Community Task Force October 5, 2017 Welcome and Introductions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
community task force
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Community Task Force October 5, 2017 Welcome and Introductions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 22, 2022 580 likes •1.09k views

Community Task Force October 5, 2017 Welcome and Introductions Project Partners Regional Transportation District (RTD) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) City of Aurora

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Community Task Force

October 5, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Welcome and Introductions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Project Partners

  • Regional Transportation District (RTD)
  • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
  • Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
  • City of Aurora
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Meeting Purpose and Agenda

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Meeting Purpose

  • Review findings of initial center-running BRT

evaluation

  • Review key differentiators/opportunities/challenges of

center-running concept

  • Identify common themes and outstanding questions on

center-running BRT evaluation

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Agenda

  • Peer City Review
  • Review findings of center-

running BRT evaluation

  • Evaluation criteria: key

differentiators/benefits/ challenges

  • Key themes and group

discussion

  • Next steps and path forward
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Center-Running BRT on Colfax

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Aurana

Ca mp~s

I

"'

  • g:

: ~':r' n -

;-

  • -·;;·------
  • -1

8ih------

  • ------·

g ~

~ -- -

  • ;:;-
  • - - - ~
  • --

d

\!'~

~

7 v~ ty J;-° ,)_

  • -------1

· · 7 ·

.:_···

  • ••••••••••• ·.;; •••• M ed ~c8~

~p

u s ~ 17th

Q Q

s;

~

U I (1)
  • ~

ID

CJ

:J

(5- ro

Q

  • ......
  • .

iil

colfax Ill

ro

3

&'

~ 14th N ational

  • §-

8

n

ip'

1143

~

: ••••••••••••••••••••

~

  • ~ ;:~

.

Je•\lish Heallh •••••••••• ••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

~ ••••••••••••••••

~

~ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

:

A-U\. tipj:Ua i- MIM »::MM 01).-

" 1c

fB o

1o111e
  • .5
  • m

e

~I~

____________

£ _

·1~
  • coif

ax corridor connections

Study Area

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • Corridor Development Timeline

Alternatives Analysis

Conceptual Design & Environmental Analysis

Engineering & Design Construction Revenue Service

Locally Preferred Alternative

  • Definition of

mode & alignment

  • Conceptual

station locations

  • Operating plan
  • Local decision

Concept Design & Environmental Clearances

  • Design detail

determined

  • Environmental

impacts identified

Fully Designed and Funded Project

  • Design

complete

  • Finance

package

Federal Transit Administration Project Development 12 18 months 18 months 18 24 months Ongoing Opportunity for Stakeholders and Public To Influence Project Design

Design Detail Broad Definition

  • f Project

We Are Here

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Center-Running BRT in Sister Cities

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Denver’s Peers are Building Quality BRT

  • Cleveland: HealthLine BRT
  • Chicago: Ashland BRT
  • Seattle: Madison RapidRide BRT
  • NYC: Fordham Road Select Bus Service
  • Eugene: EmX BRT
  • Boston: Silver Line BRT
slide-12
SLIDE 12

coif ax corridor connections

Healthline BRT, Cleveland

https://youtu.be/kF6EF3kOGQE

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Ashland BRT, Chicago

  • Similar corridor and ridership to Colfax
  • Population living within 0.5 miles of Ashland corridor expected to

grow by 55,000 (about 24%) by 2040.

Ashland Corridor, Chicago

slide-14
SLIDE 14

coif ax corridor connections

Ashland BRT, Chicago

https://youtu.be/_csc2ZDuQLo

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Seattle Madison BRT

  • Serves several neighborhood retail districts
  • Purpose is to deliver high-quality mobility to accommodate

current and expected growth

slide-16
SLIDE 16

coif ax corridor connections

Madison BRT, Seattle

https://youtu.be/nmpCkw9dPkw

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Center-Running BRT Evaluation and New Criteria

slide-18
SLIDE 18 I~

h

GOOD GOOD/FAIR FAIR

FAIR/POOR POOR coif

ax corridor connections

Where We’ve Been: Screen 3 Plus Results Summary

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • SCREEN4

111.

RESULTS SUMMARY

KIY Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit

GOOD

Side-Running in Center-Running in Exclusive Lanes- All Day Exclusive Lanes - All Day

Ridership

GOOD/FAIR

Transit Travel Time Auto Travel Time Person capacitY

FAIR

Transit ReliabilitY cost-EHectiveness

FAIR/POOR

Vehicle Miles Traveled Multimodal Access Pedesttian satetv +IXJJerience ••••••

  • POOR

Multimodal satetv Expansion capacitv curb Access Vehicle Access Economic oevelopmem Urban oesign/Placemaking

CODSU'UCtiOD Impact

Agency+ communitv suppon

lstrong agency SUPPOrll

  • verall Results
  • TBD
  • TBO

_Jll\

  • coif•• corridor connections
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Potential Evaluation Criteria for Additional Screening

OPERATIONS

  • Transit Operating

Cost

  • Expansion Capacity
  • Traffic Operations
  • Cost-Effectiveness
  • Ridership
  • Person Capacity

EXPERIENCE

  • Travel Time

Reliability

  • Placemaking
  • Passenger

Experience

  • Multimodal Access

(Station Spacing) COMMUNITY

  • Multimodal Safety –

Vision Zero

  • Vehicle Miles

Traveled

  • Economic

Development

  • Construction

Impacts

  • Business Access
  • Community &

Agency Support

  • Construction

Impacts

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Screen 4 Criteria: Key Differentiators, Benefits and Tradeoffs

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Criteria Topics for Today’s Discussion

Transit Travel Time Reliability Operating Cost Future Proofing

Placemaking

Passenger Experience Multimodal Safety Pedestrian Comfort & Experience Traffic Operations Pedestrian, Bicycle, ADA Access Station Spacing Business Access Parking & Loading

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Transit Reliability

Transit Travel Time Reliability Operating Cost Future Proofing

The Bottom Line:

  • Center Running BRT (CRBRT) has less friction with
  • ther road users including curbside conflicts, providing

more reliable travel

  • Changes to traffic and corridor development don’t affect

future transit operations

  • CRBRT operators can accurately predict future operating

costs/avoid year-over-year increases

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • More left turn restrictions
  • Less auto travel lanes

Future proofing from delay as land-use, traffic, and curb uses change

CENTER

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Reduced Conflicts

No conflicts with turning vehicles, parallel parking,

  • r truck loading
slide-25
SLIDE 25

EmX, Eugene-Springfield, OR

100% Near-Level Boarding

Off Board Fare Payment & Level Boarding are major contributors to improved travel speed and reliability

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Transit Reliability

Transit Travel Time Reliability Operating Cost Future Proofing

The Bottom Line:

  • Center Running BRT (CRBRT) has less friction with
  • ther road users including curbside conflicts, providing

more reliable travel

  • Changes to traffic and corridor development don’t affect

future transit operations

  • CRBRT operators can accurately predict future operating

costs/avoid year-over-year increases

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • More left turn restrictions
  • Less auto travel lanes

Future proofing from delay as land-use, traffic, and curb uses change

CENTER

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Local Business Access

Business Access Parking & Loading The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will restrict auto left turns at most non-signalized

left turns

  • CRBRT has similar curb use (parking and loading)

impacts to SRBRT (no conflicts with buses)

  • CRBRT will improve pedestrian safety and crossing
  • pportunities, making it more attractive to park and cross

the street to access businesses

  • CRBRT will also improve bicycle and motor vehicle

safety

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • On-street parking movements don’t negatively impact

transit operations

SIDE

Given current vehicle oriented uses

  • n corridor, side running has lesser
  • impacts. This may change over time.
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Vehicle Access

Before Center-Running After Center-Running

Colfax

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Local Business Access

Business Access Parking & Loading The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will restrict auto left turns at most non-signalized

left turns

  • CRBRT has similar curb use (parking and loading)

impacts to SRBRT (no conflicts with buses)

  • CRBRT will improve pedestrian safety and crossing
  • pportunities, making it more attractive to park and cross

the street to access businesses

  • CRBRT will also improve bicycle and motor vehicle

safety

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • On-street parking movements don’t negatively impact

transit operations

SIDE

Given current vehicle oriented uses

  • n corridor, side running has lesser
  • impacts. This may change over time.
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Stop Consolidation/Local Service

Pedestrian, Bicycle, ADA Access Station Spacing The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will maintain or improve overall transit travel

times when considering walk, wait, and ride

  • All CRBRT stations will offer more rail-like boarding

experience, making it easier for seniors and people with disabilities to ride

  • CRBRT and SRBRT provide opportunities for improved

sidewalks and bike and pedestrian access to corridor

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Some passengers will need to walk further to access

service

  • Some local stops are consolidated

CENTER

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Project Map

To Tower Rd.

0 Conceptual BRT Stations

Sludy Boundoly

Q Conceptual Standard Bus Stop

To ALA"ora Metro Center I R ti-le

coif ax corridor connections

Conceptual Stops

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Stop Spacing In Denver

  • Local and Limited use one set of high-quality stations in Denver
  • 3-5-minute headways

Colfax has a well connected urban sidewalk network providing good access to the corridor

slide-33
SLIDE 33

BlocksTraveled by Service Provided

1/8 mi. Service BRT 114 mi. Household A

2 blocks

3 blocks

I I

Household B 3 blocks 3 blocks

I

Household C 3 blocks 3 blocks

······•

BRT 1/2 mi.

3 blocks 5 blocks

4 blocks

e

  • Walking Travel Path to Transit Stop
  • 9-

BRT Stop (112 mile stop spacing) and Path

.••.•••• BRT Stop (114 mile stop spacing) and Path

  • -

118 mi. Service Stop and Path

coif ax corridor connections

How stop spacing affects walking distances

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Anatomy of a Trip

Side Running BRT

Walk to End Walk to Transit

Wait @ Station

Ride

Center Running BRT

Walk to Transit

Wait @ Station

Ride Walk to End

Wait time perceived as most punitive

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Traffic Operations

The Bottom Line: Traffic Operations

  • CRBRT will shift some vehicle trips to parallel corridors,

but impacts are limited to a few intersections (will be focus for mitigations)

  • CRBRT will reduce total vehicle volume on corridor but

increase person throughput and access

  • CRBRT or SRBRT will provide opportunity for operational

improvements (signal optimization, extended/new turn lanes, re-striping, minor curb/gutter relocation) that will aid vehicle and transit operations

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Some vehicles will shift to parallel corridors
  • Auto trips are more susceptible to minor delays due to

parallel parking and truck loading

  • Auto trips will experience a few additional minutes of

travel time from end-to-end

TIE

Grid street network can absorb diversion with minimal vehicle travel time increases

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Safety

Multimodal Safety Pedestrian Comfort & Experience The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will eliminate many of the most significant

conflict points that lead to serious injury and fatal collisions

  • CRBRT will reduce crossing exposure
  • CRBRT design could provide center pedestrian refuges

at non-signalized crossings (under discussion)

  • CRBRT provides vertical features in the roadway that

serve as traffic calming

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Left turns only allowed at signalized intersections. May

require U-turns or multiple lefts to get to destinations.

  • Will require careful design decisions about pedestrian

crossings at non-signalized intersections

CENTER

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Healthline, Cleveland, OH

Improves Crossing Safety and Comfort

  • Island stations calm traffic
  • Pedestrian refuges reduce crossing distance
  • Shorter crossing distances = less exposure to vehicle traffic
  • Eliminating unprotected lefts improves pedestrian safety
  • Station lighting enhances security

Madison BRT, Seattle

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Safety

Multimodal Safety Pedestrian Comfort & Experience The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will eliminate many of the most significant

conflict points that lead to serious injury and fatal collisions

  • CRBRT will reduce crossing exposure
  • CRBRT design could provide center pedestrian refuges

at non-signalized crossings (under discussion)

  • CRBRT provides vertical features in the roadway that

serve as traffic calming

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Left turns only allowed at signalized intersections. May

require U-turns or multiple lefts to get to destinations.

  • Will require careful design decisions about pedestrian

crossings at non-signalized intersections

CENTER

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Placemaking/Streetscaping

Placemaking Passenger Experience The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will open sidewalk space for pedestrian, retail

activation by removing bulky shelters and waiting passengers

  • CRBRT alternative eliminates all curbside transit stops

and boarding

  • CRBRT improves transit customer security by separating

transit customers from other sidewalk users (and providing transparent design and lighting)

  • CRBRT can increase space for landscaping and public

art

  • CRBRT station design is less constrained, allowing for

signature design

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Passenger may feel more isolated in the center of the

street during off-peak times (lighting and station design

CENTER

can mitigate)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Placemaking/Streetscaping

  • Frees sidewalk space for retail and community activation
  • Increases opportunity for public art and streetscape

improvements

  • Landscaping increases property values

Colfax: Curb Bus Stations Limit Public Realm Ops Euclid Avenue, Cleveland

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Street Design

HealthLine BRT, Cleveland

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Street Design

HealthLine BRT, Cleveland

slide-43
SLIDE 43
  • Landscaping

HealthLine BRT, Cleveland

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Public Art

Steve Manka, “Chorus Line” HealthLine BRT, Cleveland

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Placemaking/Streetscaping

Placemaking Passenger Experience The Bottom Line:

  • CRBRT will open sidewalk space for pedestrian, retail

activation by removing bulky shelters and waiting passengers

  • CRBRT alternative eliminates all curbside transit stops

and boarding

  • CRBRT improves transit customer security by separating

transit customers from other sidewalk users (and providing transparent design and lighting)

  • CRBRT can increase space for landscaping and public

art

  • CRBRT station design is less constrained, allowing for

signature design

Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:

  • Passenger may feel more isolated in the center of the

street during off-peak times (lighting and station design

CENTER

can mitigate)

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Key Themes and Group Discussion

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Next Steps and Path Forward

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Where Do We Go From Here?

  • Identify Local/Regional Funding Sources
  • Compete for Federal Funding*
  • BID/RNO presentations and updates
  • Gather community feedback and complete more detailed

design and implementation schedule

  • Next Task Force Meeting: Wednesday, November 15

*requires environmental clearance by Federal Transit Administration and funding availability

slide-49
SLIDE 49

www.ColfaxCorridorConnections.com Info@ColfaxCorridorConnections.com