Colfax Center-Running BRT Conceptual Design

City and County of Denver

Colfax Center-Running BRT Conceptual Design

November 2018

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN City and County of Denver

Table of Contents Page 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Purpose and Need........................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Background ......................................................................................................... 2-1 Project Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Colfax today........................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Transit Service Today ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 Coordination with Relevant Planning Efforts And Capital Projects .............................................. 2-6 Street Design and Operations Elements .......................................................................... 3-1 Design Dimension Summary .................................................................................................................. 3-1 Design and Operations Details ........................................................................................................... 3-4 Renderings ............................................................................................................................................ 3-29 ROW Hierarchy ................................................................................................................................... 3-32 10% Design Set .............................................................................................................. 4-1 Sheet 1 (Osage to Speer) .................................................................................................................... 4-4 Sheet 2 (Welton to 15th/Broadway).................................................................................................. 4-6 Sheet 3 (Broadway to Pearl/Washington) ....................................................................................... 4-8 Sheet 4 (Washington to Humboldt) ................................................................................................. 4-10 Sheet 5 (Humboldt to Vine/Gaylord) ............................................................................................. 4-12 Sheet 6 (Gaylord to Milwaukee) ..................................................................................................... 4-14 Sheet 7 (St. Paul to Jackson/Harrison) ........................................................................................... 4-16 Sheet 8 (Harrison to Cherry) ............................................................................................................. 4-18 Sheet 9 (Dexter to Glencoe) ............................................................................................................. 4-20 Sheet 10 (Grape to Krameria) ........................................................................................................ 4-22 Sheet 11 (Leyden to Olive/Pontiac) ............................................................................................... 4-24 Sheet 12 (Pontiac to Spruce/Trenton)............................................................................................. 4-26 Sheet 13 (Trenton to Willow/Xanthia) ........................................................................................... 4-28 Sheet 14 (Xanthia to Yosemite) ........................................................................................................ 4-30 Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 5-1 Traffic Capacity on Colfax Avenue ................................................................................................... 5-1 VISSIM Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5-2 VISSIM Modeling Process ..................................................................................................................... 5-4 VISSIM Analysis Results ......................................................................................................................... 5-6 Diversion Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 5-11 Traffic Analysis Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5-12 Additional Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5-13 Crossing Spacing ................................................................................................................................. 5-14 Outreach Summary: July 2017 – August 2018 ............................................................... 6-1 Community Engagement Activities ...................................................................................................... 6-2 CRBRT Public Opinion Survey .............................................................................................................. 6-2 Detailed Results ...................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Community Task Force Meetings ......................................................................................................... 6-5 Public Workshops and Community Events: ........................................................................................ 6-6 Technical Working Group Meetings................................................................................................... 6-7 Capital Costs ................................................................................................................... 7-1 Cost Estimate Definition and Tiers ....................................................................................................... 7-1 Cost Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 7-5 Capital Elements and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 7-7 Costs by Segment ................................................................................................................................ 7-15 Moving Forward ............................................................................................................. 8-1 Design ....................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-2 City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | i

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN City and County of Denver

APPENDICES Appendix A: Design Detail Appendix B: Traffic Analysis Detail Appendix C: Capital Cost Detail

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | ii

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN City and County of Denver

Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8 Figure 3-9 Figure 3-10 Figure 3-11 Figure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14 Figure 3-15 Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17 Figure 3-18 Figure 3-19 Figure 3-20 Figure 3-21 Figure 3-22 Figure 3-23 Figure 3-24 Figure 3-25 Figure 3-26 Figure 3-27 Figure 3-28 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5

The Vision for Colfax Avenue ............................................................................................. 1-2 Project Extent ......................................................................................................................... 1-3 Project Schedule .................................................................................................................... 1-4 East Colfax Corridor Study Area ...................................................................................... 2-2 Land Use in the East Colfax Corridor Study Area ........................................................ 2-4 Existing Transit Service Characteristics ............................................................................. 2-5 Current Transit Ridership by Stop ...................................................................................... 2-7 Colfax Avenue Center Running BRT Design Parameters ............................................... 3-1 BRT Station Spacing .............................................................................................................. 3-4 Bus Only Lane Treatments on Broadway ......................................................................... 3-5 Ten-Foot Median with Trees in Lakewood, CO ............................................................... 3-6 Median with Decorative Fencing in Malmo, Sweden ..................................................... 3-6 Platform End along the TriMet MAX Orange Line in Portland, OR ............................ 3-7 BRT Station Platform Example (Richmond, VA) ............................................................... 3-7 Cut Drain Drainage Example at Curb Extension, Delmar Trolley, St. Louis ............... 3-9 Curb Extension with Stormwater Treatment, Philadelphia ............................................ 3-9 Impact on pedestrian diversion of proposed crossing spacing ................................. 3-11 Additional Recommended Crosswalks............................................................................ 3-11 Curb Extension Crossing Treatment Example ............................................................... 3-12 Distance Between Existing Crossings .............................................................................. 3-13 Crosswalks at Fillmore Street and 1st Avenue in Denver ............................................ 3-15 Pedestrian Refuge Island Example ................................................................................. 3-16 NACTO Guidance for Curbside Stormwater Facilities ............................................... 3-17 Curb Extension Stormwater Planter, Illustration and Photo Example (Brighton Blvd) ...................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Curbside Amenity Zone Stormwater Planter, Illustration and Photo Example ....... 3-19 Stormwater Planter with Integrated Bench ................................................................... 3-20 Existing, Planned, and Proposed Bike Facilities Intersecting East Colfax Avenue .................................................................................................................................. 3-20 Distance between Left-Turns with Center-Running BRT Project ................................. 3-22 Design Vehicles Characteristics........................................................................................ 3-24 Design Vehicle by Street/Station ................................................................................... 3-24 Example of Relationship between Left Turn Length, Lane Curvature, and Taper .................................................................................................................................... 3-25 AutoTURN of Vehicle path (Articulated Bus) Traveling at 35 mph........................... 3-26 AutoTURN of Vehicle Path (40-foot bus) Traveling at 35 mph ................................ 3-26 Parking Inventory Change by Design Sheet, Colfax Avenue and SideStreets within One Block ................................................................................................... 3-28 Parking Inventory Change by BID, Colfax Avenue and Side-Streets within One Block............................................................................................................................. 3-28 Sheet Key................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Sheet 1: Osage to Speer..................................................................................................... 4-4 Sheet 2: Welton to 15th/Broadway .................................................................................. 4-6 Sheet 3: Broadway to Pearl/Washington ....................................................................... 4-8 Sheet 4: Washington to Humboldt .................................................................................. 4-10

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | iii

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN City and County of Denver

Figure 4-6 Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 4-9 Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-4 Figure 5-5 Figure 5-6 Figure 5-7 Figure 5-8 Figure 5-9 Figure 5-10 Figure 5-11 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 Figure 6-4 Figure 6-5 Figure 6-6 Figure 6-7 Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2 Figure 7-3 Figure 7-4 Figure 7-5 Figure 7-6 Figure 7-7 Figure 7-8 Figure 7-9 Figure 7-10 Figure 7-11

Sheet 5: Humboldt to Vine/Gaylord ............................................................................. 4-12 Sheet 6: Gaylord to Milwaukee ..................................................................................... 4-14 Sheet 7: St. Paul to Jackson/Harrison ............................................................................ 4-16 Sheet 8: Harrison to Cherry ............................................................................................. 4-18 Sheet 9: Dexter to Glencoe ............................................................................................. 4-20 Sheet 10: Grape to Krameria ......................................................................................... 4-22 Sheet 11: Leyden to Olive/Pontiac ................................................................................ 4-24 Sheet 12: Pontiac to Spruce/Trenton ............................................................................. 4-26 Sheet 13: Trenton to Willow/Xanthia ............................................................................ 4-28 Sheet 14: Xanthia to Yosemite ........................................................................................ 4-30 Colfax Ave Capacity Comparison..................................................................................... 5-2 VISSIM Modeling Assumptions ............................................................................................ 5-3 Level of Service Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5-7 2015 AM LOS Summary...................................................................................................... 5-8 2015 PM LOS Summary ...................................................................................................... 5-8 2035 AM LOS Summary...................................................................................................... 5-9 2035 PM LOS Summary ...................................................................................................... 5-9 2015 Travel Time Summary ............................................................................................. 5-10 2035 Travel Time Summary ............................................................................................. 5-10 Summary of Delay on Parallel Routes in Center-Running Scenario ......................... 5-11 Potential Signal Phasing at Lafayette Street ............................................................... 5-15 Summary of Project Outreach Activities ........................................................................... 6-1 Question 1: Center-Running BRT Recommendation ......................................................... 6-3 Question 2: Most Important Benefits of Center-Running BRT ........................................ 6-3 Question 3: Biggest Potential Challenges of Center-Running BRT............................... 6-4 Question 4: Most Important Items for Additional Study during the Next Project Phase and Design .................................................................................................... 6-4 Question 5: Frequency of Transit Use along Colfax ...................................................... 6-5 Question 6: Likelihood to Use Center-Running BRT on Colfax ..................................... 6-5 Project Capital Investment Elements and Tiers ................................................................ 7-2 Representative Cost Tier Assumptions: West of Colorado (Sheet 6) .......................... 7-3 Representative Cost Tier Assumptions: East of Colorado (Sheet 10) .......................... 7-4 Project Capital Investment Tiers ......................................................................................... 7-5 Capital Costs by Category and Tier................................................................................. 7-5 Summary of Capital Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 7-6 Detailed Pedestrian/Bicycle Costing Assumptions (40.06) ........................................... 7-8 Capital Cost Elements and Assumptions......................................................................... 7-10 Soft Costs ............................................................................................................................. 7-14 Contingency Assumptions .................................................................................................. 7-15 Capital Cost Estimate by Sheet ....................................................................................... 7-16

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | iv

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 1 Purpose and Need City and County of Denver

1 PURPOSE AND NEED Colfax Avenue is one of Denver’s oldest, most historic streets. The corridor runs east-west from the State Capitol campus to Aurora and is replete with retail, nightlife, institutional, and educational destinations.

Colfax Avenue’s mix of land uses and high transit ridership has made it the focus of transportation projects during the past several years. After assessing the viability of rail and bus options for Colfax Avenue, the City and County of Denver selected center-running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the most promising vision for the corridor (Figure 1-1). This report documents the process of selecting the corridor vision, including design considerations, outreach outcomes, performance measures, and evaluation criteria. The culmination of this effort is a set of 10% design plans to be used as a basis for the next phase of work.

Why Colfax Avenue? 

Mobility. The corridor provides connections to three RTD rail stations and 16 bus routes. BRT will enable Colfax Avenue to provide more reliable transit service and will decrease transit travel time by up to 15 minutes compared with 2035 “no-build” travel times.



Projected Growth. Population and employment along the corridor are slated to increase significantly during the next 20 years. Channeling this growth via space-efficient methods will keep Colfax moving while also opening up opportunities for placemaking and enhanced safety.



Access and Destinations. By 2035, Colfax Avenue will provide access to nearly 280,000 jobs, serving Downtown Denver and other major regional destinations including Auraria Campus, National Jewish Health, Denver Civic Center, Aurora Metro Center, and Anschutz Medical Campus, in addition to nearly 50 schools.

Why Bus Rapid Transit?

Colfax Avenue has the highest bus ridership of any corridor in the region. The 15 and 15L routes, which traverse the corridor from Federal Boulevard and Union Station east to Aurora, carry 7 million annual passenger boardings, averaging out to 22,000 riders every weekday. Weekday ridership is projected to increase to over 50,000 per day by 2035.

BRT systems across North America are characterized by fast and reliable service with distinctive branding that both better serves existing riders and also attracts new riders. The bulk of transit customers’ access to transit by foot or bike, therefore this project also has the ability to make Colfax Avenue safer and easier to traverse by non-motorized methods, furthering the City’s Vision Zero goals.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 1-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 1 Purpose and Need City and County of Denver Figure 1-1

The Vision for Colfax Avenue

EXISTING

VISION

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 1-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 1 Purpose and Need City and County of Denver

Project Definition The project extends more than 9 miles from Osage Street, just west of the Auraria light rail station serving the D, F, and H lines, to Potomac Street at the R Line Colfax Station (Figure 1-2). Denver neighborhoods directly served by the project in the city of Denver include Auraria, Lincoln Park, Civic Center, Downtown, North Capitol Hill, Capitol Hill, City Park West, City Park, Cheesman Park, Congress Park, Hale, Park Hill, Montclair, and East Colfax. At Yosemite Street, Colfax Avenue crosses into the City of Aurora.

Figure 1-2

Project Extent

The operational characteristics of the Colfax Avenue BRT include: 

High frequency: Every 5 minutes during peaks, 10 minutes off-peak, and 30 minutes overnight. Service will run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.



New vehicles: Articulated buses with off-board fare payment and right-side doors that support boarding at near-level platforms located in the median or along the curb.



Stations: Median stations between Civic Center and Uinta, and curbside stations in the Enhanced Bus sections.



Streamlined service: BRT will replace 15 and 15L service in Denver. Dedicated transit lanes in the center of Colfax Avenue and transit signal priority (TSP) at most intersections along the corridor will speed bus operations. From Broadway to the west and from approximately Yosemite to the east, the center-running BRT alignment transitions to Enhanced Bus, operating in mixed-traffic lanes along the curb.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 1-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 1 Purpose and Need City and County of Denver

Project Funding and Schedule Funding is available through the 2017 Denver GO bond to begin implementing the corridor vision on a section of the corridor within Denver (see Figure 1-3).

Figure 1-3

Project Schedule

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 1-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT STUDY AREA The East Colfax Corridor BRT Project study area is a nine-mile stretch of East Colfax Avenue between Osage Street in Denver and Potomac Street in Aurora. The Center-Running Bus Rapid Transit (CRBRT) feasibility and design study is focused on the portion of the corridor that falls in the city of Denver, between Osage Street and Yosemite Street.

COLFAX TODAY East Colfax Avenue is a major arterial running east-west between downtown Denver and Aurora. In the project study area, it is designated as US Route 287, US Route 40, and State Route 70. Throughout most of the study area, there are two travel lanes per direction, a center turn lane or median, and on-street parking on one or both sides of the street. The portion of the study area between Grant and Osage Streets has three travel lanes per direction, and no on-street parking or center median.

Land use on East Colfax Avenue is primarily commercial/retail and multi-family residential. Office and institutional land use becomes more predominant closer to downtown Denver. To the east of Colorado Boulevard, the land use on adjacent streets is dominated by single-family housing, while multi-family housing is the most common land use on nearby streets west of Colorado. Major institutional land uses on East Colfax Avenue include the Denver Civic Center, Colorado State Capitol, National Jewish Health, the Anschutz Medical Campus, and more than 50 nearby schools. There are four Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the study area: Downtown Denver, Colfax, Mayfair, and Bluebird.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver Figure 2-1

East Colfax Corridor Study Area

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver Figure 2-2

Land Use in the East Colfax Corridor Study Area

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver

TRANSIT SERVICE TODAY East Colfax Avenue is served by RTD route 15, which provides local service, and route 15L, with limited stop service. Combined, the two routes serve 7 million annual boardings, the highest ridership of any corridor in the region. On weekdays, the two routes combined average approximately 24,000 boardings per day. Figure 2-3 summarizes characteristics of these existing routes and Figure 2-4 illustrates ridership by stop.

Figure 2-3

Existing Transit Service Characteristics

Route

Span of Service

Peak Frequency

Midday Frequency

Nighttime Frequency

15 – Union Station to Colorado Blvd

24/7

6 to 9 minutes

10 minutes

30 minutes

15 – Colorado Blvd to Tower Rd

24/7

15 minutes

10 to 20 minutes

30 minutes

5 am – 1 am

6 minutes

10 minutes

30 minutes

15L

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver

COORDINATION WITH RELEVANT PLANNING EFFORTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS The East Colfax Corridor BRT design will be coordinated with several recently completed or ongoing plans and projects. 

Denver Moves: Transit is Denver’s citywide transit plan, which provides a guiding framework for transit improvements in Denver. Colfax Avenue (both East and West) is one of the plan’s Capital Investment Corridors and is designated as a High-Capacity Transit corridor, which the plan defines as a level of investment ranging from full BRT to rail. Colfax Avenue is also one of the corridors that make up the frequent transit network identified in the plan.



RTD is currently working on the 15L Route Improvements Project, which will upgrade all 15L stops between Broadway and I-225 to include enhanced shelters, and add queue bypass lanes and transit signal priority at key locations. RTD received a federal “Ladders of Opportunity” grant for $5 million of the total $11 million project budget to make improvements to the passenger experience on East Colfax Avenue.



Colfax Resurfacing and Pedestrian Improvements Project. In late 2017, CDOT completed milling and resurfacing the pavement along an approximately three-mile stretch of Colfax Avenue between Galapago Street and Colorado Blvd. As part of the project, 112 curb ramps were replaced with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant ramps.



The Colfax Ave Streetscape Design Master Plan and Streetscape Plans developed by the Colfax Avenue Business Improvement District (BID) and the Colfax Mayfair BID provide guidelines and recommendations for improving safety and comfort for people walking and bicycling, placemaking, and enhancing the appearance of the public realm.



The Colfax Multimodal Access Study (CMLAS) developed recommendations for improving bike and pedestrian access to transit stations and improving or creating bike routes parallel to the Colfax corridor. Recommendations include new infrastructure to get people walking and riding bikes to connect to Colfax BRT service.



The Colfax Corridor Pedestrian Mobility Improvements project is developing conceptual pedestrian safety design to improve overall pedestrian safety in the East Colfax Corridor. The project will develop preliminary designs (10-30%) for pedestrian crossing improvements (e.g., medians, bulb-outs, etc.) to a limited number of intersections along East Colfax Avenue. The designs will be informed by the streetscape plans for East Colfax Avenue that were developed by the BIDs and areas of the corridor that are a high priority for the City from a safety perspective.



The Civic Center Transit District Plan complements the repairs that were recently completed as part of the Civic Center Station Rehabilitation Project. The plan establishes a long-term vision for the Civic Center Transit District, including transit improvements, new bike and pedestrian connections, and streetscape and public realm enhancements. It includes an analysis of potential strategies for a 20,000 square-foot developable parcel on Colfax Avenue between Broadway and Lincoln.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 2 Project Background City and County of Denver Figure 2-4

Current Transit Ridership by Stop

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 2-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver

3 STREET DESIGN AND OPERATIONS ELEMENTS Appendix A provides additional design details

DESIGN DIMENSION SUMMARY This chapter summarizes design parameters and decisions used in developed the center-running BRT (CRBRT) design for East Colfax Avenue. Figure 3-1 summarizes design parameters.

See the Right-of-Way Design section in Appendix A for discussion of right-of-way tradeoffs east of Colorado, and examples of treatments of different widths.

Figure 3-1

Colfax Avenue Center Running BRT Design Parameters Topic

Minimum Dimension

Target Dimension

Maximum Dimension

Transit Facilities BRT lane width – with lanes directly adjacent (e.g., along parallel running way)

12’

13’ Allows space for vertical separation of opposing lanes

15’

BRT lane width – with lanes separate (e.g., along median)

12’

12’

15’

BRT running way center median access control (fence, concrete curb) – design depends on available street width

1’

1-6’

6’

Platform width (in median)

10’

10’

10’+ Give extra space to platforms first

Platform width (in median) at crosswalks

8’

8’

10’

Platform width (in sidewalk)

8’

10’

12’

130’ Could potentially be reduced; tail end of bus does not require full length or area if constrained.

130’

None

Platform length (assumes two articulated vehicles can simultaneously berth at platform)

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver Minimum Dimension

Target Dimension

Maximum Dimension

Sidewalk width – station area

10’

13-16’

None

Sidewalk width – all other locations

10’

10-16’

None

Curb extensions

Width: 2’ narrower than parking lane Length: 20’

Width: 1’ narrower than parking lane Length: 20’

Width of parking lane

ADA ramp width

5’

5-6’

Width of crosswalk

Topic Sidewalks and Crossings

ADA ramp number per corner

2 per corner; 1 per corner if no crossing of Colfax provided

Crosswalk striping width

10’

Crosswalk striping spacing

18”-wide bars; 5-6” between bars

Vehicular stop bars/lines

4’ in advance of crosswalk

Pedestrian crossing spacing

Pedestrian refuge island

700’

1000’ West of Colorado 1320’ East of Colorado

1320’

Width: 6’ Length: 30’

Width: 8’ Length: 40’

Width: 8-10’ Length: No maximum

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver Topic

Minimum Dimension

Target Dimension

Maximum Dimension

Vehicle lane width – between BRT platform and curb

12’

13’

13’

10’ May be permissible for short segments

11’ Further analysis in detailed design phase to determine where/whether to include gutter in this dimension

12’

Left turn lane width

10’

10’

11’

Right turn lane width

10’

10’

11’

Turn lane length

80’

Existing length or 100’ Typical desired length; based on traffic analysis (VISSIM), actual length varies by location.

Vehicle Lanes Vehicle lane width – all other cases

Design Vehicle – Arterial intersection turning movements

WB-50

Design Vehicle – Local intersection turning movements

SU-30

Lane curvature radius

300’

Taper – through intersections and for turn lanes

1:7 for near side 1

1:10 per RTD. CCD standard is 1:15, and is required at speeds of 30 mph or greater

7’6”

8’

Parking and Loading Parking lane width

Notes: [1] Consistent with RTD Bus Infrastructure and BRT Design Guidelines, 2016

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-3

9’

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver

DESIGN AND OPERATIONS DETAILS Transit Facilities

See the corresponding sections in Appendix A, Transit Facilities, for additional design details

Station Spacing and Location

High-capacity transit systems strike a balance between speed and reliability, which attract riders and make transit more competitive with driving, and access to residences, jobs, and other destinations. The spacing of BRT stations is a key part of this balance—more stops provide greater access, but slower travel times. In systems around North America, stop spacing varies depending on land use, local policies, and whether the high-capacity system supplements or replaces local service. See Appendix A (Transit Facilities, Station Spacing) for examples of station spacing in other BRT systems.

On Colfax Avenue, BRT will replace RTD line 15/15L service.

The current average spacing of bus stops along the corridor is 0.18 miles. Transit customers are often willing to walk farther to rapid bus services, yet Colfax Avenue has many destinations that serve children and older adults. It was assumed that passengers are generally willing to walk up to a half-mile, or 10 minutes, to frequent, fast bus service, therefore station spacing is proposed at a half-mile or less, as shown in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2

BRT Station Spacing

The spacing between Josephine/York, Steele, and Colorado averages a half-mile.

This area is a commercial district overseen by the Bluebird Business Investment District (BID). The BID is interested in potentially having two stations between Josephine/York and Colorado, near Madison Street and/or Fillmore Street instead of at Steele Street. If the Steele station were removed, a dedicated left-turn lane could be added at this location, which is a high priority in the community. Additional finessing of station locations will occur during the detailed design phase.

See Appendix A for stop spacing examples from other systems.

Station Placement at Intersections In general, the stations are located at the near side of intersections. Decisions for station placement were informed by AutoTURN analysis at intersections (see Appendix A for details). Near side station placement was selected most often, because it allows left-turning vehicles from the north and south to successfully turn onto Colfax Avenue without impinging on the transit platform infrastructure. At Hudson St and Steele St, the transit stations remained on the far side and were analyzed with AutoTURN to work for the

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver design vehicle turning movements. Signal coordination and signal priority treatments for transit will help ensure that near-side stations will not impede transit speed.

See Appendix A (Transit Facilities, Station Locations/AutoTURN Analysis) for additional details.

BRT Lane Widths and Treatments The minimum desired dimension for BRT lanes is 12 feet, while 13 feet or greater leaves space for vertical separation elements. Many BRT systems feature dedicated lanes that are painted a distinct color, with red being the most common. At a minimum, dedicated lanes are marked “Bus Only.” In the Colfax corridor, a red tint with the “Bus Only” marking is recommended for the entire length of the center-running transit lanes (see Figure 3-3). See Appendix A (Transit Facilities, BRT Lane Widths) for BRT lane width examples.

Figure 3-3

Bus Only Lane Treatments on Broadway

Source: Left photo from Streetsblog Denver, David Sachs

BRT Running Way Access Control The design of BRT systems can support arterial roadway access management and contribute to the control of private motor vehicle circulation. For safety reasons, left turns along Colfax Avenue will be restricted to signalized locations. To reinforce left-turn restrictions, many systems build a physical separation between BRT lanes. This separation can take many forms depending on available width, from hit posts to fencing to landscaped medians. 

Trees require a median width of eight feet minimum, with a desired width of 10 feet or more.

They are highly visible and have the potential to capture stormwater run-off, but require pruning to allow for clear vehicular movement, other upkeep, and seasonal maintenance.



Grass, shrubs, or flowers may be installed where medians are narrower, between six and ten feet. They help capture stormwater, but require maintenance. Due to their size, they are not as visible as trees or fencing.



Decorative fencing requires the least right-of-way space and may be the most appropriate option in constrained locations. It does not provide any stormwater benefits, but may require less maintenance than landscaped medians. Vertical elements in the right-of-way are also susceptible to being struck and damaged. It is more visible than shrubs and flowers, but less visible than trees.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 provide median treatment examples; see Appendix A (Transit Facilities, BRT Running Way Access Control) for additional examples.

Figure 3-4

Ten-Foot Median with Trees in Lakewood, CO

Figure 3-5

Median with Decorative Fencing in Malmo, Sweden

Platforms Center-running BRT station platforms should be large enough to accommodate high volumes of passengers. BRT stations generally include an enhanced level of amenities such as shelters, benches, and real-time arrival information. Several Colfax BRT stations may also include a public restroom within the immediate station area, typically at the edge of the sidewalk or adjacent to a nearby building. The platforms at major Colfax BRT stops will be at least 130 feet long, enough to accommodate two BRT vehicles. At the busiest stations, longer platforms may be necessary. The need for longer platforms at some station locations will be reviewed in the detailed design phase of the project.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver The minimum allowable platform width is 10 feet, with 12 or more feet preferred in the passenger waiting area. Depending on the geometry of the street, platforms can taper down to become narrower at either end, where passengers transition from the station to the street. There are examples of BRT stations in constrained locations where the end of the platform narrows to between five and seven feet. At Colfax BRT stations, the platform ends will be at least eight feet wide.

The end of the platform should ramp down to intersect the crosswalk, with railings on both sides, and truncated domes at the end. Pedestrian push-buttons can be installed at crosswalks opposite the platform end, as long as there is a physical separation between the crosswalk and the street. This separation can take the form of bollards, fencing, or a median nose. Median noses can be installed at near-side stations as long as they do not interfere with the movement of turning trucks. Figure 3-7 provides a BRT station example (far-side stops, in this case). Figure 3-6 provides an example of fully-protected station access.

Additional examples including more constrained environments can be found in Appendix A (see Transit Facilities, Platform Design).

Figure 3-6

Platform End along the TriMet MAX Orange Line in Portland, OR

Figure 3-7

BRT Station Platform Example (Richmond, VA)

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver

Sidewalks and Crossings Sidewalk Widths Sidewalks are an essential piece of making East Colfax Avenue safe and walkable, allowing people to access transit stations and minimizing barriers to walking and rolling along the BRT corridor. Denver Moves: Pedestrians and Trails established a sidewalk width of 16 feet as the standard along arterial roadways, including an eight-foot buffer between the street and the walking zone. Sixteen feet ensures that there is adequate space for sidewalk furnishings such as café seating, benches, and trash receptacles, while allowing ample space for high volumes of pedestrian traffic. In proposed Colfax BRT station areas, 13 to 16 feet is the target sidewalk width, while 10 feet is sufficient outside of station areas along the rest of the corridor. Sidewalk buffers allow for the installation of landscaping and furnishings, which increase pedestrian safety and comfort. Planting street trees may be an option along the corridor, provided there is enough soil volume available to ensure tree survival. This is generally possible in sidewalk amenity zones or medians that are at least five feet wide.

Where available right-of-way allows sidewalk widths to be expanded along Colfax Avenue, full reconstruction of sidewalks may be required all the way to the building face. The proposed CRBRT design prioritized expanding sidewalks within two blocks of BRT station locations to accommodate increased pedestrian demand. Areas east of Colorado Boulevard generally have more right-of-way available for sidewalk expansion.

Pedestrian Safety and Comfort Colfax Corridor Pedestrian Mobility Improvements A 10% pedestrian safety design project, Colfax Pedestrian Mobility Improvements, was conducted in parallel with the BRT 10% Design project. This project will produce a technical memo that provides additional recommendations based on safety standards, land use, and crash history.

The implementation of center-running BRT and the associated changes to street design would have an impact on the experience of people walking and rolling along the corridor. Research conducted by the project team revealed the following key findings: 

In some segments, the design would remove the existing buffer between the sidewalk and vehicle travel lanes provided by curbside parking spaces.



Other design elements such as removal of buses and turning vehicles from travel lanes and signal optimization could serve to increase auto speeds.



However, by reducing the number of travel lanes from two each way to one, Colfax BRT would effectively “road diet” Colfax between downtown Denver and the Aurora border, a distance of more than six miles. Based on experience elsewhere, this should reduce both auto speeds and the rates and severity of pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions.



In many segments, sidewalks would be widened (sometimes significantly) and pedestrian crossings would be improved in a variety of ways. Improvements that positively influence pedestrian safety and comfort may include bulb-out curb extensions to reduce crossing distances and increase pedestrian visibility, “median refuge” pedestrian islands at BRT stations, highervisibility crosswalk markings, and a reduction in the number of vehicles (and potential for conflict).

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-8

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver

Curb Extensions Curb extensions usually take the form of concrete additions to the sidewalk, extending into the parking lane. They shorten the distance that people must walk across the street, and increase the visibility of people waiting to cross. They provide space for benches, landscaping, art, and other street furniture. In the Colfax corridor, curb extensions are recommended at intersections where there is on-street parking present on either Colfax or the intersecting street. Figure 3-8 provides an example of a curb extension with a French/cut drain to enable use of existing gutters. Curb extensions can also be used as stormwater treatments. In the example shown in Figure 3-9, stormwater infiltrates into the planter and any excess water flows through an opening into a nearby storm drain; stormwater management is discussed in more detail below.

Figure 3-8

Cut Drain Drainage Example at Curb Extension, Delmar Trolley, St. Louis

Source: https://goo.gl/maps/jsvcjcCDAqP2

Figure 3-9

Curb Extension with Stormwater Treatment, Philadelphia

Source: Phillywatersheds.org

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-9

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver

Crossing Spacing Proposed Standards The project team analyzed the spacing of marked pedestrian crossing opportunities along the East Colfax Avenue corridor. Existing spacing can be generalized based on the section west of Colorado Boulevard, and the section east of Colorado Boulevard. Along the western section, existing crossings are spaced an average of 700 to 800 feet apart, while east of Colorado distances are much greater, averaging 1,100 feet apart. See Figure 3-13 below for spacing between existing protected crossings along Colfax Avenue.

Denver Moves: Pedestrians and Trails (draft released in August 2018) found that residents’ requests for crosswalks result in an average 900-foot spacing on arterial and collector streets; however, this was not recommended as a goal. 1 The project team analyzed standards from existing City and County of Denver guidance as well as national guidance from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Denver guidance for the placement of uncontrolled marked crosswalks suggests installation of additional crossings if the distance is more than 300 feet from any existing marked crossing, whether controlled or uncontrolled. Guidance from MUTCD cites research from the Federal Highway Administration in suggesting that marked, controlled crosswalks can be considered at 300 feet from the nearest traffic control. MUTCD does not specify spacing standards for marked, uncontrolled crosswalks.

Pedestrian connectivity along and across the corridor must be balanced with other needs including transit travel time and reliability; even with signal priority, additional signals will slow average transit speeds.

Taking into consideration factors including block length and the built environment along the corridor, pedestrian safety considerations with center-running BRT operations, impacts on transit speed and reliability, research, and street design best practices, the project team recommends that crossings along the corridor be provided at the following standards: 

Only at signalized locations



Spacing of 1,000 feet along the section west of Colorado, where land uses are denser, pedestrian volumes are higher, and existing crosswalks are more frequent



Spacing of 1,320 feet along the section east of Colorado, where land uses are less dense and the impacts on pedestrians of greater spacing would be lower

With this proposed 1000-foot spacing west of Colorado, pedestrians approaching East Colfax Avenue from any side streets would never have to walk more than one extra block to cross the street. Only those pedestrians whose trips start or end in the center of the block would have to walk farther than one block to a crossing (Figure 3-10).

1 Denver Moves: Pedestrians and Trails, August 2018 (Draft), https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denveright/pedestrians-trails.html

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-10

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver Figure 3-10 Impact on pedestrian diversion of proposed crossing spacing

Additional Crosswalks The proposed spacing would require four crosswalks in addition to those locations already identified for new traffic signals. Figure 3-11 identifies the existing spacing and the recommended location. Based on analysis from the Colfax Pedestrian Mobility Improvements project, eight-foot pedestrian refuge islands are recommended at four of the new crosswalk locations.

Figure 3-11 Additional Recommended Crosswalks Segment

Design Sheet

Existing Spacing (Feet)

Options Considered

Recommended Crossing

Recommended Refuge Island

Adams to Garfield

7

1,139

Madison

Madison

8’ 1

Colorado to Cherry

8

1,851

Bellaire

Bellaire

8’

Syracuse to Uinta

13

1,614

Trenton or Tamarac

Tamarac

8’

Uinta to Yosemite

13

2,268

Wabash or Willow

Willow

8’

Note: [1] Preliminary design of 6 feet, to be expanded to 8 feet

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-11

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 3 Street Design and Operations Elements City and County of Denver Figure 3-12 Curb Extension Crossing Treatment Example

Source: KPFF, https://www.kpff.com/portfoliov2-files/se-division-street/divisionstreet_portlandcivil_6.jpg

Alternate Standards and Future Analysis City staff have discussed alternate standards, which are presented below with the associated impacts on total required additional crosswalks: 

700 feet west of Colorado / 1000 feet east of Colorado: Additional 15 crosswalks



1000 feet: Additional 11 crosswalks



900 feet average (consistent with existing arterial standards): no additional crosswalks required (beyond the 11 additional for 1000-foot spacing)

Additional crosswalks were not moved forward at this stage of design due to tradeoffs between controlled and uncontrolled crossings, and travel time savings. The Colfax Pedestrian Mobility Improvements will be producing a technical memo that documents any additional recommendations based on safety standards, land use, and crash history.

In the detailed design phase, the Colfax BRT project will develop a methodology for justification of new traffic signals, based on input from business improvement districts (BIDs), safety issues, final station locations, and other factors.

See Appendix A (Sidewalks and Crossings, Crossing Spacing and Design Examples), for additional details

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-12

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-13 Distance Between Existing Crossings

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-13

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-14

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Crossing Design Signal Treatments All new crossings will be controlled by a signal, which could include a full traffic signal, a pedestrianactivated signal, or a flashing beacon. Denver’s Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines (Revised December 2017) provide guidance for appropriate treatments. 2 Striping Crosswalks should use high-visibility ladder or zebra striping, and be as wide or wider than the sidewalk or walkway that they connect to. An advanced stop bar should be located in the travel lanes at least eight feet in front of the crosswalk, perpendicular to the direction of vehicle travel. 3 Figure 3-14 Crosswalks at Fillmore Street and 1st Avenue in Denver

Curb Ramps The City of Denver’s standard is to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps at all crossing locations, in all crossing directions. The installation of new curb ramps in the Colfax corridor will be coordinated with City agencies. Recent work on Colfax Avenue replaced 112 of the curb ramps in the western part of the corridor between Galapago Street and Colorado Blvd. at a cost of $5 million. 4

2 https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/705/documents/guidelines/PWES-015.0-

Uncontrolled_Pedestrian_Crossing_Guidelines.pdf 3 NACTO Guidance

4 https://www.codot.gov/news/2017-news/december/cdot-completes-colfax-resurfacing-and-pedestrian-improvements-project

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-15

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Refuge Islands Pedestrian refuge islands are placed in the median at crosswalks to break up the crossing distance and limit the time that people walking are exposed to vehicle traffic. Islands should be at least eight feet wide, with a desired length of 40 feet. The four new crosswalks that are planned as part of the Colfax BRT project (see Figure 3-11 above) will include pedestrian refuge islands with a width of eight feet. Crosswalks should cut through the raised median at street level, maintaining its same width. On the intersection side of the crosswalk, the median should continue with a “nose,” bollards, or fencing to protect people who are waiting to cross. Refuge islands will be incorporated into Colfax BRT station design, at the end of platforms.

Figure 3-15 Pedestrian Refuge Island Example

See Appendix A (Sidewalks and Crossings, Crossing Spacing and Design Examples, for additional details

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-16

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Stormwater Management The City of Denver incorporates green infrastructure into its stormwater management practices. In the Colfax corridor, site-scale (or smaller-scale) green infrastructure, such as planters, green gutters, and tree pits or trenches, can be applied in accordance with the best management practices outlined in Denver’s Ultra-Urban Green Infrastructure Guidelines. 5 Examples of the range of possibilities for stormwater facilities are shown below, which may be usable along different sections of the Colfax corridor, depending on available right-of-way and other development constraints.

City of Denver standards require a two-foot gutter pan at the road edge, in addition to the curbside travel lane width. There may be locations on the Colfax corridor where meeting this standard combined with an 11-foot travel lane is challenging, particularly in the eastern part of the corridor where no curbside parking lanes are present. There is some precedent for alternate curb and gutter design in constrained corridors.

The NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide recommends gutter dimensions between 12”-24” for curbside bioretention planters or bioswales adjacent to travel lanes, as long as 2” of fall is maintained across the gutter (Figure 3-16).

Figure 3-16 NACTO Guidance for Curbside Stormwater Facilities

Source: NACTO

The City of Denver Ultra-Urban Green Infrastructure Guidelines provide detailed drawings and dimensions of the gutter plan at inlets (see pages 25 and 28, which are reproduced in Appendix A). The City and County of Denver and CDOT both set a standard cross-slope of 1:12 (8.33%) for the gutter pan. In some areas, the design team could explore the possibility of reducing slope for the gutter pan, which could be considered part of the total 11-foot lane width. This could be combined with green infrastructure to help manage stormwater and reduce peak-flow flooding through temporary sub-grade storage and longer drain-down times; reducing nuisance flooding and helping new or existing storm lines be more efficient during peak periods may be very beneficial. An additional consideration is that the typical gutter detail at an inlet requires an additional two inches of “drop” at the inlet with transition zones of approximately three feet on either side of the inlet (for a total impact of eight feet). These "drops" may impact the drivability of the roadway if the gutter pan is included in the travel lanes. In the detailed design phase, more precise roadway measurements collected through field survey will allow designers to identify constrained locations and determine which approach is most appropriate.

Two types of stormwater treatments typically use inlets cut into the curb to capture runoff. Figure 3-20 shows a stormwater planter in a curb extension, an amenity zone expanded into a portion of the street right-of-way where there would typically be on-street parking. Figure 3-18 illustrates stormwater planters installed in a curbside amenity zone between the sidewalk and the curb.

5 https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/wastewater-management/stormwater-quality/ultra-urban-green-

infrastructure.html

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-17

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-17 Curb Extension Stormwater Planter, Illustration and Photo Example (Brighton Blvd)

Source: Top: Stream Design, via Denver Ultra-Urban Green Infrastructure Guide. Bottom: Brighton Blvd

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-18

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-18 Curbside Amenity Zone Stormwater Planter, Illustration and Photo Example

Source: Top: Stream Design, via Denver Ultra-Urban Green Infrastructure Guide Bottom: Carla Madison Recreation Center

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-19

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver In addition, stormwater treatments can provide an opportunity to incorporate features such as seating, as shown in Figure 3-19.

Figure 3-19 Stormwater Planter with Integrated Bench

Note: Clay Street, Portland, OR

Bicycle Facilities While there are no bicycle facilities planned for East Colfax Avenue, existing and planned bicycle facilities intersect the corridor at several locations in the study area. These facilities will provide important connections to Colfax BRT service, and are reflected in the 10% design plans. Bike lanes run parallel to Colfax on 16th Avenue and on Montview Boulevard, and buffered bike lanes are planned for East 17th Avenue Parkway, two blocks north of Colfax. There is a BCycle station located at Steele and Colfax.

Figure 3-20 Existing, Planned, and Proposed Bike Facilities Intersecting East Colfax Avenue Cross Street

Bike Facility Type

Status

Galapago/Welton St

Bike lane, northbound

Existing

14th/Bannock St

Bike lane, southbound

Existing

Downing St

Two-way cycletrack

Proposed

Columbine St

Two-way cycletrack

Proposed

Steele St

Shared route

Existing

Garfield St

Neighborhood greenway with bike lanes/boxes at intersections

Planned

Krameria St

Bike lanes

Planned

Syracuse St

Bike lanes

Planned

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-20

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Vehicle Lanes Lane Width The City and County of Denver standard prescribes that general purpose (GP) through traffic lanes be at least 11 feet wide, with an additional two-foot gutter pan (see “Stormwater Management” above). The minimum width for turn lanes is 10 feet. Left-turn lanes are located at signalized intersections only, on the outside of the center-running BRT lane and station (when near-side stations are present). Separate rightturn lanes are included only in locations with high volumes of right-turning traffic, such as Colorado Boulevard and Quebec Street. A VISSIM analysis was used to determine a sufficient turn-lane length to accommodate the expected volume of turning cars at each location.

Left Turns Where center-running transit lanes are present on Colfax Avenue, left turns will be allowed only at signalized intersections. Left turns will have a separate, protected signal phase. This restriction prevents conflicts between the bus and general automobile traffic, improving safety for all vehicles. It also provides significant safety improvements for people walking and biking, by limiting the potential vehicle movements that pedestrians and cyclists must be aware of while crossing the street.

Appendix A (Vehicle Lanes, Left-Turn Lanes) shows an alternative left-turn configuration.

Left-turns are not allowed at all intersections due to geometric limitations such as limited distance between intersections and constrained right-of-way. Figure 3-21 illustrates signal and left-turn locations.

U-Turns At signals that allow left turns, U-turns have been deemed feasible. However, further analysis is needed to determine specific locations. This makes it easier for people driving to access businesses on the opposite side of the street, or to backtrack and make right turns onto side streets that were previously accessible by making a left turn. As discussed above, left-turns are not allowed at all signalized intersections, e.g., when left-turns are restricted because there is no left-turn lane in a particular direction.

Appendix A (Vehicle Lanes, U-Turns) provides illustrations of U-turns both west and east of Colorado Avenue, and a specialized U-turn signal treatment example.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-21

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-21 Distance between Left-Turns with Center-Running BRT Project

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-22

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-23

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Design Vehicle Figure 3-22 provides characteristics of the design vehicles used in AutoTURN analysis, including minimum turn radius and a photo of the sample vehicle. Figure 3-23 identifies the design vehicles used for AutoTURN analysis at each station. Outside of stations, generally a WB-50 was used for arterials (e.g., Grant, Logan, Clarkson, Ogden (north of Colfax)/Clarkson (south of Colfax), and Park (north of Colfax); SU-30 was used at all others. Appendix A (see Transit Facilities, Station Locations/AutoTURN Analysis) provides examples.

Figure 3-22 Design Vehicles Characteristics Vehicle Category

Vehicle Type

Min. Design Turn Radius

P-Vehicle

Automobile or Light Duty Vehicles

24’

SU-30

Medium Truck (2axle, 6-tire)

42’

WB-50

Heavy Trucks (3 or more axles)

45’

Sample Vehicles

Figure 3-23 Design Vehicle by Street/Station BRT Station

Vehicle Design

Notes

BRT Station

Vehicle Design

Pennsylvania WB

SU-30

Elm WB

SU-30

Pennsylvania EB

SU-30

Elm EB

n/a

Downing WB

WB-50

Hudson WB

SU-30

Downing EB

n/a

Hudson EB

SU-30

Williams EB

SU-30

Krameria WB

SU-30

Williams WB

SU-30

Krameria EB

WB-50

York WB

WB-50

Monaco WB

WB-50

Josephine EB

WB-50

Monaco EB

WB-50

Steele WB

SU-30

Quebec WB

WB-50

Steele EB

n/a

Quebec EB

WB-50

Colorado WB

WB-50

Uinta WB

SU-30

Colorado EB

WB-50

Unita EB

SU-30

Notes

Grocery Stores

TBD, Quebec Project

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-24

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Taper and Curvature For a variety of reasons, including accommodating stations, turn lanes, and on-street parking, the alignment of the transit lanes shifts along the corridor. The design of these shifts is governed by civil engineering rules called taper and curvature.

Taper through Intersections (including Transit Lanes) The allowable taper of the transit lane affects the ability of any one block to accommodate all the spatial needs in the roadway, including transit lanes, vehicular lanes, turn lanes, etc. The resultant geometric design accommodates the transit operational envelope (also known as the “dynamic envelope” of the vehicle) as well as circulation and storage of other motor vehicles. Geometric design also influences rider comfort, travel time, and platform widths.

Taper is measured both within the block and across the intersection. There are established standards for taper ratio (lateral shift : distance traveled forward). The City and County of Denver sets a standard ratio of 1:10, and further specifies that the taper length should be equal to WS2/60 (where W=lane width and S= travel speed) The Colfax BRT design maintains a 1:10 taper or less at intersections and along segments, based on discussions with RTD. There are examples of BRT systems with greater tapers; see Appendix A (Vehicle Lanes, Tapers) for additional examples. One issue that will need to be addressed in detailed design is the condition where the 1:10 BRT lane taper creates a 1:10 taper for general purpose travel lanes; at speeds of 30 mph the CCD requirement is a 1:15 taper (based on AASHTO standards).

Figure 3-24 Example of Relationship between Left Turn Length, Lane Curvature, and Taper

Lane Curvature (including Transit Lanes) Horizontal alignment should maintain curve radii of 300 feet or more to accommodate BRT lane shifting at design speeds. Segments with lane reverse curvature, lane offsets, station approaches and complex or constrained geometry should be evaluated in detailed design with AutoTURN analysis and other means.

An Intersection Design Vehicle Assumption Report should be produced for each intersection, illustrating the current and future allowable vehicle movements.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-25

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-25 AutoTURN of Vehicle path (Articulated Bus) Traveling at 35 mph

Figure 3-26 AutoTURN of Vehicle Path (40-foot bus) Traveling at 35 mph

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-26

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Fire Code The Denver Fire Department requires a minimum clear width (not travel lane width) of between 16 feet and 25 feet, dependent upon adjacent land use. 6 Denver Fire will need to review and approve the design at constrained locations.

Parking and Loading There are about 940 parking spaces along East Colfax Avenue today. Spaces include loading zones, metered spaces, and unpaid time-restricted spaces. On side streets, there are almost 6,080 parking spaces within one block of Colfax.

With center-running BRT, parking lanes will have a standard width of eight feet. A length of 20 feet was assumed for inventory purposes. In many blocks, parking stalls will be removed to create space for transit lanes and stations. No block with existing parking will lose all of its spaces, and in some locations parking spaces will be added. Forty spaces throughout the study area will be designated as flex zones, which can be used for commercial or passenger loading, including pickup and dropoff by taxis or ride hailing companies. Overall, there will be 168 parking spaces removed from Colfax itself, with an additional 35 spaces removed on side streets. While this represents a loss of 18% of the spaces on Colfax, it impacts just 3% of the total parking spaces in the corridor when side-street parking is included. Figure 3-27 provides an overall summary of existing and proposed parking.

Figure 3-28 summarizes parking impacts by Business Improvement District (BID).

Appendix A (Parking and Loading) provides maps showing the parking inventory along Colfax Avenue and side streets within the study area.

6 Denver Fire Code Table 503.2.1.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-27

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver Figure 3-27 Parking Inventory Change by Design Sheet, Colfax Avenue and Side-Streets within One Block

Proposed

Existing Sheet No.

Extent

Colfax Side Street Stalls

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Osage to Speer Galapago to Broadway Broadway to Washington Washington to Humboldt Humboldt to Gaylord Gaylord to Milwaukee Milwaukee to Harrison Harrison to Cherry Cherry to Glencoe Glencoe to Leyden Leyden to Pontiac Pontiac to Trenton Trenton to Xanthia Xanthia to Yosemite TOTAL

1

0 6 44 71 79 87 92 67 89 117 100 101 63 25 941

1

Total

70 133 273 419 539 555 782 362 628 750 382 451 567 168 6,079

70 139 317 490 618 642 874 429 717 867 482 552 630 193 7,020

Stalls

Net Change

Colfax Parking Colfax Flex Side Street Stalls

1

0 7 3 27 45 54 67 78 70 89 104 88 75 26 733

Stalls

2

0 0 3 0 9 2 9 1 8 3 1 4 0 0 40

1

Total

70 133 254 419 539 555 782 362 628 734 382 451 567 168 6,044

70 140 260 446 593 611 858 441 706 826 487 543 642 194 6,817

Stalls

Net Parking % Change in Stalls Number of Stalls 0 1 -57 -44 -25 -31 -16 12 -11 -41 5 -9 12 1 -203

0% 1% -18% -9% -4% -5% -2% 3% -2% -5% 1% -2% 2% 1% -3%

Notes: [1] Each stall assumed to be 20 feet. [2] Each flex space assumed to be 20 feet.

Figure 3-28 Parking Inventory Change by BID, Colfax Avenue and Side-Streets within One Block

Existing BID

Colfax Side Street

Extent

Stalls Colfax BID Grant to York Bluebird BID St. Paul to Colorado Mayfair BID Eudora to Locust TOTAL WITHIN BIDS

212 84 170 466

1

Proposed

1

Total

1,228 177 348 1,753

1,440 261 518 2,219

Stalls

Net Change

Colfax Parking Colfax Flex Side Street Stalls 81 57 153 291

1

Stalls 11 9 5 25

2

1

Total

1,228 177 348 1,753

1,320 243 506 2,069

Stalls

Notes: [1] Each stall assumed to be 20 feet. [2] Each flex space assumed to be 20 feet.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-28

Net Parking % Change in Number of Stalls Stalls -120 -18 -12 -150

-8% -7% -2% -7%

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

RENDERINGS Krameria – Before

Krameria – After

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-29

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Uinta – Before

Uinta - After

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-30

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

Downing – Before

Downing - After

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-31

COLFAX CRBRT FEASIBILITY AND DESIGN City and County of Denver

ROW HIERARCHY The project team recommends that available right-of-way along East Colfax Avenue be allocated to prioritize the efficient movement of high-capacity transit vehicles and pedestrians. The recommended hierarchy of right-of-way space is shown below both for locations at signalized intersections, and at nonsignalized intersections and midblock areas (between intersections). In other words, space should be allocated to each item in the list in order to bring its width to the target or minimum described above in Figure 3-1 before addressing items lower down the list.

Signalized Intersections 

Add BRT station (if the location has a station) – platforms 10 feet wide minimum; 8-foot target at station end at crosswalk



One GP lane per direction



Retain left turn pocket (if required based on traffic analysis/simulation, e.g., VISSIM)



Retain right turn pocket (if required based on traffic analysis/simulation, e.g., VISSIM)



Achieve minimum sidewalk dimension (station or non station) −

Station: 16 feet sidewalk and amenity zone per CCD Transportation Standards and guidelines in Denver Moves: Pedestrians and Trails

−

Non-Station: 10-12 feet

−

If there is no parking buffer between sidewalk and vehicle traffic, can add a couple feet of sidewalk as a buffer if space is available



Add curb extensions (if parking exists on both Colfax and side street)



Add pedestrian refuge if >=6 to 8 feet is left over (standard is 8 feet); if not, allocate to remaining elements (start with transit, sidewalks. Do not exceed GP lane targets.)

Non-signalized intersections/Midblock 

Add BRT station (if the location has a station) – platforms 10 feet wide minimum



One GP lane per direction



Achieve minimum sidewalk dimension −

Station: 16 feet sidewalk and amenity zone per CCD Transportation Standards and guidelines in in Denver Moves: Pedestrians and Trails

−

Non-Station: 10-12 feet

−

If there is no parking buffer between sidewalk and vehicle traffic, can add a couple feet of sidewalk as a buffer if space available



Add parking on one side



Add parking on both sides

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 3-32

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

4 10% DESIGN SET This chapter provides design drawings for the corridor with notes identifying key issues for consideration by the detailed design team. Figure 4-1 provides a key map.

General notes include: 

Traffic analysis for the design was conducted using the VISSIM traffic simulation tool (see Chapter 5).



The traffic signals at many north-south intersections may require split phasing to accommodate northbound and southbound turning movements; this will need to be analyzed in the detailed design phase.



Where the roadway geometry and lane capacity requirements result in offsets between transit stations and lanes, detailed design and operational consideration/testing for bus operators will be required including in all weather conditions at all times of day. An additional issue that will need to be addressed in detailed design is the condition where a 1:10 BRT lane taper creates a 1:10 taper for general purpose travel lanes; at speeds of 30 mph the CCD requirement is a 1:15 taper (based on AASHTO standards).



Turn lane lengths were adjusted from a general target of 100 feet based on traffic analysis results to accommodate anticipated queueing, as allowed based on available space. In some short blocks where left-turn pockets are provided in both directions, turn pocket length is less than the minimum 80 feet (see Chapter 3).



Lane shifts were preliminarily reviewed and approved. Formal approval and/or design exceptions will need to be processed in the detailed design phase.



Sample AutoTURN analysis is included in Appendix A.



Signalized pedestrian crossings should be synchronized with the BRT signal system; signal type to be explored in the detailed design phase.



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.



Sidewalk dimensions are from back of sidewalk to face of curb. Sidewalk linework was provided by the City. Follow-up civil survey of sidewalk widths and right-of-way will need to be conducted as part of the detailed design phase.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver This page intentionally left blank

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver Figure 4-1

Sheet Key

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 1 (OSAGE TO SPEER) Figure 4-2

Sheet 1: Osage to Speer

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 1 (Osage to Speer) Notes Osage Street 

Per RTD, the eastbound stop at Osage Street has been removed.

Mariposa Street 

The design includes a wider sidewalk on the south side of Colfax between Mariposa and Lipan Streets, in anticipation of future development of the empty lot that occupies the block today.

Lipan Street 

Transit stop design and lane configuration per RTD Phase 1 Roadway Plan.

Klamath Street Speer Boulevard

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 2 (WELTON TO 15TH/BROADWAY) Figure 4-3

Sheet 2: Welton to 15th/Broadway

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 2 (Welton to 15th/Broadway) Notes Fox Street/ 12th Street/ Glenarm Place 

Eastbound left-turns were modeled with AutoTURN to allow the WB-50 design vehicle (heavy trucks with three or more axles; see Chapter 3) to make the turn to access the Convention Center on 12th Street.



The eastbound center-running lane begins at Glenarm Place inside of the left-turn lane. This can reduce delay for buses by giving them a green light ahead of other eastbound traffic. Further detailed traffic operations and striping design are needed to alert drivers in the general purpose travel lane that the inside lane drops. Clear upstream signage will be needed to direct drivers to the force left or merge right within this block.

Delaware Street/ Tremont Place 

The stop at Delaware Street is a minor side-running stop, with no major upgrades needed for BRT service.



RTD has approved relocation of the westbound bus stop at Tremont Place to the far side of the intersection.

Cherokee Street/Court Place Bannock Street/ 14th Street 15th Street 

The westbound side-running transit-only lane ends at 15th Street. Further signal and striping design is needed to determine the bus merge movement into the general purpose travel lane.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 3 (BROADWAY TO PEARL/WASHINGTON) Figure 4-4

Sheet 3: Broadway to Pearl/Washington

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-8

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 3 (Broadway to Pearl/Washington) Notes Broadway 

No median nose is provided on the eastbound station platform, in order to accommodate the movement of buses turning left from Broadway onto Colfax.



A two-way cycletrack on the east side of Broadway is planned for in the geometry and signal operations of the project, as recommended in the Civic Center Transit District Master Plan.

Lincoln Street 

To provide as much station platform space as possible, the northbound left-turn lane onto Lincoln is shortened, and transit lanes on Colfax are reduced to 12 feet in width.



Westbound, right turns on red will be prohibited to provide additional gaps for buses exiting Civic Center Station (desired based on current conditions, not solely as a result of the BRT project); this was requested by RTD. AutoTURN analysis is provided in Appendix A.



The design calls for the northbound bus lane to be removed from Lincoln Street and a curb extension added on the north side of the intersection; this was requested by RTD.

Sherman Street 

The design removes one of the westbound through travel lanes between Grant and Sherman; westbound buses will utilize a queue jump at the Sherman intersection (or proceed through this intersection on a green traffic signal), and then transition to the outside lane where they can proceed straight through the Lincoln Street intersection using the shared bus/right-turn lane.



Only a single travel lane in each direction is provided between Sherman and west of Verbena Street in the eastbound direction and east of Willow Street in the westbound direction (see Sheet 13). Chapter 5 provides traffic modeling results.

Grant Street 

The southwest corner of the intersection is modified to give more space for vehicles to shift lanes across the intersection. The final design should include pavement markings indicating the BRT vehicles’ path of travel through the intersection.



The planned two-way cycletrack on the east side of Grant Street is accommodated in the geometry and signal operations of the project. .

Logan Street 

The block between Grant Street and Logan Street is 250 feet. Opposing turn lanes are 60 feet, consistent with requirements determined in the traffic analysis, to allow space for the center-running BRT lane shift. AutoTURN templates were reviewed for both articulated and 40-foot buses, and it was determined that both left-turn lanes can remain.

Pennsylvania Street 

The traffic signal at Pennsylvania Street may require split phasing to accommodate northbound and southbound turning movements.

Pearl Street 

The traffic signal at Pearl Street may require split phasing to accommodate northbound and southbound turning movements.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-9

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 4 (WASHINGTON TO HUMBOLDT) Figure 4-5

Sheet 4: Washington to Humboldt

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-10

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 4 (Washington to Humboldt) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Removed and consolidated flex zones based on Parking team comments.

Washington Street 

The block between Washington Street and Clarkson Street is 250 feet. Opposing turn lanes were set to 60 feet to allow space for the center-running BRT lane shift. AutoTURN templates were reviewed for both articulated and 40-foot buses, and it was determined that both left-turn lanes can remain.



Left-turn lane storage was determined to be sufficient for anticipated traffic volumes based on VISSIM traffic simulation, with some minor signal adjustments.

Clarkson Street Emerson Street 

The streetscape master plan shows a signalized crossing at this location. This is not included in the concept design; however, nearby crossings are located at Washington and Ogden.

Ogden Street 

The crosswalk on the east side of Ogden at Colfax is removed due to high volumes of left turns onto Colfax. The narrow sidewalk on the west side of Ogden is expanded, and parking is shifted to the west side of the street. A single rightturn only and left-turn only lane remain.

Downing Street 

The planned two-way cycletrack on Downing north of Colfax ramps up onto the curb and terminates at the intersection; this was based on CCD and RTD direction.

Marion Street Lafayette Street 

Lafayette Street is currently right-turn only at Colfax, both north and southbound. The proposed design maintains that restriction. The design of the intersection needs further detailed design for resolution.

Humboldt Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-11

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 5 (HUMBOLDT TO VINE/GAYLORD) Figure 4-6

Sheet 5: Humboldt to Vine/Gaylord

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-12

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 5 (Humboldt to Vine/Gaylord) Notes Franklin Street/ Park Avenue 

Future phases of design will consider moving the Williams Street station to this intersection, as requested by the Colfax BID.



Park Avenue is planned to be closed and converted to a park and plaza space. Therefore, the left turn from eastbound Colfax was removed.

Gilpin Street 

A flex zone is added to northwest corner of the intersection to be in close proximity to the Williams station.

Williams Street 

The westbound left turn lane is removed in order to avoid reducing the width of the sidewalk. Drivers will still be able to turn left at Race Street.

N High Street 

The left turn lane is removed due to constrained right-of-way and close signal spacing in this area. This reduces the taper of the lane shift that buses must navigate in this area.



A flex zone is added on the south side of the intersection, immediately east of the curb extension.

Race Street 

Between Race and Vine Streets, parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones.

Vine Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-13

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 6 (GAYLORD TO MILWAUKEE) Figure 4-7

Sheet 6: Gaylord to Milwaukee

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-14

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 6 (Gaylord to Milwaukee) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Gaylord and Milwaukee Streets.

Gaylord Street York Street 

Based on requirements from VISSIM analysis, a full block westbound to southbound left-turn pocket is provided between Josephine and York Streets, and an approximately half-block eastbound to northbound left-turn pocket is provided between York and Josephine Streets.

Josephine Street 

A curb extension narrows Josephine to two northbound lanes; it transitions to three lanes approaching 16th.

Columbine Street 

The proposed cycle track on Columbine Street north of Colfax ramps up onto the curb at the northwest corner of the intersection; this was based on CCD and RTD direction.

Elizabeth Street Clayton Street Detroit Street 

Future phases of design will consider the potential for a station near Detroit Street, if the Steele station is removed.

Fillmore Street 

Future phases of design will consider the potential for a station near Fillmore, if the Steele station is removed.



The westbound left turn lane is removed in order to accommodate the eastbound left turn lane to Fillmore Street. Westbound drivers will still be able to turn left at Elizabeth Street.

Milwaukee Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-15

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 7 (ST. PAUL TO JACKSON/HARRISON) Figure 4-8

Sheet 7: St. Paul to Jackson/Harrison

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-16

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 7 (St. Paul to Jackson/Harrison) Notes St Paul Street Steele Street 

If the BRT station is moved to near Madison Street or Fillmore Street, a left-turn lane could be added on Colfax for northbound turns onto Steele Street.

Adams Street 

The inclusion of a westbound left-turn lane at Adams Street is pending further discussion.



Flex zones are added near Adams Street.

Cook Street Madison Street 

Potential station location if the Steele Street station is removed.



A signalized pedestrian crossing with curb extensions is proposed at Madison Street.

Monroe Street 

A mid-block crossing is added at Madison Street. Signalization type to be synchronized with BRT signal system and explored in detailed design.



Flex zones are added near Madison Street.

Garfield Street 

The planned neighborhood greenway on Garfield Street will include bike boxes at the Colfax intersection. Northbound thru traffic will be prohibited at Colfax and southbound through traffic will be prohibited at Colfax. Split phasing of the signal operation will be required, and is accommodated in the geometry and signal operations of the project.

Jackson Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-17

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 8 (HARRISON TO CHERRY) Figure 4-9

Sheet 8: Harrison to Cherry

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-18

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 8 (Harrison to Cherry) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Harrison and Cherry (unless otherwise noted).



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Harrison Street Colorado Boulevard 

The eastbound left-turn lane is lengthened to 250 feet to accommodate consolidated left turn access along corridor.



The volume of turning vehicles at Colorado Boulevard in all directions requires significant roadway space which in turn offsets the transit stations and lane configuration. This configuration will require detailed design and operational consideration/testing for bus operators in all weather conditions at all times of day. The resulting taper for general purpose travel lanes will also need to be addressed in detailed design.

Albion Street Ash Street Bellaire Street 

A signalized pedestrian crossing with an eight-foot pedestrian refuge island is proposed. Signalization type to be synchronized with BRT signal system and explored in detailed design.

Birch Street Clermont Street 

A flex zone is added near Clermont Street.

Cherry Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-19

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 9 (DEXTER TO GLENCOE) Figure 4-10 Sheet 9: Dexter to Glencoe

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-20

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 9 (Dexter to Glencoe) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Dexter and Glencoe (unless otherwise noted).



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Dexter Street Dahlia Street 

A flex zone is added near Dahlia Street

Eudora Street 

Flex zone are added near Eudora Street

Elm Street 

Short-term sidewalk widening at the Elm Street Station is funded by the LADDERS grant.

Fairfax Street 

A flex zone is added near Fairfax Street

Filbert Court Forest Street Glencoe Street 

A flex zone is added near Glencoe Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-21

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 10 (GRAPE TO KRAMERIA) Figure 4-11 Sheet 10: Grape to Krameria

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-22

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 10 (Grape to Krameria) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Grape and Krameria Streets (unless otherwise noted).



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Grape Street Hudson Street Holly Street 

A flex zone is added near Holly Street.

Ivanhoe Street Ivy Street 

A flex zone is added near Ivy Street.

Jersey Street Jasmine Street Kearney Street Krameria Street 

The left-turn lanes on Colfax are extended to 200 feet in the westbound direction and 125 feet in the eastbound direction, to accommodate queuing.



Right-turn lanes on Krameria Street are removed to allow space for the planned bike lanes. Signal phasing and operations for this element are accommodated in the geometry and signal operations of the project.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-23

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 11 (LEYDEN TO OLIVE/PONTIAC) Figure 4-12 Sheet 11: Leyden to Olive/Pontiac

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-24

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 11 (Leyden to Olive/Pontiac) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Leyden and Pontiac Streets (unless otherwise noted).



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Leyden Street Locust Street Monaco Parkway 

No left turns will be permitted from Colfax onto Monaco Parkway. Further study is required on how to ensure prohibiting this movement in the civil design, signage, and striping.



The station platform can accommodate a median nose.



Parking is removed from Colfax on either side of Monaco Parkway in order to widen sidewalks.

Magnolia Street 

A flex zone is added near Magnolia Street

Niagara Street Newport Street Oneida Street Olive Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-25

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 12 (PONTIAC TO SPRUCE/TRENTON) Figure 4-13 Sheet 12: Pontiac to Spruce/Trenton

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-26

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 12 (Pontiac to Spruce/Trenton) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Pontiac and Trenton (unless otherwise noted).



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Pontiac Street Poplar Street 

A flex zone is added near Poplar Street

Quebec Street 

The Quebec Street Multimodal Improvement Project proposed the removal of the left-turn lanes on Quebec at Colfax but it is currently on hold for 12 to 18 months as of July 2018. 1



The volume of turning vehicles at Quebec Street in all directions requires significant roadway space which in turn offsets the transit stations and lane configuration. This configuration will require detailed design and operational consideration/testing for bus operators in all weather conditions at all times of day. The resulting taper for general purpose travel lanes will also need to be addressed in detailed design.

Quince Street Rosyln Street Rosemary Street Syracuse Street 

Left turn lanes are extended to 150 feet to accommodate a high volume of turns.



Bike lanes are planned on Syracuse Street, therefore curb extensions are not included.

Spruce Street 

A flex zone is added near Spruce Street.

1 https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-department-of-public-works/projects/current/quebec-street-improvements.html

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-27

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 13 (TRENTON TO WILLOW/XANTHIA) Figure 4-14 Sheet 13: Trenton to Willow/Xanthia

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-28

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 13 (Trenton to Willow/Xanthia) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

Parking spaces are provided and preferred over flex zones between Trenton and Willow Streets.



A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Trenton Street Tamarac Street 

A signalized pedestrian crossing with an eight-foot pedestrian refuge island is proposed at Tamarac Street. Signalization type to be synchronized with BRT signal system and explored in detailed design.

Ulster Street Uinta Street 

Left turn lanes are extended to 150 feet to accommodate the high volume of turns.



Potential short-term sidewalk widening could be funded by the LADDERS grant.

Valentia Street 

The eastbound transit-only lane on Colfax ends to the east of the intersection with Valentia Street.

Verbena Street Wabash Street Willow Street 

A signalized pedestrian crossing with an eight-foot pedestrian refuge island is proposed at Willow Street. Signalization type to be synchronized with BRT signal system and explored in detailed design.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-29

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

SHEET 14 (XANTHIA TO YOSEMITE) Figure 4-15 Sheet 14: Xanthia to Yosemite

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-30

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver

Sheet 14 (Xanthia to Yosemite) Notes Corridor Segment General Notes 

A concrete, landscaped median will separate the BRT lanes in most locations east of Albion Street; typical width is 6 feet, with 10 to 13 feet in some segments.

Xanthia Street 

The westbound transit-only lane on Colfax begins west of the intersection with Xanthia Street.

Xenia Street Yosemite Street 

Future phases of design will consider moving the eastbound station from the far side of Yosemite Street to the near side (within Denver).

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-31

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 4 10% Design Set City and County of Denver This page intentionally left blank

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 4-32

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis performed for this study focused on understanding how Center-Running BRT would really operate on Colfax Avenue and if there were any fatal flaws to the concept or major concerns that should be examined more closely during future phases of the broader Colfax BRT Project. The following sections summarize the work that was performed to determine if Center-Running BRT is feasible from a traffic perspective.

TRAFFIC CAPACITY ON COLFAX AVENUE Synchro capacity analysis software was used to evaluate the capacity on Colfax Avenue for both the SideRunning and Center-Running BRT alternatives. Synchro was chosen because this software is appropriate for analyzing signalized intersection capacity using the accepted methodologies detailed in the Highway Capacity Manual. The 2015 AM and PM Side-Running BRT Synchro models from the Colfax Alternatives Analysis (AA) were copied to create the base 2015 AM and PM Side-Running Synchro models for this study. The capacity on Colfax Avenue for all eastbound and westbound movements was extracted from each of these models to get a total capacity for eastbound and westbound traffic on Colfax Avenue during the AM and PM peak periods. Then, the 2015 AM and PM Side-Running Synchro models were copied and the geometry was adjusted for the Center-Running BRT alternative. This included creating protected leftturn-only signal phases, and removing right-turn lanes where motorists would have been able to use the side-running exclusive lane in the same manner as a right-turn lane. The AM and PM peak period capacities were averaged for seven major intersections along the corridor: Park Avenue/Franklin Street, York Street, Josephine Street, Colorado Boulevard, SB Monaco Parkway, NB Monaco Parkway, and Quebec Street.

Overall, it was found that in the 2015 AM and PM side-running Synchro models these seven intersections averaged an eastbound/westbound capacity of approximately 2,250 vehicles per hour. In the 2015 AM and PM center-running Synchro models these seven intersections averaged a capacity of approximately 1,850 vehicles per hour. This analysis shows that the Center-Running BRT scenario on Colfax Avenue has 82% of the capacity of the Side-Running BRT scenario. Figure 5-1 provides additional detail for this calculation.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Figure 5-1

Colfax Ave Capacity Comparison

Intersection

Base Capacity (vehicles per hour)

Side-Running Capacity (vehicles per hour)

Center-Running Capacity (vehicles per hour)

Park Avenue/Franklin Street

3,557

2,852

2,404

York Street

3,307

2,394

2,311

Josephine Street

3,537

2,512

2,430

Colorado Boulevard

2,985

2,102

1,985

SB Monaco Parkway

2,312

1,644

1,217

NB Monaco Parkway

2,274

1,643

1,195

Quebec Street

2,824

2,622

1,397

Average

2,970

2,250

1,850

76%

62%

Difference, compared to Base scenario Difference, Side-Running versus Center-Running

82%

VISSIM ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY An operational analysis to compare Side-Running BRT with Center-Running BRT along Colfax Avenue was carried out using VISSIM microsimulation software. VISSIM was chosen for the analysis because it allows for accurate modeling of both vehicular and transit operations. In addition, the transit signal software built into VISSIM incorporates sophisticated transit signal priority (TSP) and queue jump functionality that allows for accurate replication of these advanced treatments. All of the signalized intersections on Colfax Avenue between Osage St. and Potomac St. were included in the VISSIM models; however, parallel routes in the corridor were not analyzed in VISSIM. The VISSIM modeling relied on the 2015 BRT VISSIM models that were developed and validated as part of the previously performed Colfax Alternatives Analysis.

Figure 5-2 summarizes the general assumptions that were used in coding the Colfax Center-Running BRT Feasibility Study models, with further detail provided in the following sections.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Figure 5-2

VISSIM Modeling Assumptions

Model Parameter

Assumption Description

Model Extent:

I-25 to I-225 (7th Street/Osage Street to Potomac Street)

Analysis Years:

2015 and 2035

Time Periods:

One hour AM peak One hour PM peak 30 minute seeding period

Transit Service:

5 minute headways for BRT, both directions 15 minute headways for Route 15, AM Eastbound 9 minute headways for Route 15, PM Eastbound 8 minute headways for Route 15, AM & PM Westbound

Transit Stops:

Consolidated based on the agency-approved stop locations between Welton Street and Yosemite Street. The BRT and Route 15 bus stops were not changed for all locations outside of the Welton Street to Yosemite Street exclusive lane portion.

Dwell Time:

Boarding/alighting data was consolidated for the new stop locations within the exclusive lane portion, then dwell times were calculated using the Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual methodology, assuming low-floor vehicles, off-board fare collection, and all-door boarding. The dwell times were not changed for locations outside of the Welton Street to Yosemite Street exclusive lane portion.

Exclusive Lane:

Eastbound: Welton Street to Yosemite Street Westbound: Yosemite Street to Sherman Street

Signal Timing:

Signal timing adjustments were made for the center-running models to remove permissive left-turns and allow only protected left-turn movements across Colfax Avenue. TSP assumptions were updated in both the side-running and center-running models to be more aggressive for all signals that are not at major cross streets. The signal timings for the Garfield Street and Steele Street intersections were incorporated based on the latest information provided by City & County of Denver (CCD). No new traffic signals were assumed.

Center-Running Exclusive Lane Termini The eastbound exclusive lane for Center-Running BRT alternative begins east of Welton Street.

Eastbound buses will begin to merge into the left lanes of travel after the Mariposa Street bus stop so that they are already positioned in the center lane by the time they pass through the Welton Street intersection. The second eastbound general purpose lane is dropped as a right-turn only lane at the Grant Street intersection. The eastbound exclusive lane ends east of Uinta Street where the exclusive bus lane will transition into a general purpose lane.

The westbound exclusive lane begins west of Yosemite Street. Westbound buses will transition over to the center exclusive bus lane after stopping at the Yosemite Street far-side bus stop. The westbound exclusive lane ends west of Sherman Street. Westbound buses will utilize a queue jump at the Sherman Street intersection or proceed through this intersection on a green traffic signal, and then transition over to the outside lane where they can proceed straight through the Lincoln Street intersection using the right-turn lane.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

Traffic Volume Calculations The volume spreadsheets that were created for the BRT VISSIM models during the Colfax AA were copied to create the base files for determining volumes for all of the Colfax CRBRT Study VISSIM models. For the Side-Running BRT VISSIM models, volumes were maintained from the applicable Colfax AA models. For the Center-Running BRT VISSIM models, volumes from the applicable Colfax AA were maintained outside of the exclusive lane segment. Because Colfax is already essentially operating at capacity, it was assumed that when capacity is reduced for the Center-Running BRT, the vehicular volumes will diminish in proportion to the capacity reduction. All eastbound and westbound movements from the Colfax AA BRT volumes were multiplied by 0.82 to account for the reduction in capacity discussed previously.

Likewise, all northbound and southbound turning movements were multiplied by 0.82. The northbound and southbound through movements were maintained from the applicable Colfax AA models.

Left-turn movements also had to be consolidated for the Center-Running BRT VISSIM models because left-turns at non-signalized locations would be prohibited with this alternative. It was assumed that signalized intersections will see an increase in left-turns of approximately 25% from those vehicles that previously would have made mid-block left-turns within the block adjacent to the signalized intersection.

Volumes were calculated at the downstream intersection since it is likely that someone wanting to turn left within a block would instead travel to the end of the block to make their left-turn. It was also assumed that signalized intersections will see an increase in left-turns of approximately 35% from those vehicles that previously would have made a left-turn along a block that includes a stop-controlled intersection west of Colorado Boulevard. For example, if there were two blocks between traffic signals with one stopcontrolled intersection in the middle, an increase in left-turn volumes of 60% was assumed (25% for the mid-block turns at the first block, plus 35% for both the stop-controlled intersection and the mid-block turns of the second block). In the instances where there were more than two blocks between signalized intersections, consolidated left-turn volumes were split between both the upstream and downstream signals, since some drivers may choose to turn before their destination and some may turn after.

The assumptions described above were applied for locations east of Colorado Boulevard, except with an increase in left-turns of approximately 40% from those vehicles that previously would have made a leftturn along a block that includes a stop-controlled intersection. Finally, because left-turn volumes at major arterials are significantly higher than at other signals, the percentages calculated based on the above discussion were not applied to adjacent blocks as they would be disproportionally high. Instead, the leftturn volumes calculated at more minor signalized intersections in the study area were reviewed and values in the higher end of that range were used for these locations.

VISSIM MODELING PROCESS The following describes the general modeling process that was used for each VISSIM model.

Coding of 2015 AM Side-Running Model The 2015 AM BRT file from the Colfax AA was copied as a base file for the 2015 AM Side-Running Model.

A traffic signal was added at the Steele Street intersection to match existing conditions, and the signal timings for the Garfield Street and Steele Street intersections were updated based on the latest information provided by CCD. Bus stop locations were consolidated within the exclusive lane portion based on agency-approved stop locations. Transit route departure times were revised in order to spread out the BRT and Route 15 buses to reduce the chance of bus stacking. It was also assumed that the Route 15 buses that currently only travel as far east as Oneida St would travel the full Route 15 with either BRT alternative. Transit dwell times were updated based on consolidating stops and adjusting boarding/alighting data appropriately. Assumptions were made regarding turning movements at the

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Steele Street intersection as these volumes were not available from CCD. The TSP parameters were adjusted to assume more aggressive TSP at all signalized intersections except for the major cross streets for both BRT alternatives. Additionally, Quebec Street was recoded to include two through lanes for both northbound and southbound traffic; right-turn lanes for both eastbound and westbound traffic; and adjusted signal timing that provides a few additional seconds to traffic on Colfax Avenue. Changes to Quebec Street are based on assumptions for the Quebec Street Multimodal Improvements Project that is in progress. An eastbound right-turn lane was also added at York Street as it was determined that this could be achieved without major roadway reconstruction. Finally, minor additional signal timing modifications were made to optimize operations.

Coding of 2015 AM Center-Running Model The 2015 AM Side-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2015 AM Center-Running Model. The geometry was updated to accommodate exclusive bus lanes in the center of the roadway. Additionally, left-turn pockets and signal phasing were removed from the following locations: eastbound at Williams Street, westbound at High Street, eastbound at Sherman Street, and westbound at Broadway. The signal timings were updated to only allow protected left-turns and remove any permissive left-turn movements at all signalized intersections within the exclusive lane section of the corridor. The protected left-turn-only phases were coded with vehicle detection and set to MinRecall. Left-turn lanes were also lengthened where feasible to accommodate longer vehicle queues resulting from the left-turn consolidation. A queue jump was also coded in for westbound at Sherman Street. The signal heads for the eastbound and westbound through movements were copied over to the center exclusive lane, and a negative overlap was added for these traffic signals to prohibit left-turns in the same direction that would overlap with the exclusive bus lane through movements. Bus stop locations were also relocated to the center exclusive lane.

Transit dwell times were updated based on consolidating stops and adjusting boarding/alighting data appropriately. Volumes and vehicle routing decisions were updated based on the volume calculations previously discussed. Finally, minor additional signal timing modifications were made to optimize operations.

Coding of 2015 PM Side-Running Model The 2015 AM Side-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2015 PM Side-Running Model. The majority of the signal timings were updated to match the 2015 PM BRT file from the Colfax AA, with exceptions at the Garfield Street and Steele Street intersections, where signal timings were updated based on the latest information provided by CCD. Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Side-Running 2015 PM peak. Finally, minor additional signal timing modifications were made to optimize operations.

Coding of 2015 PM Center-Running Model The 2015 AM Center-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2015 PM Center-Running Model.

The signal timings were updated to match the cycle lengths and offsets from the 2015 PM Side-Running Model. The splits were adjusted appropriately from the 2015 PM Side-Running Model, with the new phases added to accommodate protected left-turns. Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Center-Running 2015 PM peak. Finally, minor additional signal timing modifications were made to optimize operations.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

Coding of 2035 AM Side-Running Model The 2015 AM Side-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2035 AM Side-Running Model.

Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Side-Running 2035 AM peak. The model was reviewed for any possible minor signal timing modifications that may improve operations, and adjustments were made where deemed necessary.

Coding of 2035 AM Center-Running Model The 2035 AM Center-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2035 AM Center-Running Model.

Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Center-Running 2035 AM peak. The model was reviewed for any possible minor signal timing modifications that may improve operations, and adjustments were made where deemed necessary.

Coding of 2035 PM Side-Running Model The 2015 PM Side-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2035 PM Side-Running Model. Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Side-Running 2035 PM peak. The model was reviewed for any possible minor signal timing modifications that may improve operations, and adjustments were made where deemed necessary.

Coding of 2035 PM Center-Running Model The 2035 PM Center-Running Model was copied as a base file for the 2035 PM Center-Running Model.

Transit dwell times, volumes, and vehicle routing decisions were all updated based on inputs calculated for the Center-Running 2035 PM peak. The model was reviewed for any possible minor signal timing modifications that may improve operations, and adjustments were made where deemed necessary.

VISSIM ANALYSIS RESULTS Once all of the models were developed, measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were extracted and compared to determine the potential change in operations as a result of Center-Running BRT. To account for variability in the model and obtain more statistically accurate results, a total of 15 model runs were performed for each simulation model, and the average of these 15 runs was reported. The average VISSIM model volumes from these 15 runs were then compared to the volumes that had been input into the VISSIM model to ensure nothing was unreasonably higher or lower than anticipated.

The following MOEs were reported for each VISSIM model run: 

Intersection operations: Vehicular delay, level of service, and queue lengths.



Vehicular travel times: Average travel times for vehicles traveling through the corridor for three segments (7th Street/Osage Street to Broadway, Broadway to Yosemite Street, Yosemite Street to Potomac Street)



Transit travel times: Average travel times for both BRT and local routes traveling through the corridor for three segments (7th Street/Osage Street to Broadway, Broadway to Yosemite Street, Yosemite Street to Potomac Street)

Appendix B (Traffic Analysis Details) provides tables comparing traffic volumes for the 2015 and 2035 No-Build, Side-Running BRT, and Center-Running BRT scenarios.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS), as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), was used to qualitatively evaluate the operational conditions at the major intersections along Colfax Avenue within the corridor based on the average vehicular delay.

Six levels of service are defined with letter designations A through F; LOS A represents the best operating conditions, while LOS F represents the worst operating conditions. Figure 5-3 shows the LOS thresholds for signalized intersections as defined in the 2010 HCM.

Figure 5-3

Level of Service Criteria

LOS

Average Delay Threshold

A

< 10 seconds/vehicle

B

10-20 seconds/vehicle

C

20-35 seconds/vehicle

D

35-55 seconds/vehicle

E

55-80 seconds/vehicle

F >80 seconds/vehicle The following tables summarize the 2015 and 2035 AM and PM Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual peak period LOS at each of the major intersections between Osage St. and Yosemite St. in each of the different scenarios – No Build, Side-Running, and Center-Running. The information provided for No Build conditions has been pulled from the Colfax AA documentation for comparison. More detailed delay information is provided in Appendix B. In general, Center-Running BRT results in lower LOS for general traffic than both No Build and Side-Running BRT. For the most part the LOS are still within acceptable levels, with the Colfax Avenue / Park Avenue intersection being a notable exception. The City of Denver is currently analyzing potential adjustments to this intersection, so this analysis did not spend significant time trying to improve operations at this location. It is anticipated that this location will be reviewed in greater detail during further analysis for the Colfax BRT Project.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Figure 5-4

2015 AM LOS Summary

Figure 5-5

2015 PM LOS Summary

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-8

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Figure 5-6

2035 AM LOS Summary

Figure 5-7

2035 PM LOS Summary

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-9

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

Travel Times In addition to delay and LOS, travel times for both automobile traffic and transit vehicles were used to evaluate conditions along the corridor. Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9 summarize the travel time information for all of the VISSIM models in 2015 and 2035, respectively. When looking at the average for the peak direction of travel, general automobile traffic experiences a few additional minutes of delay, while transit traffic experiences significant travel time savings as a result of CenterRunning BRT compared to the Base condition.

Figure 5-8

2015 Travel Time Summary

Figure 5-9

2035 Travel Time Summary

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-10

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

DIVERSION ANALYSIS As part of the Colfax AA, the Focus Model was used to understand the increase in traffic at intersections along the parallel routes of 13th/14th Avenues and 17th/18th Avenues that would result from an approximately 25% reduction in capacity on Colfax Avenue. Knowing this information, and knowing that Center-Running BRT results in an additional reduction of capacity on Colfax Avenue of approximately 14%, a proportional increase in additional volume of traffic at the intersections along the parallel routes was calculated for Center-Running BRT. For example, if the increase in traffic at Monaco Parkway & 17th Avenue due to diversion from SideRunning BRT was 5%, this is one fifth of the percentage reduction in capacity on Colfax Avenue. With an additional reduction of capacity on Colfax Avenue of approximately 14% due to Center-Running BRT, it was determined that the increase in traffic at Monaco Parkway & 17th Avenue due to additional diversion will be one fifth of this, or 2.8% more traffic at Monaco Parkway & 17th Avenue than in the Side-Running BRT scenario.

Once these increases in volume were determined, Synchro was used to evaluate the corresponding effects on the major intersections along the parallel routes. The eastbound and westbound increases in delay at major intersections (York Street, Josephine Street, Colorado Boulevard, Monaco Parkway, and Quebec Street) were summed to determine expected increases in delay for vehicles traveling along the parallel routes. It should be noted that the increase in delay assumes that no mitigation measures are taken along the parallel routes, so these numbers are conservative in nature. It is anticipated that during future analysis for this project, mitigation measures will be explored at locations that are negatively impacted by the traffic diversion. The following tables show the eastbound and westbound delay that was calculated for the parallel routes. On average, Center-Running BRT results in 1-3 minutes of additional delay on parallel routes when compared to Side-Running BRT. Figure 5-10

Summary of Delay on Parallel Routes in Center-Running Scenario

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-11

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

Vehicle travel times are expected to increase with or without the Colfax BRT Project. In the future, CenterRunning BRT would allow transit travel times to become competitive with general traffic travel times along Colfax Avenue. Trade-offs do include some vehicle traffic shifting to parallel corridors, drivers choosing alternative routes (such as the future I-70 Express Lanes), and people choosing non-auto modes of travel such as the bus. However, the project is expected to increase person throughput along the corridor.

Based on the analysis, less than a 10% increase to vehicle volumes is expected on the parallel routes of 13th/14th Avenues and 17th/18th Avenues as a result of Center-Running BRT. Travel times for general traffic are expected to increase on Colfax Avenue, as well as on the parallel routes, with or without the project. As a result of Center-Running BRT, it is expected that travel times for general traffic will only increase by a few minutes.

However, it is expected that transit travel times will be reduced for the peak direction by an average of around 15 minutes, resulting in competitive transit travel times along the corridor compared to general traffic.

Traffic impacts are expected to be limited to the major intersections along Colfax Avenue and the parallel routes, and these will be the focus of mitigations during future phases of the Colfax BRT Project. Mitigations may include speed reduction and safety improvements, signal optimization, adjustments to turn lanes, and minor capacity adjustments where possible within existing right-of-way.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-12

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver

ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Following the formal traffic analysis performed for Center-Running BRT, additional traffic analysis was performed to better understand operations at specific locations. This section describes the additional analysis performed and recommendations for moving forward.

Colorado Boulevard At Colorado Boulevard, there was discussion regarding the removal of the westbound right-turn lane on Colfax Avenue to allow for additional sidewalk and/or station platform space to improve the pedestrian experience at this location. This adjustment was made in the 2015 Center-Running BRT VISSIM models to understand the impacts to traffic. With these changes made, the overall general traffic travel times westbound were not significantly changed, and the overall intersection LOS was not negatively impacted. However, the westbound through movement and the westbound right-turn movement both became LOS E as a result of these changes (previously they were both LOS D). Additionally, the westbound shared through/right-turn lane queue did back up substantially farther in the PM model as a result (approximately three times longer than the westbound queues with the original lane configuration).

Based on these findings, removing the westbound right-turn lane at Colorado Boulevard would cause traffic concerns immediately with Center-Running BRT construction. In 2035 it is anticipated that westbound volumes at this intersection will increase, making conditions worse. Additionally, BRT is expected to result in more pedestrian traffic along the corridor, which will further delay right-turning and through moving vehicles. It is not recommended to move forward with removal of the westbound right-turn lane at Colorado Boulevard.

Quebec Street At Quebec Street there was discussion regarding the removal of the eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes to allow for additional sidewalk and/or station platform space to improve the pedestrian experience at this location. This adjustment was made in the 2015 Center-Running BRT VISSIM models to understand the impacts to traffic. With these changes made, the overall general traffic travel times eastbound were not significantly changed, and westbound general traffic travel times increased by approximately one minute. The overall intersection LOS was not negatively impacted. The westbound right-turn movement became LOS B in the AM model and LOS D in the PM model (previously they were LOS A and LOS C, respectively). The eastbound right-turn movement became LOS D in both the AM and PM models (previously they were both LOS B). Additionally, the westbound shared through/right-turn lane queue did back up substantially farther in the PM model as a result (over three times longer than the westbound queues with the original lane configuration). The eastbound shared through/right-turn lane queue also backs up farther than with the original lane configuration, although this change is not significant.

Based on these findings, removing the eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes at Quebec Street would cause traffic concerns immediately with Center-Running BRT construction. In 2035 it is anticipated that eastbound and westbound volumes at this intersection will increase, making conditions worse. Additionally, BRT is expected to result in more pedestrian traffic along the corridor, which will further delay right-turning and through moving vehicles. It is not recommended to move forward with removal of the westbound rightturn lane at Quebec Street.

Park Avenue/Franklin Street Discussions regarding Park Avenue/Franklin Street included the removal of the left-turns off of Colfax Avenue, which reflects the existing condition at this intersection, but which was not the existing condition during the initial modeling efforts. This adjustment was made in the 2015 Center-Running BRT VISSIM models to understand the impacts to traffic. With these changes made, the model showed no significant City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-13

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver changes to overall general traffic travel times eastbound or westbound, overall intersection delay, or intersection approach queues. Additionally, overall intersection LOS was not negatively impacted.

The adjacent intersections to which these left-turning vehicles were diverted (Lafayette Street, High Street, and Williams Street) were all observed in the VISSIM model. Given the existing low turning movements at these intersections and the low volume of left-turns diverted from the Park Avenue/Franklin Street intersection, the operations at these intersections do not appear to be significantly affected by the removal of left-turns off of Colfax Avenue.

Based on this analysis, it is recommended to move forward with the Center-Running BRT design not including left-turns off of Colfax Avenue onto Park Avenue/Franklin Street, in an effort to support Denver’s Vision Zero goals.

Lafayette Street In the existing condition, the intersection of Lafayette Street has a signalized pedestrian crossing with two stop-controlled intersections directly adjacent. This configuration allows left-turns from Colfax Avenue onto Lafayette Street while a pedestrian is crossing Colfax Avenue. As a result of Center-Running BRT, these leftturns off of Colfax Avenue would need to be signalized as protected only movements. This would also trigger a need for signalizing the northbound and southbound Lafayette Street legs of the intersection. Discussions focused on how this intersection could potentially operate with Center-Running BRT, and how to balance pedestrian, transit, and vehicular traffic at the intersection.

If the crosswalk stays in the current location and protected left-turns off of Colfax Avenue were allowed during the pedestrian signal phase, then raised medians could be installed to reduce the likelihood of left-turners interfering with pedestrians in the crosswalk. A signal head with a green arrow, yellow arrow, and red ball could be used to control the right-turning vehicles northbound and southbound, with the green right-turn arrows overlapping with the eastbound and westbound left-turn protected only movements. It was noted in discussions that this option may result in concerns regarding snow removal at the intersection. This option was determined to not be preferred.

Alternatively, the crosswalk in the middle of the intersection could be removed, and crosswalks could instead be installed on both the east and west sides of the intersection. This would benefit pedestrians by reducing potential out-of-the-way movements. With this option, the intersection would operate in a more traditional fashion and allow northbound and southbound right-turns to overlap with the protected left-turn phases required for Center-Running BRT. During the pedestrian phases, northbound and southbound right-turns could still be allowed while the signal is red. This option would require adding an additional phase to the signal timing that was modeled in VISSIM. This may result in additional delays to the BRT and general traffic, but it would improve the intersection for pedestrians. Given the relatively minor importance of this intersection, it is not anticipated that adding an additional phase would result in significant impacts to transit and general traffic. This was determined to be the preferred option for signal operations at the Lafayette Street intersection. Figure 5-11 depicts the signal phasing described above.

CROSSING SPACING Chapter 3 describes proposed standards for marked pedestrian crossings and several additional proposed signalized crossings. Future 30% design analysis will develop a methodology for justification of new traffic signals, based on input from business improvement districts (BIDs), safety issues, final station locations, and other factors.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-14

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 5 Traffic Analysis City and County of Denver Figure 5-11

Potential Signal Phasing at Lafayette Street

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 5-15

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver

6 OUTREACH SUMMARY: JULY 2017 – AUGUST 2018 As part of the center-running Bus Rapid Transit feasibility study and conceptual design phase, the Colfax Corridor Connections project team provided significant public input opportunities. This process provided the community with a diverse set of options to engage directly with the team, receive project information, and provide direct feedback. Engagement opportunities included community meetings; presentations to registered neighborhood organizations, business improvement districts, and other civic organizations; and project workshops, forums, and panel discussions.

The community was asked to provide input on the preliminary recommendation for center-running BRT (CRBRT), including system benefits, opportunities, and challenges, as well as priorities for more detailed examination during subsequent project phases.

Quantitative input was primarily collected through a public opinion survey available online, via a kiosk at Carla Madison Recreation Center, and at project events. The survey was promoted through social media, email updates, presentations, news media, project partners, and online advertising. Additional comments were submitted via email, general comment forms, and the project hotline. Figure 6-1 provides a summary of outreach activities from July 2017 – August 2018.

Figure 6-1

Summary of Project Outreach Activities

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES At key milestones in the center-running BRT feasibility study and conceptual design phase, opportunities for public feedback were provided throughout the project area. This chapter summarizes the following community engagement activities: 

CRBRT Public Opinion Survey −

Overarching Themes

−

Detailed Results



Community Task Force Meetings



Public Workshops and Community Events



Technical Working Group Meetings

CRBRT PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY Overarching Themes Overarching input themes from the survey responses are (the next section provides detailed results): 

Project support: The majority of input received via the community survey was supportive. −









Nearly 60% of respondents “agree”—and a total of 73% of respondents either “agree” or “somewhat agree”—with the recommendation for center-running BRT on Colfax.

Project benefits: The most important benefits of center-running BRT were identified as (respondents were allowed to choose two benefits): −

Speed: Faster transit travel time and improved schedule reliability: 58%

−

Moving people: Increases the number of people who can safely travel the corridor: 37%

−

Safety (31%) and Look and feel (26%) were also identified by more than a quarter of respondents

Potential challenges: The primary potential challenges of center-running BRT were identified as (respondents were allowed to choose two challenges): −

Potential vehicle traffic delays and/or diversion of traffic to side streets: 42%

−

Building it: Maintaining the vision and intent of the project through construction: 42%

−

Connectivity (transit, bike, walking) (31%) and local vehicle access (27%) were also identified by more than a quarter of respondents

Priority topics for additional study in the design phase of the study (respondents were allowed to choose two topics): −

Intersection design (locations of traffic signals, protected left turns, and maintaining local access): 44%

−

Safe connections with other transit services and bike/pedestrian facilities: 36%

−

BRT station locations (30%), traffic and parking (28%), and coordination with other plans (27%) were also identified by more than a quarter of respondents

High likely use of BRT: 75% of respondents reported they are likely to use the new centerrunning BRT service, while 39% of survey respondents reported using the current bus service on Colfax daily or weekly.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver

DETAILED RESULTS Detailed results for each question in the public opinion survey are provided in Figure 6-2 through Figure 6-7. Note that not all respondents answered every question and people could select up to two choices for some of the survey questions. Qualitative responses to the secondary “Why?” portion of Question 1, and other comments collected through the survey, can be found at https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/705/documents/projects/ColfaxCorridor/ Colfax-BRT-public-input-summary-2018.pdf.

Figure 6-2

Question 1: Center-Running BRT Recommendation Do you agree with the recommendation for center-running bus rapid transit (BRT) on Colfax? Why?

Response

# of Responses

% of Respondents

Agree

747

58%

Somewhat Agree

223

17%

Disagree

185

14%

Somewhat Disagree

75

6%

Neutral

53

4%

Total

1,283

100%

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding

Figure 6-3

Question 2: Most Important Benefits of Center-Running BRT

Please identify the two (2) most important benefits of center-running BRT on Colfax.

Benefits

# of Responses

% of Responses

% of Respondents1

Speed: Faster transit travel-\ time and improved schedule reliability

740

31%

58%

Moves more people: Increases the number of people who can safely travel the corridor

470

20%

37%

Safety: Improved safety for pedestrians, vehicles, and transit users

394

16%

31%

Look and feel: Improved streetscape and placemaking opportunities

336

14%

26%

Business benefits: Retail sales and economic development opportunities

156

6%

12%

Comfort: Enhanced bus stops, rider amenities, and vehicles

95

4%

7%

Other

210

9%

16%

Total

2,401

100%

N/A

Note: [1] Based on 1,283 respondents; respondents were allowed to provide two responses.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver Figure 6-4

Question 3: Biggest Potential Challenges of Center-Running BRT

Please identify the two (2) biggest potential challenges of center-running BRT on Colfax.

Challenges

# of Responses

% of Responses

% of Respondents1

Moving cars: Potential vehicle traffic delays and/or diversion of traffic to side streets

542

22%

42%

Building it: Maintaining the vision and intent of the project through construction

537

21%

42%

Connecting it: Connectivity with other transit services and bike/pedestrian facilities

404

16%

31%

Local access: Maintaining local access with vehicle left turns at signalized intersections

346

14%

27%

Bus stop locations: Consolidation and location of local bus stops

274

11%

21%

Parking: Removal and addition of some on-street parking spaces

230

9%

18%

Other

179

7%

14%

Total

2,512

100%

N/A

Note: [1] Based on 1,283 respondents; respondents were allowed to provide two responses.

Figure 6-5

Question 4: Most Important Items for Additional Study during the Next Project Phase and Design

What two (2) items are most important for additional study during the next phase of the project (more detailed design)?

Items

# of Responses

% of Responses

% of Respondents1

Intersection design: Locations of stop lights, protected left turns, and maintaining local access

560

22%

44%

Safe connections: Connectivity with other transit service and bike/pedestrian facilities

468

19%

36%

BRT stop locations: Identifying locations for BRT stops

383

15%

30%

Traffic and parking: Vehicle operations and parking management

360

14%

28%

Coordination: Coordinating with streetscape and neighborhood plans

345

14%

27%

Construction: Mitigation of construction impacts

247

10%

19%

Other

128

5%

10%

Total

2,491

100%

N/A

Note: [1] Based on 1,283 respondents; respondents were allowed to provide two responses.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver Figure 6-6

Question 5: Frequency of Transit Use along Colfax

How often do you use transit along Colfax?

How often

# of Responses

% of Respondents1

Rarely

532

42%

Monthly

247

19%

Weekly

273

21%

Daily

229

18%

Total

1,281

100%

Note: [1] Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding

Figure 6-7

Question 6: Likelihood to Use Center-Running BRT on Colfax

Are you likely to use the new center-running BRT system on Colfax?

Response

# of Responses

% of Respondents

Yes

966

75%

No

315

25%

Total

1,281

100%

COMMUNITY TASK FORCE MEETINGS The project team conducted Community Task Force meetings at key study milestones with individuals representing registered neighborhood organizations, community groups, and business interests within the corridor. The Community Task Force provided input that helped to inform the study process and shape the information presented to the larger community, as well as served as a connection between the project team and the community for sharing information with the constituents they represent.

Colfax Corridor Connections Community Task Force meetings were conducted on the following dates: 

July 25, 2017: Center-Running BRT Concept



October 5, 2017: Center-Running BRT Analysis



November 15, 2017: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT)



March 14, 2018: Center-Running BRT Public Opinion Survey Results and Prioritization of Design Topics



August 8, 2018: Center-Running BRT Conceptual Design

Task Force meeting materials can be found on the project website: https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-department-of-publicworks/projects/current/colfax-corridor-connections.html.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND COMMUNITY EVENTS: Additional small group meetings, community workshops, and panel discussions regarding the centerrunning BRT Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative were held on the following dates: 

September 12, 2017: Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) Workshop



September 19, 2017: Panel Discussion at Rail-Volution Conference



September 28, 2017: East Area Plan Steering Committee



October 3, 2017: Transit Alliance Citizens Academy Kick-off



October 4, 2017: Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods (CHUN) Zoning and Transportation Committee



October 10, 2017: Colfax Avenue BID Board Update



October 11, 2017: Urban Land Institute (ULI)



October 25, 2017: Downtown Denver Partnership Mobility Council



October 26, 2017: East Area Plan Steering Committee



November 7, 2017: Regional Transportation District (RTD) Board



December 4, 2017: WTF is BRT Panel Discussion



December 7, 2017: Denver Moves Transit Task Force



December 7, 2017: Colfax Mayfair BID Holiday Party



December 14, 2017: East Central Steering Committee



January 8, 2018: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT) Community Event at Carla Madison Rec Center



January 10, 2018: Denver County Local Coordinating Council



January 10, 2018: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT) Community Event at Civic Center Station



January 11, 2018: Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC) Transportation Committee



January 16, 2018: Bluebird BID Board



January 17, 2018: South City Park Neighborhood Association



January 31, 2018: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT) Community Event at Carla Madison Rec Center



February 7, 2018: CHUN Zoning and Transportation Committee Meeting



February 8, 2018: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Transportation Environmental Resource Council



February 13, 2018: Moving People Forward Conference



February 21, 2018: Colfax Mayfair BID Board



February 21, 2018: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT) Community Event at Carla Madison Rec Center



March 13, 2018: Colfax Ave BID Board Meeting



August 14, 2018: Colfax Ave BID Board Retreat



August 22, 2018: Heritage Title Company Realtors Workshop

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 6 Outreach City and County of Denver

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS The project team conducted Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings at key study milestones. These meetings convened groups comprising staff representing regulatory/oversight agencies, local government agencies, and other key institutions in the East Colfax corridor to present study findings, gather data and information to further the analysis, and solicit input and reactions to project team recommendations.

Colfax Corridor Connections TWG meetings were conducted on the following dates: 

October 19, 2017: Center-Running BRT Analysis



November 15, 2017: Preliminary Locally Preferred Alternative (Center-Running BRT)

Task Force meeting materials can be found on the project website at: https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-department-of-publicworks/projects/current/colfax-corridor-connections.html.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 6-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver

7 CAPITAL COSTS This chapter provides a planning-level capital cost estimate for the Colfax CRBRT project, updating cost estimates developed in earlier Colfax BRT planning work. The cost estimate builds up the earlier work by refining quantities and applying more detailed unit costs in specific cost areas. This helped the project team develop a cost range for completing both essential and desired pedestrian improvements along the corridor and allowed costs to be broken out by corridor segment. The next phase of the project will develop a detailed design for the project, including incorporating survey of the corridor and inventorying utilities.

COST ESTIMATE DEFINITION AND TIERS The planning-level cost estimate is organized around two tiers of investments, ranging from what is absolutely needed for BRT, to an optimal project including additional pedestrian facility improvements along the corridor and electric transit buses: Tier 1: Essential Transit Project Elements includes essential BRT project elements across the full corridor extent with: 

Critical BRT infrastructure (stations, bus lanes, signals, striping, etc.)



Complete pedestrian improvements within one block on either side of stations



Essential pedestrian improvements outside of station areas (such as replacing curb ramps)

Key assumptions include: 

The project can be built without repaving the entire roadway—restriping will be sufficient in many parts of the corridor.



West of Colorado Blvd., more of the sidewalks meet standards and Colfax was recently remilled including replacing curb ramps to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Based on this recent work, the cost estimate assumes that west of Colorado, Colfax Avenue generally will not need to be repaved and that most curb ramps that are not directly affected by the BRT project will not need to be replaced. However, Tier 1 costs do assume a more complete roadway reconstruction will be needed at stations, at least between the platform and the curb.



East of Colorado, the estimate assumes that the street will need to be repaved and that most curb ramps will need to be upgraded or replaced.

Tier 2: Additional Elements includes additional pedestrian enhancements outside of station areas, e.g., sidewalk widening, and beyond those required to support construction of the essential BRT infrastructure.

Figure 7-1 lists the key elements included in each tier. The elements are annotated on a map of a section of the corridor that delineates what is generally included in each tier.

Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 delineate the tiers on representative design sheets west and east of Colorado Blvd., respectively. Appendix C includes a full set of design sheets delineating Tier 1 and Tier 2 elements.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-1

Project Capital Investment Elements and Tiers

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-2

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-2

Representative Cost Tier Assumptions: West of Colorado (Sheet 6)

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-3

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-3

Representative Cost Tier Assumptions: East of Colorado (Sheet 10)

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-4

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver

COST SUMMARY Figure 7-4 provides the overall project cost estimate by tier, including $220 to 244 million for Tier 1 and an overall cost of $360 to $400 million including Tier 2. To account for significant uncertainty before detailed design is completed, an overall contingency of 50% is included in the cost. Given that significant contingency is included, the low-end of the cost range is set to 90% of the estimate and the estimate is considered the high-end of the cost range.

Figure 7-4 Tier

Project Capital Investment Tiers Description

Cost Estimate

1

Essential project elements including critical BRT infrastructure and required bicycle and pedestrian improvements

$220-244 M

2

Complete/optimal project with additional pedestrian facility improvements/reconstruction and electric buses

$140-156 M

Total

$360-400 M

Figure 7-5 illustrates how the costs for each tier break down by high-level cost categories.

Figure 7-5

Capital Costs by Category and Tier

Figure 7-6 summarizes the capital cost estimate by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Standard Cost Category (SCC) and tier. It includes a comparison to the previous cost estimation work and highlights key differences. The next section describes the assumptions for each category.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-5

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-6

Summary of Capital Cost Estimate

Category

Category Description

Current Estimate Tier 1 Cost

Tier 2 Cost

Previous Estimate Total

Amount

vs. Tier 1

% Difference

10.02

Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic)

$2,100,000

$0

$2,100,000

$1,260,000

$840,000

67%

20.01

At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform

$11,400,000

$0

$11,400,000

$11,350,000

$50,000

0%

30.02

Light Maintenance Facility

$3,800,000

$0

$3,800,000

$3,750,000

$50,000

1%

40.02

Site Utilities, Utility Relocation

$9,100,000

$0

$9,100,000

$5,800,000

$3,300,000

57%

40.06

Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping

$30,600,000

$53,500,000

$84,100,000

$8,000,000

$22,600,000

283%

40.07

Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots

$6,500,000

$0

$6,500,000

$5,710,000

$790,000

14%

40.08

Temporary facilities and other indirect costs during construction

$22,800,000

$18,700,000

$41,500,000

$19,500,000

$3,300,000

17%

50.02

Traffic signals and crossing protection

$12,800,000

$0

$12,800,000

$7,650,000

$5,150,000

67%

50.05

Communications

$6,300,000

$0

$6,300,000

$10,000,000

-$3,700,000

-37%

50.06

Fare collection system and equipment

$3,800,000

$0

$3,800,000

$3,600,000

$200,000

6%

$109,200,000

$72,200,000

$181,400,000

$76,620,000

$32,580,000

43%

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

-

$20,900,000

$10,300,000

$31,200,000

$20,240,000

$660,000

3%

$800,000

$0

$800,000

$800,000

$0

0%

$32,800,000

$21,700,000

$54,500,000

$27,600,000

$5,200,000

19%

$163,700,000

$104,200,000

$267,900,000

$125,260,000

$38,440,000

31%

Allocated Contingency

$24,000,000

$15,400,000

$39,400,000

$17,428,000

$6,572,000

38%

Vehicles (Category 70) – 10% 1

$2,200,000

$1,000,000

$3,200,000

$2,104,000

$96,000

5%

All Other Items (Categories 10-60) – 20%

$21,800,000

$14,400,000

$36,200,000

$15,324,000

$6,476,000

42%

$187,700,000

$119,600,000

$307,300,000

$142,688,000

$45,012,000

32%

$56,300,000

$35,900,000

$92,200,000

$42,800,000

$13,500,000

32%

Total Base Year Cost (High End of Range)

$244,000,000

$156,000,000

$400,000,000

$185,000,000

$59,000,000

32%

Low of End of Range (-10%)

$220,000,000

$140,000,000

$360,000,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Construction Subtotal (Categories 10-50) 60.01

Purchase or lease of real estate

70.04

Bus

70.07

Spare parts

80

Services (30% of Construction Subtotal)

Subtotal

Subtotal with Allocated Contingency Unallocated Contingency – 30% 2

Notes: See Figure 7-8 for detailed notes.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-6

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver

CAPITAL ELEMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS Capital Cost Elements and Assumptions Summary Table Figure 7-8 provides capital cost assumptions for each project element, organized by FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC). The sections below provide additional discussion and detail.

Construction Cost Categories Guideway (10) 

Cost assumes repaving east of Colorado, since CDOT repaved Colfax Avenue between Speer and Colorado in 2017.



Planted medians are assumed as specified in the design drawings; a basic fence to delineate between each travel direction is assumed where a median is not present.

Stations (20) 

Twenty-nine directional stations funded by the BRT project, with 28 “major” at-grade stations and one “minor” at-grade station. The cost estimation Excel workbook and Appendix C provide a table listing station assumptions. For costing purposes, curbside “bulb-out” stations are considered major stations, while “no bulb-out” stations are considered minor stations.



BRT stations are mostly located in the median with several curbside stations on the west end of the project, including at Mariposa (both directions) and at 13th and at Broadway (westbound direction only). The westbound curbside station at Broadway, along with curbside stations at Yosemite and in Aurora on the east end of the project, would be funded by the RTD 15L Project and are not included in the project cost.

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings (30) 

This category includes an allowance for facility improvements at RTD’s East Metro facility.

Sitework & Special Conditions (40) Site Utilities (40.02) 

A general unit cost per mile was applied, based on earlier BRT planning, across the full project extent in Denver. This cost is assumed to include undergrounding of utilities. A detailed assessment would be conducted as part of the detailed design phase.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Accommodation and Landscaping (40.06) The high-level cost estimate from earlier BRT planning was extended by estimating quantities for each cost tier based on the preliminary design drawings, assumptions for the scope of signal upgrades (from earlier work), and additional visual inspection of existing ramps and signal pole placement using aerial photos and Google Streetview. The assumptions and quantities will need to be refined in the detailed design phase of the project. 

ADA Requirements: The project may require reconstruction of pedestrian facilities to meet ADA standards, such as reconstruction of curb ramps (see below).

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-7

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Curb Ramps: Ramps between Speer and Colorado (Sheets 1-8) were reconstructed in 2017 as part of a CDOT project to remill and repave Colfax west of Colorado. The following rationale was used to develop cost assumptions for curb ramp replacement: −

Curb ramps for crosswalks altered by the project will need to be reconstructed (Tier 1).

−

Curb ramps in the immediate station areas (within one block) will in most cases need to be reconstructed (Tier 1).

−

West of Colorado, curb ramps at intersections/crosswalk locations that are not altered as part of the project were assumed to meet ADA standards and not require replacement (since they were rebuilt in 2017). Additional curb ramp replacement is included in the Tier 2 cost estimate when sidewalk widening or curb extensions are specified.

−

East of Colorado, curb ramps at signalized intersections that are altered by the project are likely to require reconstruction, particularly where signals require a full rebuild. The presence and condition of existing curb ramps and the extent of signal upgrades required (e.g., mast arm replacement or signal controller replacement only) will determine whether more complete curb ramp reconstruction may be required at other locations.



Sidewalks: The full replacement cost is assumed for widening sidewalks, although alternate methods are possible to address drainage in some cases (e.g., see cut drainage curb extension example in Chapter 3); methods and costs will be refined in the detailed design phase.



Crossings: Crosswalk striping for signalized intersections and crossings along Colfax Avenue is assumed as part of category 40.07; four signalized pedestrian crossings with refuge islands are included outside of signalized intersections.



Green Infrastructure. The City and County of Denver sets a target of 5% of project costs for water quality improvements. As part of this target, Tier 1 costs include a $3 million allowance for water quality/stormwater mitigation. Additional cost assumptions are included for landscaping in medians.



Bicycle Access. The Colfax Multimodal Access Study (CMLAS) study identified “to the station” and “at the station” bicycle improvements. See notes in Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8 below, and additional details in Appendix C (Detailed Pedestrian and Bicycle Costs).

Figure 7-7

Detailed Pedestrian/Bicycle Costing Assumptions (40.06)

Element

Base Year

Notes

Curb Ramps

2018

 $3000 per ramp including removal, based on project team discussion; extrapolated from comparable projects in Denver

Sidewalk Reconstruction and Widening

2018

 $200 per square yard for new or reconstructed sidewalks, including removal, based on project team discussion; extrapolated from comparable projects in Denver

Striped Crosswalks

N/A

 Assumed to be included in general signing and striping cost allowance (40.07)

Signalized Pedestrian Crossing

2014

 $150,000 unit cost escalated to $170,000 in 2018 dollars  Active pedestrian crossing with median refuge

Curb Extensions

N/A

 Included in area calculations for sidewalk replacement

Medians

2018

 $350 per linear foot, based on project team discussion; extrapolated from comparable projects in Denver  Includes 2x curb and gutter, splash pad, landscape strip

Landscaping

2018

 $12 per square foot general landscaping cost, from projects in Portland, OR. Planning-level costing did not capture this level of detail, but the project team discussed assuming a planted tree strip for sidewalks of 16 feet or wider.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-8

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Element

Base Year

Notes

Green Infrastructure

N/A

 Allowance of $3 million, increase over previous BRT planning

Bicycle

2016

 Total 2016 costs of $5.95 M with $3.16 M funded by BRT ($2.2 M “To the Station” and $0.96 M “At the Station”), from CMLAS, escalated to 2018 dollars  See Appendix C (Detailed Bicycle and Pedestrian Costs) for detailed cost estimates from the CMLAS study

Automobile, Bus, Van Accessways including Road and Parking Lots (40.07). 

Includes unit costs for concrete bus pads at all 45 stops in Denver and Aurora, and an allowance for signing and striping (including crosswalks).

Temporary Facilities and Other Indirect Costs during Construction (40.08). 

Costs such as mobilization and traffic control are assumed at 35% of construction costs, consistent with the assumptions from earlier BRT planning; see Figure 7-8.

Systems (50) Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection (50.02) 

Earlier BRT planning developed assumptions for the level of improvement needed for traffic signals, ranging from upgrades (e.g., longer mast arm, controller replacement, etc.) to a full rebuild. See Figure 7-8.and Appendix C (Traffic Signal Assumptions) for details. Based on review of unit costs from other recent projects, the project team increased the unit cost assumptions for traffic signal upgrades and replacement.

Communications (50.05) 

Earlier BRT planning assumed a $10 million lump sum allowance for communications, including running fiber and providing connections to information infrastructure such as real-time information displays and ticket vending machines. This lump-sum cost was divided across the corridor length in order to allocate the estimate to corridor segments. There is existing fiber in the corridor; the detailed design phase will conduct an assessment of available fiber and refine the cost estimate. See Figure 7-8.

Fare Collection System and Equipment (50.06) 

The project includes costs for ticket vending machines (TVMs) at all 45 station platforms in Denver and Aurora. See Figure 7-8.

Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements (60) 

No right-of-way costs have been identified at this stage of planning.

Vehicles (70) 

The Tier 1 project cost includes 20 new articulated low-floor buses with right-side doors and wraps (to brand the vehicles for the BRT project/corridor); additional vehicles, if required, are assumed to be repurposed from the RTD low-floor fleet. Additional, incremental costs for electric vehicles are assumed in the Tier 2 project cost.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-9

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver

Capital Cost Elements and Assumptions Summary Table Figure 7-8

Capital Cost Elements and Assumptions

Project Element / SCC Category

Unit

Unit Cost

Cost Year

Assumptions

Cost Source Notes

Notes

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01

Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way

RM

$420,000

2015

 4 lanes milled and overlayed, Colorado-Yosemite  Markings, median, separation between lanes

 $210k per route mile for 2 lanes cost from a 8/10/15 worksheet for SpeerColorado CDOT project; applied to 4 lanes

 No cost assumed west of Colorado (sheets 1-5); full end-to-end length east of Colorado (sheets 6-14)

10.01

Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way

LF

$31

2018

 Basic separation assumed where a median is not specified

 Pulled from unit cost database

 Specific design and costs should be refined in next stage of design  Median cost assumed in 40.06 (see sub-section for more details)

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL

29 directional stations funded by project

20.01

At-grade stop (Major)

EA

$400,000

2018

 26 directional median stations and 2 curb stations with bulb-out  5 directional curb bulb-out stations funded by RTD 15L project (includes Yosemite stations and others in Aurora)  Shelters, real time info, lighting, minor landscaping, canopy  Fare machine (TVM) in 50.06

 Revised based on ITDP guidelines, Seattle Madison BRT (note that Madison BRT assumed no difference between Center and Side; at current design phase Madison BRT station costs are slightly lower)

 Refine station elements based on detailed design and individual unit costs in next stage of design  Currently there is not a separate unit cost for center and curbside BRT stops  Costs needed to decommission previous 15/15L stops is not included (may be assumed by RTD)  Cost assumed as 2018 base year

20.01

At-grade stop (Minor)

EA

$150,000

2018

 1 directional no bulb-out station (13th)  11 directional curb no bulb-out stations funded by RTD 15L project (1 at Broadway within Denver and others in Aurora)

 2017 iteration provided 100% increase over previous methodology/50% of full station cost [now less]

 Refine station elements based on individual unit costs  Cost assumed as 2018 base year

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-10

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Project Element / SCC Category

Unit

Unit Cost

Cost Year

Assumptions

Cost Source Notes

Notes

$3,750,000

2018

 Allowance for East Metro facility improvements.

 From previous methodology

 Needs/cost should be refined at next stage of design  Assumed as 2018 base year

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 30.02

Light Maintenance Facility

LS

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.02

Site Utilities, Utility Relocation

RM

$1,450,000

2018

 Undergrounding of utilities should be included in project cost

 Previous work assumed 4 route-miles based on 8/10/15 study, assumed to be half of the cost from the 6WW (6th/Wadsworth) Study, which is cited back to other projects. This was a 20% increase over previous methodology.

 Area of potentially significant uncertainty and lack of definition  Previous unit cost assumed as 2018 base year but length increased to cover full 6.3 miles of the project  Needs/cost should be refined at next stage of design

40.06

Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping

Varies

Varies

Varies

 Approximate measurements of sidewalk area, curb ramp counts, median length/width  Sidewalk Widening, Curb Ramps, and Curb Extension: Tier 1 within 1 block of stations, except as required to due to modifications, and Tier 2 otherwise. Widening assumed to require full reconstruction. Where curb ramps were rebuilt in 2017 as part of remilling west of Colorado, reconstruction only if project alters crosswalks.  Four signalized pedestrian crossings  Landscaped medians included in Tier 1.  $3M water quality allowance  CMLAS to and at the station costs funded by BRT ($3.16 total)

 Previous work assumed “$8M lump sum for bike/ped per CMLAS study, $2M for WQ.

 Refined based on unit costs for curb ramps, sidewalk replacement, median construction, etc.; see Figure 7-7.  CMLAS costs from 2016 escalated to 2018.  See Figure 7-7 for additional details.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-11

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Project Element / SCC Category

Unit

Unit Cost

Cost Year

Assumptions

Cost Source Notes

Notes

40.07

Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots

RM

$470,000

2017 assumed

 Covers signing and striping; also captures cost of incidental road repairs outside of the semi-dedicated guideway

 From previous 8/10/15 methodology (sourced to CMLAS, DEA - 2016), which used 6th & Wadsworth Study (6WW) cost of $470k/mile. Notes indicated 1 mile per direction or 2 lane miles.

 Escalated to 2018; source cost assumed as 2017.  Following previous methodology, updated units to 12.6 miles (2 x 6.3 miles)

40.07

Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots

EA

$12,000

2017 assumed

 Quantity of 45, for entire corridor including Denver and Aurora

 Concrete bus pads  2015 historical bid data of $11,000

 Escalated to 2018, source cost assumed as 2017

40.08

Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction

LS

35%

N/A

 30% of construction costs (not including contingency) including Mobilization (10%), MOT (15%), and Incidentals (5%)

 Previous cost estimate (8/10/15) multiplied the original 30% by 1.2 for 36% total; reduced slightly to 35% total given overall increase in project scope.

 Major project cost component

50 SYSTEMS 50.02

Traffic signals and crossing warning devices (full upgrade)

EA

$300,000 => $450,000

2018

 51 signals in Denver: 17 full rebuild

 Rebuild is $300k, Upgrade is $75k

 Assumed as 2018, since increased costs (allowance) from previous methodology

50.02

Traffic signals and crossing warning devices (partial upgrade)

EA

$75,000 => $150,000

2108

 51 signals in Denver: 34 partial upgrade

 Discussed increase to $150k  Previous methodology classifications based on streetview walkthrough

 Assumed as 2018, since increased costs (allowance) from previous methodology

50.05

Communications

LS => RM

$10,000,000 => $1,000,000 per mile

2018

 Fiber and connections related to fiber

 From previous methodology  There is some existing fiber on the corridor

 Assumed as 2018, since increased costs (allowance) from previous methodology  Divided $10M lump sum over 9.4 miles (rounded down) and treated as a unit cost

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-12

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Project Element / SCC Category

Unit

Unit Cost

Cost Year

Assumptions

50.06

per Stop

$80,000

2017

 Whole corridor including Denver and Aurora  Quantity 45

Fare collection system and equipment

Cost Source Notes

Notes 

Construction Subtotal (10-50) 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01

Purchase or lease of real estate

 No costs assumed, but $1.25 M unit cost per acre sourced to previous methodology



70 VEHICLES (number) 70.04

Bus

EA

$1,000,000

2017

 Assume 20 new vehicles; remainder can be from existing low-floor fleet, with wraps





70.04

Electric Bus

EA

$1,500,000

2017

 Incremental costs are assumed in Tier 2

 Standard low-floor articulated bus with rightside doors.

 RTD is applying for a grant, looking to install equipment at East Metro.  A higher contingency was assumed on the incremental electric bus costs.

70.04

Wraps

EA

$15,000

2017 assumed



70.07

Spare parts

EA

$40,000

2017



City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-13

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver

Soft Costs / Professional Services (80) Soft costs include project design, construction management and other services, and testing and startup.

Soft costs were estimated based on the following percentages of construction costs—a total of 30% consistent with City and County of Denver practices. Figure 7-9 identifies the SCC category that would typically correspond to these categories.

Figure 7-9

Soft Costs

Typical SCC Category

Project Element

% of Construction Costs (Cat 10-50)

80.01

Design Engineering

12%

80.05

Insurance and Bonding

2%

80.03

Program Management

6%

80.04

Construction Management & Inspection

6%

80.04

Engineering Services During Construction

2%

80.07 / 80.08

Integrated Testing and Commissioning

2%

Total

Notes

30%

Escalation All unit costs are escalated to current year (2018 dollars) at an inflation rate of 3% per year. Escalation to a future year-of-expenditure is not included in the estimate.

Contingency Contingency is added to a project cost estimate to account for uncertainty in project costs, including items that are not fully defined or cannot be quantified given the level of design, anticipated refinement of the design, unforeseen conditions, and changes in costs due to market variations. Both allocated and unallocated contingency are included in the cost estimate. Allocated contingencies are added to cover an anticipated level of uncertainty within each line item or project element, generally 20%. See Figure 7-10 for detailed allocated contingency assumptions.

Unallocated contingency of 30% was added to cover uncertainty and unforeseen conditions across all aspects of the project. Total contingency is thus 50% of the construction and soft costs. FTA typically considers a minimum contingency of 25 to 30% by the time project design is complete and 10 to 15% by the time construction starts.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-14

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-10

Contingency Assumptions

Type

SCC Categories

Allocated

10-50

Construction cost categories (Guideway, Stations/Stops, Support Facilities, Sitework, and Systems

20%

70

Vehicles – Standard Bus

10%

 Low contingency given anticipated standard RTD articulated bus procurement

Vehicles – Electric Bus

25%

 Higher contingency to account for greater uncertainty with electric vehicles

80

Professional Services

N/A

90

Applied to all costs including construction, vehicles, and soft costs

30%

Unallocated

Project Element

Allocated Contingency

Notes

COSTS BY SEGMENT Figure 7-11 summarizes capital costs for each tier by sheet (or segment).

If the City and County of Denver has initial funds to implement a portion of the project, the average cost per mile is approximately $22 million for Tier 1 improvements within project segments (i.e., not including overall costs such as vehicles or maintenance facility improvements and not including unallocated contingency). The cost is generally lower in the western portion of the corridor ($18 million per mile) and higher in the eastern portion ($26 million per mile).

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-15

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 7 Capital Costs City and County of Denver Figure 7-11

Capital Cost Estimate by Sheet Tier 1 Costs

Design Sheet

Start CrossStreet

End CrossStreet

Station(s)

Overall costs not allocated to segments

Tier 2 Costs

Combined Tier 1 & 2

Station Count

Segment Length (feet)

Total1

Cost per Mile

Total1

Cost per Mile

Total1

Cost per Mile

0

31,833

$42,347,000

$7,000,000

$11,330,000

$1,900,000

$53,677,000

$8,900,000

1

Mariposa

Speer

-

1

1,378

$5,416,000

$20,800,000

$2,206,000

$8,500,000

$7,622,000

$29,200,000

2

Speer

Broadway

Delaware

1

2,669

$6,439,000

$12,700,000

$0

$0

$6,439,000

$12,700,000

3

Broadway

Pearl

Broadway, Pennsylvania

2

2,500

$9,276,000

$19,600,000

$2,402,000

$5,100,000

$11,678,000

$24,700,000

4

Pearl

Lafayette

Downing

1

2,700

$9,548,000

$18,700,000

$3,287,000

$6,400,000

$12,835,000

$25,100,000

5

Lafayette

Vine

Williams

1

2,401

$9,996,000

$22,000,000

$36,000

$100,000

$10,032,000

$22,100,000

6

Vine

Milwaukee

York

1

2,708

$8,474,000

$16,500,000

$18,000

$0

$8,492,000

$16,600,000

7

Milwaukee

Jackson

Steele

1

2,700

$7,630,000

$14,900,000

$73,000

$100,000

$7,703,000

$15,100,000

8

Jackson

Cherry

Colorado

1

2,500

$10,094,000

$21,300,000

$17,214,000

$36,400,000

$27,308,000

$57,700,000

9

Cherry

Glencoe

Elm

1

2,314

$12,782,000

$29,200,000

$15,555,000

$35,500,000

$28,337,000

$64,700,000

10

Glencoe

Leyden

Hudson, Krameria

2

2,701

$22,447,000

$43,900,000

$12,301,000

$24,000,000

$34,748,000

$67,900,000

11

Leyden

Olive

Monaco

1

2,620

$15,416,000

$31,100,000

$18,270,000

$36,800,000

$33,686,000

$67,900,000

12

Olive

Trenton

Quebec

1

2,700

$11,662,000

$22,800,000

$16,481,000

$32,200,000

$28,143,000

$55,000,000

13

Trenton

Xanthia

Uinta

1

2,580

$14,495,000

$29,700,000

$14,689,000

$30,100,000

$29,184,000

$59,700,000

14

Xanthia

Yosemite

Yosemite

1

740

$1,521,000

$10,900,000

$5,743,000

$41,000,000

$7,264,000

$51,800,000

16

31,833

$187,543,000

$31,100,000

$119,605,000

$19,800,000

$307,148,000

$50,900,000

TOTAL1 Unallocated Contingency (30%)

$56,262,900

Overall Total

31,833

$244,000,000

$35,881,500 $40,500,000

$156,000,000

Notes: Including allocated contingency and soft costs, but not including unallocated contingency

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 7-16

$92,144,400 $25,900,000

$400,000,000

$66,300,000

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 8 Moving Forward City and County of Denver

8 MOVING FORWARD DESIGN This study developed a 10% concept design for center-running BRT along Colfax Avenue. Concurrently, the City conducted the Colfax Corridor Pedestrian Mobility Improvements project to advance conceptual (10% to 30%) pedestrian safety design. The City of Denver is preparing to initiate the detailed (30%) design and environmental review process for the Colfax BRT Project in early 2019 (see Figure 1-3). This process will include obtaining detailed survey (measurements) for the corridor, making tradeoffs based on this refined understanding of the available right-of-way, and integrating/reconciling the concept designs from the BRT and Pedestrian projects.

As highlighted in this document, specific aspects of the project or significant issues that will need to be addressed in more detail in the design phase include: 

Stations – refine station locations, platform lengths, and elements, snow loading, removal and storage issues, and develop a more detailed cost estimate



Geometric design – developing an Intersection Design Vehicle Assumption Report illustrating the current and future allowable vehicle movements for each intersection and evaluating in detail the operational viability of offsets between transit stations and lanes



Traffic signal operations – resolve conflicts between movements including opposing leftturns from side streets



Vehicle lane widths – based on detailed survey, analyze where/whether gutters can be included in an 11-foot outside lane dimension and evaluate potential tradeoffs (e.g., between stormwater capacity and ability to expand sidewalks).



Utilities – conduct detailed inventory, assessment of impacts, and costing



Communications – identify existing fiber/capacity available and refine cost estimate



Trolley tracks – explore potential need (and costs) to remediate historical trolley tracks that may be embedded in the pavement



Pedestrian crossings and signal design – determine whether the new crossings that have been identified should be pedestrian-only or full signals, including consideration of signal coordination, and whether any additional pedestrian crossings should be added to reduce crossing spacing in parts of the corridor



Sidewalk expansion and curb ramp replacement –evaluate in detail where curb ramps will need to be replaced to meet ADA standards and where and by what means sidewalks may be expanded, and develop more detailed cost estimate



Coordination with BIDs, RNOs, and Denver Fire – continue working with Business Improvement Districts, Registered Neighborhood Organizations, and the Denver Fire Department around streetscape design, parking and loading needs, station locations, fire access, etc.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 8-1

COLFAX CENTER-RUNNING BRT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN | Chapter 8 Moving Forward City and County of Denver

FUNDING Funding of approximately $55 million is available through the 2017 Denver GO bond to begin implementing the corridor vision on a section of the corridor within Denver. Creative funding strategies utilizing a variety of sources will be needed to fill the gap between the currently available and required funding to implement CRBRT in the East Colfax Corridor. The City will need to continue to engage with state/regional partners including CDOT, RTD, and the City of Aurora, and local businesses and explore funding mechanisms including local, regional, state, and federal sources as well as public-private partnerships.

Among these potential funding sources, the federal Capital Investment Grant (CIG) or Small Starts program has been a primary federal funding source for development of new major transit capital investments, although grant awards have been uncertain and highly competitive in recent years. The program funds fixed guideway transit projects, including bus rapid transit, with a total capital cost of less than $300 million and seeking less than $100 million in federal funding. CIG program evaluation criteria include a local financial commitment criteria; a recent (June 2018) FTA “Dear Colleague” letter advised potential applicants that FTA is considering value capture, private contributions, and other innovative approaches to project development and delivery (including public-private partnerships) as a key part of the funding decision process.

City and County of Denver, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., Apex Design, and GBSM | 8-2