primary problem. NACTO apparently recommends not allowing left turns at all on a center-running BRT corridor (instead you would turn right and go around the block to head straight through the intersection you wanted to turn left at). But this isn't necessarily possible in an urban context lacking a regular urban street grid.

Sharing center bus lanes with left-turning vehicles, or (to me even worse) having traffic CROSS bus lanes into turn lanes would seem to negate most of the benefits of having a center-running alignment in the first place (i.e., at that point a side-running configuration where cars use the BRT lane to turn right would work just about as well).

The only other solution I can possibly think of would be a signal timing thing where left turners actually turn ACROSS the bus through lane, but the two never get the green light at the same time. Of course this presents signal timing issues.

I'm just curious if anybody else knows of ways this has been handled elsewhere.

NACTO has some guidance for maintaining lefts in a Center Running Arterial BRT environment. I believe it's accessible in their hardcopy version of the Transit Street Design Guidelines. Most of the time it requires far-side platforms (no center share platforms). This configuration allows for the left-turn pocket to sit in the shadow of the far-side platform. This left-turn movement is a projected phase of the signal timing. Bus movements are allowed during the thru movement phase. It's actually fairly efficient.

At present time, there just aren't very many CRBRT examples - especially in an urban arterial environment. The SBX BRT in San Bernardino is a pretty good example, as it maintains lefts at many signalized intersections. See this Google Maps example.

Other examples include the upcoming mostly center-running Madison BRT in Seattle and the upcoming Geary BRT in San Francisco. I'm not sure if these two examples will maintain left turns or not, but it is possible.

Here is an early concept for Webster Ave. in NYC. As mentioned above, you can see the left-turn pockets near-side in the space occupied by the far-side platforms:

[CastleScott]

Will be interesting to see if going to 4 lanes through Castle Rock is on the table for this project as well. That would only add 4m and will be necessary in the near future anyway.

As a former resident of Castle Rock-that streach from just south of Plum Creek to Santa Fe (US 85) was pretty wide as it was re-built around 2006-2009, the part south should have been done long ago..

Oh btw I saw and rode a bus on Geary St in San Fran just a few months ago-it was quite interesting.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

NACTO has some guidance for maintaining lefts in a Center Running Arterial BRT environment.

Thanks for taking the time to share your expertise. Srsly good stuff.

Originally Posted by mr1138

Yeah, that seems to be the primary problem.

I'm just curious if anybody else knows of ways this has been handled elsewhere.

Not to topic but years ago like back in the 1980's Phoenix intersections with stoplights rarely had a left-turning lane. The only advantage for out-of-towners was if when going through an intersection you said "Oh, that's where I need to turn left" since in that case you just went around the block - which was necessary anyway. Otherwise it was a big pain.

The way Phoenix handled this problem was to build miles and miles and then more miles of freeway lanes and then retrofit left-turn lanes at all the intersections.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by COS

The two lane stretch is 18m from the Monument exit to just south of the Plum Creek exit. If this is being executed as "early-action", I would love to see 4 lanes on each side and feasibly eliminate the need for any future expansion.

This is what I call playing political football... and hopefully it works.

Over the last year many Republicans (especially the C-Springs crowd) have complained that if CDOT weren't spending money on Bustang and for a new CDOT HQ they could afford to move forward with this project. Not even close. Perhaps not a mandate but I believe that CDOT is encouraged to allocate some $'s to transit. IIRC they helped the Roaring Fork Valley get their BRT project done.

With CDOT having the funds, they were good in spending money for an early design phase for this project. They coupled this with some positive PR on the project, in effect passing the ball to the Republicans to find a needed new revenue stream towards the $9 billion backlog that CDOT is sitting on.

The two political sides are threatening to reach a compromise which could then be submitted to voters for approval. Incidentally, The Coloradoan, two days ago ran a story that "No," C-Springs did not leapfrog NoCo for I-25 expansion and that both projects have equal priority. CDOT just needs the revenue stream so they can sell bonds to kickstart much needed ketchup.

[mr1138]

^ Thanks for that great information PLANSIT! I'm working on some sketch revisions to a sketchup model right now and wanted to know how this has realistically been handled in a US context. Of course analysis may still show that Center Running isn't the best option, glad to see it's been dealt with at least somewhere though.

The example of Webster Ave that you posted, and what I saw of the SBX when I zoomed in on Google Earth make it appear that stations maybe shouldn't be placed at the largest intersections (which also don't tend to be as pedestrian friendly anyway). Good food for thought, thanks!

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Random question... does anybody know of any real-world examples of a center-running arterial BRT system that also has left-hand automobile turn lanes?

Here's an example I found on Cleveland's Euclid Ave BRT.

[CastleScott]

Speaking of the Geary St BRT in San Fran, I remember it ran on a colored concrete strip between two or three lanes of regular traffic-Geary St is actually quite narrow as its an old street. A friend of mine came out to visit from Colorado (Thornton) and he and my wife caught the bus out to walk the Golden Gate bridge-since the route went through a portion of the Tenderloin hood some of the bus riders were very rough, tough and gritty-the bus was an electric trolley (the crowd was a bit like the ones that ride the east Colfax 15 in Denver but rougher). Further out west we caught another diesel one on out to the Golden Gate..

[Cirrus]

I can think of a couple center transitway BRT lines with left turn lanes for cars.

Alexandria, VA:
The Metroway BRT on US-1. It doesn't show up on Google Maps or Bing yet, so this picture is the best I can do. IIRC there are a couple of intersections that look like this.

NOTE: This photo shows you how to solve the signal problem. You give the transitway its own signal. See the traffic light with the white bar? That's the signal for the bus. IIRC vertical bar means go, horizontal means stop. You can see the regular red arrow left turn signal for cars next to it.




Suburban Toronto:

Left turns lanes are standard for the Viva BRT system in suburban Toronto. There are a ton of them up and down the line. They don't have to deal with US design guidelines though.


image from google maps


Rt 7 BRT image from herbert fong on flickr

They also have left turn lanes on at least some of Toronto's streetcar transitways, which are analogous for design purposes. You can see the green arrow "transit signals" in this picture, BTW. I think the white bars would be a lot less confusing to car drivers.


Saint Clair transitway image by sean marshall on flickr

Salt Lake City:
Oh! If rail is OK as an example, here's Salt Lake's 4th Street TRAX:


SLC image by photo dean on flickr

[bunt_q]

Denver already uses white bar signals for bus preemptions at a few intersections around town.

[seventwenty]

Denver Post on Bipartisan Efforts to Fund Roads via Tax Increases

The proposal, most likely a sales-tax increase, is expected to include other tax cuts in the first years as an offset.

. . .

Gov. John Hickenlooper and Colorado lawmakers are hearing the message and entered the 2017 term agreeing that transportation money is the No. 1 priority. But both made similar pledges in prior years only to fail to reach agreement in the end.

. . .

The initial conversations about a deal are occurring behind closed doors between Republican Senate President Kevin Grantham, Democratic House Speaker Crisanta Duran and Hickenlooper’s office.

The Democratic governor recently suggested the leading idea is a tax measure that generates as much as $500 million a year for road projects, most likely from a sales tax hike, as part of a bond package that would reach near $3.5 billion. But the terms are far from certain.

The opening negotiations involve three possible sources for new dollars: new taxes, current general fund money and federal gas tax revenues. Each option has its advocates and critics, and a final agreement would likely incorporate multiple levels of funding.

Hickenlooper maintains that any deal must include new revenue. Most of the attention is on a sales tax because it generates the most money. For example, an additional 0.5 percentage point increase in the 2.9 percent statewide sales tax would raise an estimated $514 million next fiscal year.

Republican lawmakers are insisting that the measure remain revenue-neutral in the first year — meaning the deal must include tax cuts that equal the initial tax hike. Two possible cuts are the gas tax or the business personal property tax.

. . .

As an alternative to a tax hike, Republican lawmakers and conservative advocacy groups are renewing a push for a $3.5 billion bond package that uses half the federal gas tax revenue to cover the debt payments — a 2015 bill that failed in the Democratic House.

The proponents note that the payments to the TRANS bonds that began in 1999 end this year, freeing up about $170 million for a new bond issue. But the state transportation department argues that money is needed to cover maintenance and operations of the new roads built with the bonds.

There's more information about the poltical fight in the article. For the sake of brevity, I omitted much of that discussion.

[seventwenty]

If you want more political discussion on the possible transit funding fight, read here:
http://coloradopolitics.com/colorado...ransportation/

Here's a summary. Read the article for specific statements.

Originally Posted by ColoradoPolitics.com

The state faces $9 billion in transportation needs and a proposal on the table to borrow $3.5 billion for the top priorities, including widening Interstate 25 north of Monument and north of Thornton, as well as find solutions on the I-70 mountain corridor.

But it’s hard to see how we get there from the positions we heard outlined in speeches Wednesday and Thursday. Republicans made it clear they want some of the money — and in the case of House Republican leader Patrick Neville, all the money — to come from the state’s general fund. Gov. John Hickenlooper and Senate Democratic leader Lucia Guzman hold out hopes of reclassifying the state’s Hospital Provider Fee. That would get it out from under a constitutional spending cap to free up millions at the expense of taxpayers, who are due a refund under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

The general fund is the state bank account that pays for K-12 schools and higher education, courts and prisons, Medicaid, and social services.

The idea that none of the billions needed for transportation comes out of the state budget is a non-starter for Republicans, but Democrats say they won’t rob already-underfunded schools to pay for asphalt.