My Cat and the Upcoming I-25 Renovation

Planned to dive this morning into the upcoming I-25 renovation of the Montgomery/Montano & Comanche/Griegos interchanges, but life has got in the way in the form of a sick barn cat. So I’m on nurse duty and will instead just stare at this while I pet the cat all day:

The above is a screenshot excerpt of the rather good project interactive arcgis map. I didn’t say the project is good, only the map. I need to stare/click at/on the map quite a bit to get a better idea of project quality. In the above, that’s the North Diversion Channel spurring off to meet the project scope (area there’s actually doing stuff) and it appears those NDC spurs are actually part of the work. Hmmm…

Again, I’ve got a day of cat nurse duty and map staring ahead of me. If you get a chance, take a look yourself and pass along your thoughts on this project, either/both at Montgomery and/or Comanche. As with all such roadway work from a non-motorized advocacy perspective, it’s a matter of the very little things historically always and still often overlooked by engineers that make all the difference. So we stare. Let me know your thoughts and I’ll get back tomorrow with, hopefully, a much happier cat.

6 thoughts on “My Cat and the Upcoming I-25 Renovation”

  1. I asked why the bike lanes are sandwiched between the thru lane and the RTL with no protection, if there are bike detectors embedded in the bike lanes and if there is any signal priority given to bicyclists, and why the Texas turnarounds are 20 ft wide for a single lane. This is what the project team said:

    1)        The bike lane between right-turn traffic lanes and through traffic lanes is standard practice to avoid conflicts between bicyclists and right-turning vehicles at the intersection itself.  Those transitions happen at the signalized intersections as those are the last opportunities to connect to the existing facilities beyond the limits of the project.

    2)        There are no detectors in the shared use paths.  The signals have pedestrian pre-emption push buttons so that there is a signal phase long enough to allow pedestrians to cross from the shared-use paths to the sidewalks beyond the limit of the project.

    3)        The advanced U-turns lanes will be 12 feet.  Shoulders are included which adds to the 20 feet which accommodate substantial turning radii and off-tracking for combination truck trailers.  The 20 foot width also allows for traffic to get around a disabled vehicle.

    I responded by requesting that 8″ turtle bumps and/or flex posts be installed along the bike lane wherever there is a solid white line, and that signal detectors be installed in the bike lanes in order to “future proof” the intersection for more advanced signaling such as bike-specific signals.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks from me and everybody else, Anon, for story of your comments and recommendations. Those bike lanes sandwiched by thru and right-turn lanes are always discomforting and dangerous. Here, particularly on Montgomery, that discomfort and danger would be dialed to 11. My first reaction to it all, admittedly while focused as much on the cat at the map, is to recommend eschewing of those bike lanes, the separated section at the underpass (noting what would already be the safest section is made safer via separation while the dangerous sections are made even more dangerous by not being separated), and all of it. Instead, and this comes after seeing how much excavation happened in the Rio Bravo renovation, I suggest we should just move the dirt necessary to create a bike/ped tunnel under the whole damn thing through east/west project scope either at Montgomery or Comanche. Or both. Bottom line is that zero new cyclists will be drawn to cross east/west at either of these interchanges based on these “improvements.”

    Like

  3. Bottom line is that zero new cyclists will be drawn to cross east/west at either of these interchanges based on these “improvements.”

    That’s basically what I told them, that nearly zero parents, children, or elderly folks are going to ride here without physical protection from one end to the other.

    Also now that I’m looking at the screenshot you posted, what’s the intended path from the bike lane, through the intersection, and into the fully protected area on the bridge? It looks like curbs are in the way, and they expect cyclists to use ADA ramps facing north/south in order to proceed east/west? Or are the thick green lines not curbs?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Got a further comment from the project team, to paraphrase:

    “the design aligns with the city’s existing infrastructure”

    “we coordinate frequently with the city”

    Which leaves me wondering, what changes has DMD requested on this project? Has DMD brought up similar objections / concerns? Why haven’t DMD required NMDOT to put in better separated/protected infrastructure throughout the entire scope of the project, given that DMD itself notes in the 2024 bike plan that designs such as we see on this project do NOT fit their goal of making biking safe and convenient for all ages and abilities / ages 8-80, etc? What about NMDOT’s own personnel who are focused on bike/ped safety?

    Asking for fully protected MUPs throughout these projects wouldn’t screw up the vehicular parts at all, and probably wouldn’t even add 2% to the total cost. So why aren’t they doing it, and why has (apparently) nobody in positions of influence required them to do so?

    Which again is like, what is the point of the bike plan if it isn’t used to enforce better designs in projects like this which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will be there for 30+ years?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment