Colorado

[Elm]

I had another observation exploring Denver... the Northwest Parkway has no controlled direct connection to Boulder Tollroad. Why is that and is an interchange planned?

The most official response is probably this entry from a former Northwest Parkway FAQ:

Why does the corridor turn into an arterial near 96th Avenue? Doesn't that create a bottleneck?

The ultimate design for the corridor includes upgrading the arterial portion of the Parkway south of the 96th Street intersection when traffic volumes warrant. Early traffic forecasts are well within the operating capacity of a four-to-six lane arterial. Upgrading could include bridges at 96th Street and/or Tape Drive and ramps at U.S. 36.

So, overall, the "why"  comes down to money. The authority was trying to save money on the initial build (also, e.g., by not putting an interchange at Lowell Blvd–that plan probably became the Sheridan Pkwy interchange), and later on the road wasn't successful financially. Lack of funds will probably preclude any changes to the Boulder Turnpike interchange, too.

I haven't seen any design for a free-flowing interchange between the NW Pkwy and US 36, but it's difficult to get information/background on the NW Pkwy generally. If they're anywhere, they might be in the "˜ultimate design' that FAQ mentioned. I've seen two concepts for changes to that interchange, though:

The heavier-duty concept was a three-level diamond in Broomfield's " I-FAST"  plan for the Northwest Parkway extension. It mentions not building free-flow portion of the Northwest Parkway to reduce costs, though, so a hypothetical upgraded NW Pkwy could easily still have a plain diamond interchange with US 36.

A less substantial concept is a parclo in this Interlocken map (Wayback link – that ancient website may finally have died), which doesn't have any technical merit. Also mildly interesting in that map is Hwy 128 turning north toward the "Northwest Parkway"  instead of continuing straight east.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thank you for the response. It struck me as very odd when I went through there and I had to double check on maps. Hopefully they don't allow development to encroach to the point they can't built the interchange.

[Elm]

The High Performance Transportation Enterprise finished the Colorado Express Lane Master Plan recently; at the moment, it's posted at the bottom of their site's index page (or: main document, appendices).

The  "specialty corridors"  (I-25 from C-470 to US 36/I-270, Santa Fe Dr from C-470 to I-25), mostly on I-25, get some more details and area-specific ideas. The T-REX-ish portion of I-25, for example, has a low-cost option with peak period shoulder lanes, which would involve narrowing the inner two lanes in each direction and one outside shoulder, as well as a high-cost option with an elevated express lane each way from C-470 to Santa Fe. The US 85/Santa Fe idea, which doesn't make it all the way through the study, would have one express lane each way–replacing the HOV lanes where present–which would be grade-separated at "most of the existing at grade intersections."

It also has one of the more overt reference to tolling the new westbound lane on I-70 in the Floyd Hill area that I've seen. (You can see it in the concepts from the last meeting, though.) That'd go from MP 247 and end into the peak period shoulder lane around the Veterans Memorial Tunnels (MP 242 or so).

[sprjus4]

Colorado lawmakers OK changes for highway speed limits, truck permits

In the hours before the Colorado General Assembly temporarily adjourned due to coronavirus concerns, one bill sent to the governor's desk would open the door to an increase of the speed limits on portions of rural state highways.

Colorado law permits vehicles to travel 65 mph on rural highways. Drivers on rural interstates are authorized to travel 75 mph.

House lawmakers voted 52-5 to sign-off on Senate changes to a bill to require the Colorado Department of Transportation to conduct a study to identify portions of rural highways where the speed limit can be safely raised by 5 mph to 70 mph. The Senate approved the bill earlier in the day on a 29-1 vote.

Sponsored by Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron, HB1178 would consider factors that include whether the portion of highway is predominantly straight, the quality of the highway surface, and the amount of shoulder space on the highway.

Holtorf previously told one committee he is pursuing consideration of a 5 mph speed bump because "there are state highways in rural Colorado that really are wide open, and you literally drive for a long time before you see anything or anybody."

The highway department would take into consideration engineering studies to examine the actual speed of traffic on a roadway, existing roadway conditions, crash history, and other environmental factors.

CDOT would then submit a report on their findings to the legislature's transportation committees.

HB1178 awaits Gov. Jared Polis' signature.

[zzcarp]

The new entrance to I-70 westbound will open tomorrow at 32nd Avenue in the Denver metro area. From the Wheat Ridge Facebook page:

On-Ramp to Westbound I-70 at Clear Creek Drive Opens tomorrow!

On Saturday, May 30, 2020, westbound I-70 traffic will enter the highway using the new on-ramp from Clear Creek Dr. The existing on-ramp for I-70 westbound at W. 32nd Ave. will close.

With the opening of the new I-70 westbound on-ramp at Clear Creek Drive and the off-ramp from westbound I-70 that opened last month, construction of the ramp phase at Clear Creek Dr. is complete. The next and final phase of project construction is the fly-over bridge connecting the westbound I-70 on-ramps at Clear Creek Dr. over 32nd Ave.

This project's been under construction for about a year now. Planning began years ago when there was going to be a Cabelas development that never happened.

Previously, westbound I-70 used a tight diamond configuration signalized at 32nd Avenue. This signal was very close to the signal on the east side of I-70 at Youngfield St (which handles the EB I-70 movements) and caused congestion and safety issues.

You can see a diagram at the original FB post and the GSV (which only shows the new WB I-70 offramp under construction) here.

[zzcarp]

CO Highway 5 aka the Mount Evans Road, the highest paved road in America, will not open this year due to vast governmental overreaction COVID19.

Mount Evans is one of Colorado's 14ers. The road begins near Echo Lake at about elevation 10,000 and goes up to a parking lot at the top at around elevation 14,265.

[Rothman]

Well, there's unnecessary and inaccurate political commentary for you.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, there's unnecessary and inaccurate political commentary for you.

not really. He's completely correct.

[Elm]

The new entrance to I-70 westbound will open tomorrow at 32nd Avenue in the Denver metro area.  [...]

Cool, I was wondering how that was going, and I haven't been by in a while. Looks like Wheat Ridge followed up their FB post with a post-opening video, too. I was a little curious if they'd put a "Freeway Entrance"  sign here like on the Youngfield-side ramp, but it looks like they didn't.

Hopefully the extra space will do the 32nd & Youngfield intersection some good. Should be harder to back up to Zinnia/Clear Creek Dr than the old off ramp, and helpful to have some more space to get into the correct lane before the intersection.



In totally unrelated news, the C-470 toll lanes are reportedly almost ready for testing. (Ah, how amusing to read old articles about the project that thought they'd be done in 2018, though they bumped that to spring 2019 before too long.) I thought I read it on CDOT's website first, but I can't find the announcement now, so here's the quote form their email:

The new Express Lanes are expected to open this month. Motorists will be able to use the new lanes for free through most of the summer while the tolling system is being tested.  Watch for signage indicating the lanes are open to traffic. We urge drivers to use caution while getting used to the new lanes and be mindful of merging into and out of the lanes. Also, please use caution through the interchange at I-25/C-470/E-470, with the lanes open to traffic the configuration may be different than what the driver is accustomed to. We have added direct connect toll lanes onto C-470 from I-25 and E-470.  The new Express Lanes will be free until mid- to late August when tolling is expected to begin. Watch for further information on toll rates.  We encourage drivers to sign up for an ExpressToll pass at www.Expresstoll.com or by calling (303) 537-3470. The ExpressToll pass is valid on all the Express Lanes throughout the region and saves money as compared to license plate tolling. And remember the general purpose lanes remain free at all times.

The C-470 Express Lanes will provide motorists with a choice of taking the general purpose lanes for free, or when they need a faster trip, they can take the Express Lanes in exchange for a toll. Again, the Express Lanes will be free until mid- to late August. 

Less than thrilled by no HOV and the right GPL exiting to Wadsworth, but the auxiliary lanes are nice. I'm wondering how well folks will handle the ingress/egress lanes here, as opposed to dashed lines popping up on other express lanes for combined ingress/egress.

Here's a memo for the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise from last month with the proposed toll rates.

[zzcarp]

Per this report, the C-470 toll lanes will open this weekend and be free until mid-August.

[Elm]

Anyway, what I was looking for was a picture of the new style of exit signs they added in a few places, which I haven't seen before. Trying to describe them instead, they resembled this sort of APL sign, but without portion left of the middle diving line (while keeping the middle arrow); they might have a separate pull-through sign like E6-2 next to them. Those replaced signs exit signs like this.

Does anyone know if that's a normal thing that I'm just not used to, or is CDOT experimenting?

(I'm sorry not to have a real picture or mockup to get the point across better. I'm also not well-versed in the terminology here, to go looking for answers better.)

---

[originally at the top of the post, but the tweet expanded a lot]

I started writing a little about a sign replacement project in Colorado Springs adding back an I-25 business loop sign, going by this photo CDOT posted, but it turns out the photo's from 2004 and on AARoads. Not so interesting.

https://twitter.com/ColoradoDOT/status/1285955070409015296

[US 89]

Anyway, what I was looking for was a picture of the new style of exit signs they added in a few places, which I haven’t seen before. Trying to describe them instead, they resembled this sort of APL sign, but without portion left of the middle diving line (while keeping the middle arrow); they might have a separate pull-through sign like E6-2 next to them. Those replaced signs exit signs like this.

Does anyone know if that’s a normal thing that I’m just not used to, or is CDOT experimenting?

(I’m sorry not to have a real picture or mockup to get the point across better. I'm also not well-versed in the terminology here, to go looking for answers better.)

Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?



These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.

[Elm]

Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?

https://flic.kr/p/26x7eWL

These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.

Yes, that's it, thanks!

And that helped me get to an illustration of just what I was trying to describe; under "Evaluation of Truncated Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs" here (direct PDF link), it's "Alternative 3."

There weren't too many of the new signs, just in the limits from here, and I don't think they replaced any relatively newer signs (just the old ones like that Fontanero one). Maybe it's a sort of test? Or maybe they'll be showing up more.

[mrsman]

Are you talking about a partial APL, like this?

https://flic.kr/p/26x7eWL

These have been fairly common in Utah for the past 5-10 years or so, but I can't recall ever seeing one anywhere else. Nice to see another state using them if that's the case.

Yes, that's it, thanks!

And that helped me get to an illustration of just what I was trying to describe; under "Evaluation of Truncated Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs" here (direct PDF link), it's "Alternative 3."

There weren't too many of the new signs, just in the limits from here, and I don't think they replaced any relatively newer signs (just the old ones like that Fontanero one). Maybe it's a sort of test? Or maybe they'll be showing up more.

I think those signs are a good design for a double exit lane (with one lane being an option lane).

These are very common in the Toronto area, although with a slightly different design.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.767828,-79.3279142,3a,75y,83.08h,96.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAg2LfXm-hIBmHDvqoEXvHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jdbx]

That sign in Toronto looks a lot like California's style of exit numbering on BGS, although arguably better.

[zzcarp]

I took a picture of one of the Colorado Springs ones on I-25 NB for CO 115. This is typical of all the exits in El Paso county, but it hasn't made it to the Denver metro area yet. It looks to me like it's a way to save a little money on a second panel for a BGS.

[US 89]

I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.

[roadfro]

I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.

Nevada only has one example of the current MUTCD signing method for lane drop and option lane that I'm aware of. When I first saw it, I did not like it–although, to be fair, that example doesn't have the supplemental lane assignment pavement markings and signs–and was a bit tricked because I was in the option lane and continuing straight..

Nevada has traditionally used the signing method where a white-on-green down arrow is used over the option lane on the advance sign advance with a white on green up arrow at the exit destination sign–what J N Winkler on this forum has previously dubbed the classic "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach. And I've noticed that NDOT has continued to use this method on new and replacement BGSs at service interchanges well after implementation of the 2009 MUTCD and its new meaning of down arrows...

But I agree with you, US 89. If we can't have the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach anymore, this partial APL method is probably the clearest way to sign an option lane exit without greatly increasing sign panel area. I'd like it, though, if they could make the arrows a bit smaller to save on vertical height of the signs.

[mrsman]

I see it as a better way to sign an option-lane exit situation than what's given in the 2009 MUTCD, which is to not sign the option lane until you get to the exit itself, at which point it suddenly appears as a second "EXIT ONLY" lane. The partial APL method is much more clear in my opinion.

Nevada only has one example of the current MUTCD signing method for lane drop and option lane that I'm aware of. When I first saw it, I did not like it–although, to be fair, that example doesn't have the supplemental lane assignment pavement markings and signs–and was a bit tricked because I was in the option lane and continuing straight..

Nevada has traditionally used the signing method where a white-on-green down arrow is used over the option lane on the advance sign advance with a white on green up arrow at the exit destination sign–what J N Winkler on this forum has previously dubbed the classic "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach. And I've noticed that NDOT has continued to use this method on new and replacement BGSs at service interchanges well after implementation of the 2009 MUTCD and its new meaning of down arrows...

But I agree with you, US 89. If we can't have the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach anymore, this partial APL method is probably the clearest way to sign an option lane exit without greatly increasing sign panel area. I'd like it, though, if they could make the arrows a bit smaller to save on vertical height of the signs.

Yes, and for a typical option lane exit there is no need to sign all of the rest of the lanes as being with straight arrows.  Signage for the two right lanes is more than sufficient.  It should be obvious that the majority of the lanes, except the rightmost lane with a forced exit and the second to the right lane with an option to exit, remain on the freeway mainline.

The full APL approach is only needed at more complicated major splits.

Imagine the wasteful signage if the full APL approach were done at I-405 NB at Santa Monica Blvd in West Los Angeles.  1 HOV lane, 4 general purpose lanes, 1 option lane, and 1 exit only lane.  We don't need seven lane arrows at the exit for a street (even an important street like SM Blvd).  If this were converted to partial APL, just signing for the right two lanes would be sufficient.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0430315,-118.4429131,3a,75y,334.16h,73.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-KK244NLhgon84X-Os6fQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

IMO, a partial APL would be good here, but I don't see CA implementing this anytime soon.

[zachary_amaryllis]

there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?

[1995hoo]

there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?

Presumably the statute authorizing the private company to build the road, or a more general statute authorizing that sort of construction, contains a provision for it. In Virginia, for example, where our first modern privately-owned toll road opened in the mid-1990s, there's a general statute (Va. Code 56-550) authorizing the state police to patrol such roads and providing that the traffic and motor vehicle laws generally applicable throughout the Commonwealth (including penalties) also apply on those roads. I'm sure Colorado has something similar.

[kphoger]

Even privately owned schools and shopping centers can enter into contract with the police department.

[zzcarp]

there's some subtlety about these that escapes me. if a road is privately owned, how does CSP have jurisdiction on them? i remember when i was a kid learning to drive, i did so on private land (we had a huge chunk of it in the mountains) because police couldn't do anything if i was driving on private land.
i could see the c-470 / nw parkway people having some sort of patrol, but they wouldn't be 'police' in the usual sense.. or am i way off?

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

[zachary_amaryllis]

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

now that makes more sense. i have driven e-470 exactly once in my life (i live way up in the nw mountains) and denver metro area is a little chaotic. for some weird reason, i actually prefer i-270 to get to the airport, tho its a little out of the way.

[mgk920]

Neither E-470 nor the Northwest Parkway are truly private roads. E-470 is a public authority controlled by Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties along with the Town of Parker and the cities of Commerce City, Brighton, Aurora, and Thornton. The Northwest Parkway, while leased to a private operator, is also a public authority consisting of the City and County of Broomfield and the City of Lafayette.

In addition to the Colorado State Patrol, Aurora commonly sets up stationary speed traps on the portion of E-470 within its limits. I've not seen Thornton, Commerce City, or Brighton running traffic enforcement on their sections. Broomfield annexed the entire Northwest Parkway right-of-way and its police consistently run traffic patrols there.

I thought that as its own county, Broomfield was unable to annex any more territory (just like WRT Denver).

Mike