Community Task Force March 14, 2018 Welcome and Introductions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Community Task Force March 14, 2018

Welcome and Introductions

Project Partners  Regional Transportation District (RTD)  City of Aurora  Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)  Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

Meeting Purpose and Agenda

Meeting Purpose  Summary of community feedback on center-running BRT  Review/discuss areas of emphasis for detailed design:  Traffic analysis  Local access  Stop spacing/connectivity  Decision-making process and next steps

Agenda  Project update  Community input summary  Traffic analysis  Local access  Stop spacing  Breakout group discussion  Next steps

Project Update

Corridor Development Timeline • Opportunity for Stakeholders and Public To Influence Project Design • Broad • Design Detail Definition of Project • Construction • Revenue Service • Conceptual • Alternatives • Engineering & Design & Analysis Design Environmental Analysis • 18 months • 12 18 • 18 24 - - • Ongoing months months • Federal Transit Administration Project Development • We Are Here • Locally • Fully • Concept Preferred Design & Designed and Alternative Environmental Funded Clearances Project  Definition of  Design detail mode &  Design alignment determined complete  Conceptual  Environmental  Finance station locations impacts identified package  Operating plan  Local decision

Summary of Community Feedback

Outreach Snapshot Center-Running BRT (July 2017 - February 2018)

Community Survey  Survey  Nov. 15 through early March  Over 1,400 responses  500+ open-ended comments  Top zip codes  80220 (~30%)  80206 (~15%)  80218 (~7%)  80203, 80205 (~5%)  80207 (~4%)  80202 (~3%)

Survey Responses Do you agree with the recommendation for center- running BRT on East Colfax? Disagree 23% Agree Agree: 932 respondents Neutral Neutral Neutral: 53 respondents 4% Disagree: 298 respondents Disagree Agree 73%

Breakdown By Neighborhood Zip Code Percentage Agree/Disagree 80220 52.4% Agree 30.8% (East Colfax/ Mayfair / Montclair / Park Hill) 30.2% Disagree 80206 60.8% Agree 16.0% (Congress Park / City Park / Cherry Creek) 20.7% Disagree 80218 76.0% Agree 7.2% (Cheesman Park/ Capitol Hill / Uptown) 13.5% Disagree 80203 73.8% Agree 5.5% 5.0% Disagree (Capitol Hill / Uptown) 80205 85.5% Agree 5.3% 7.9% Disagree (Five Points / Whittier / City Park) 80207 50% Agree 4.0% (Park Hill) 32.8% Disagree 80202 72.34% Agree 3.3% (Downtown) 4.3% Disagree

What We’ve Heard : Using The Current System How often do you use transit on Colfax? 1000 900 800 58.11% 700 600 41.89% 500 400 300 200 100 0 Daily, Weekly or Monthly Rarely *Responses indicating daily and weekly use totaled 39.19%

What We’ve Heard: Using The BRT System Are you likely to use the new center-running BRT? 75.90% 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 24.10% 300 200 100 0 Yes No

What We’re Hearing: Opportunities  Top benefits and opportunities:  Speed: Faster transit travel-time and improved schedule reliability  Moves more people: Increases the number of people who can safely travel the corridor  Safety: Improved safety for pedestrians, vehicles and transit users  Look and feel: Improved streetscape and placemaking opportunities

What We’re Hearing: Challenges  Top challenges and concerns:  Moving cars: Potential vehicle traffic delays and/or diversion of traffic to side streets  Local access: Maintaining local access with vehicle left turns at signalized intersections  Stop locations and connectivity: Consolidation and location of bus stops and connectivity with other transit-services and bike/pedestrian facilities  Building it: Maintaining the vision and intent of the project through construction

Areas of Emphasis for Detailed Design - Traffic - Local Access - Stop Spacing and Connectivity

Traffic

Traffic Analysis The Bottom Line:  Vehicle travel times increase with or without the project. Center Running BRT results in transit travel times in 2035 that are competitive with general traffic travel times.  Traffic impacts are expected to be limited to a few intersections; these will be the focus of mitigations that may include:  Speed reduction and safety improvements  Signal optimization  Potential for extending or providing new turn lanes  Minor capacity adjustments through restriping or curb/gutter relocation Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:  Some vehicle shift to parallel corridors, use alternative routes, or choose alternate modes. It is anticipated that vehicle growth on parallel corridors due to Center Running BRT in 2035 will be less than 10% compared to if nothing is done.  Total vehicle volume on corridor is reduced, but person throughput and access increases with Center Running BRT.  Auto trips are more susceptible to minor delays due to parallel parking and truck loading.  Opportunity for safety and operational improvements to aid vehicle/transit operations.

Traffic Analysis: Methodology  Microsimulation traffic modeling was performed as part of the 2016-2017 Center Running Feasibility Study  Methodology was developed for calculating additional traffic expected to divert off of Colfax as a result of the Center Running BRT NOTE: Colfax Connections will continue to analyze traffic as the project progresses. Additional locations for left turns and/or additional traffic signal locations will be incorporated once determined.

Traffic Analysis: Capacity and Volumes 2035 CENTER RUNNING BRT VOLUMES COMPARED TO NO BUILD 2035

Traffic Analysis: Travel Times 2035 CENTER RUNNING BRT TRAVEL TIMES COMPARED TO NO BUILD 2035 10-15 MINUTES LESS

Local Access

Local Access What we are hearing:  Concern for reduced direct vehicular access  Businesses are open to this reduction with sufficient turn opportunities and mitigations  Creating walkable business districts changes how people access destinations  Concern from neighborhoods that vehicular traffic increases on local streets to access businesses  Walking routes to new transit stations may have pedestrian deficiencies

Local Access Opportunities:  Improves driver safety: Auto left turns More than 60% of crashes that occur allowed at signalized intersections only while turning or crossing an  Improves pedestrian safety and crossing intersection involve left turns (3.1% opportunities (more attractive to cross the involve right turns) street to access businesses)  Improves bicycle safety  Reduction in Transit conflicts (turning movements, curb-use, etc.) Source: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366

Reduced Conflicts Center-Running Bus Rapid Transit: How it Works Single-direction :station platforms at Intersections Left turn lanes at signals coif ax corridor connections

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 Healthline, Cleveland, OH Madison BRT, Seattle

Stop Spacing and Connectivity

Stop Spacing/Connectivity The Bottom Line:  Maintains or improves overall transit travel times when considering walk, wait, and ride  Offers more rail-like boarding experience, making it easier for seniors and people with disabilities to ride  Provides opportunities for improved sidewalks and bike and pedestrian access to corridor

Stop Locations Tradeoffs/Other Considerations:  Some passengers will need to travel slightly further to access enhanced service  Some local stops are consolidated  Local bus service on adjacent streets is maintained  Colfax has a well connected urban sidewalk network providing good access to the corridor

Project Features: Integrated Operations All corridor buses use one set of stations between Yosemite and Civic Center

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

How stop spacing affects walking distances e • ·····• • BlocksTraveled by Service Provided Walking Travel Path to Transit Stop BRT 1/2 mi. BRT 1/4 mi. -9- BRT Stop (112 mile stop spacing) and Path Household A 2 blocks 3 blocks 3 blocks Household B 3 blocks 3 blocks 5 blocks •••. •... BRT Stop (114 mile stop spacing) and Path Household C 3 blocks 3 blocks 4 blocks - • - 118 mi . Service Stop and Path coif ax corridor connections

Walkshed analysis coif ax corridor connections

Roll Plot Map Discussion